Talk:GMT Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GMT Games article.
Article policies

[edit] Legal issues, reversions, consensus

I would be interested to know what legal issues required the deletion of the entire page, and which attorney suggested such action.

To my knowledge, criminal convictions are a matter of public record.

pax, smn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen newberg (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


What on earth is an "anti-consensus" edit, and why should it be used to remove factual and valid information relevant to the topic? The Wiki guidelines state in relation to deletions:

Do not

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.''

Londoner1961 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Like SMN, I would also be interested to know how and why this talk page was deleted.

Londoner1961 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While you and SMN have pressed for the incusion of GB's personal problems, every other editor who has looked at this article has decided they should stay out. While they may be factual, the general feeling has been that they're not relevant, or at least not relevant enough. That's what makes your efforts to ram this matter into the article, after it's been made clear that it's unwelcome, anti-consensus.
Wikipedia has a lot of policies, and if you're new to editing, you probably haven't read them all. There are other policies, like WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, against articles becoming hit pieces that dwell on the negative, even if all the "dirt" is true. While there has been a lot of grumbling lately about BLP being used to whitewash unpleasant facts (e.g., a current controversy involving a much less damaging matter), I do agree with those who removed the material in this case. If Wikipedia had an entry for GB himself, some mention of his problems would probably be unavoidable. For an article on his company, however, considering its current level of detail, including this material gives it undue weight. Your last edit was actually the worst, in terms of WP:COATRACKing the article.
Another thing should also be clarified. Wikipedia's mission is not to persuade people to buy or not buy products. Wikipedia has problems with spammers who try to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but by the same token, it's not meant to be a forum for grinding axes against businesses or encouraging boycotts, either. (For example, here's an ongoing discussion.)
Having said that, I think the solution that was arrived at, of writing GB out of the company's history entirely, goes too far and is a pseudo-resolution of this dispute. Also, if this article were to develop into a detailed company history, then I'd consider some mention of this affair (in the context of its effect on the company, rather than of alerting the world what a "bad man" GB is) to be appropriate, though probably not in the lead. Also, I'd like the article to include some mention of how his early partners left GMT bitterly, but it was SMN who removed that information without explanation. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I had actually read the two editing guidance links that you reference and I am not convinced of their relevance in this case, given that we are dealing with an agreed fact and with the owner of a company selling to the public who has, and whose associates have also, lied about his background for business purposes. There would, I imagine, be no issue with a Wiki article mentioning that Morgan Stanley was owned and operated by a convicted criminal whose associates had tried to cover this up, were that the case. Indeed it would probably feature in the Wall Street Journal.
I had not read previous Talk discussions here, and remain puzzled as to why they appear to have been deleted. I agree with you that it is most peculiar that the name of the owner and prime mover of the company appears now to have been deleted from the site and if that is an agreed compromise it seems to me to be most unsatisfactory. If Wiki is anything it is a source of information and it seems a pity that pressure by a corporation should lead to the removal of accurate information which it regards as being bad for its business.
On "consensus" I can find no Wiki guidance on this and indeed this seems to me to be a classic Schopenhauer style 'Bad Argument'. Just because the consensus is that the sun orbits the earth does not make that a good argument. I will also note that the 'consensus' may well include contributors who have their own axe to grind as it is in their commercial and financial interest to modify the article.
Londoner1961 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Also, I'd like the article to include some mention of how his early partners left GMT bitterly, but it was SMN who removed that information without explanation."
If I did, it was not intentionally. My impression had been that someone else removed it, actually. For whatever it might be worth, I think to a part degree, removing any mention of Billingsley and his criminal past is a viable route, but only if also the current hot external link to the GMT site where sales occur is also removed. Otherwise, the GMT entry remains to some degree a sales and promotional vehicle, and in that case, some people that might move to purchase could easily want to know before doing so that the majority owner of the company via matrimonial property is a [convict]. Additionally, some might not, but for those the mention obviously causes no problem, while for thost that do, the info should be there. Alternatively, removing reference to Billingsley and removing the external hot link to a sales zone removes such a direct consideration. It might be worthwhile for GMT to consider doing this themselves, so as to let this all quiet down. smn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen newberg (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You're still not signing your comments! In wikispeak, that doesn't just mean putting your initials next to them, but using four tildes (~) that in wiki markup get translated into your username and a timestamp. You can use the Image:Wikisigbutton.png button on the toolbar above the edit window (to the right of the "do not enter" button), or the sequence of tildes in the "special characters" box below, besides entering them manually.
I've seen the thread on BGG, so I know they are now aware of this Wikipedia "kerfuffle," but as far as I know, there has been no "pressure" from GMT. It's not like they can threaten to pull their back-cover ad from Wikipedia's next issue, after all. Nor is there any indication that they have contacted the Office. If you were of a suspicious mind, you might wonder if they are editing the article themselves: the Dysjunct and JT8814 accounts were only created a few days ago, and have only touched the GMT and Berg articles. Then again, your own account histories aren't that dissimilar.
However, note that there was pushback on BGG against the disclosure of GB's troubles even before Tony Curtis joined the discussion. In this respect, looking for some special reason why Wikipedia is not delving into this matter is misplaced, I think. Grognard.com, for example, doesn't tell wargamers about it or proclaim that they shouldn't buy GMT. It's apparently not a welcome subject for further discussion on ConsimWorld. To my knowledge, no wargaming website urges buyers to "boycott GMT" or sets out to expose GB's sins. When the wargaming community itself doesn't have the stomach for it, Wikipedia editors shouldn't be expected to react differently.
A link to the company's website in the external links section is generally accepted practice on Wikipedia, assuming the company itself is notable enough to have an article. If someone is looking up an article on a company, after all, they are presumably already interested in the company. If Simulations Canada were still an ongoing concern, for example, there would probably be a link to its website on its entry.
And you did remove the mention of the other partners, SMN. I added that information in the middle of this edit war, and you deleted it while "undoing" edits. Unfortunately, my hook for relating that information was explaining what "GMT" stood for. It would be kind of awkward to use that tack without mentioning GB's name, though! --Groggy Dice T | C 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My error then, sorry. I was just trying to use the undo to replace what had been removed as I saw no reason to remove accurate information that might be of value to some. As per a boycott, I am not suggesting any such organized effort. I do, however, think that people have a right to know all the information about GMT so they can then decide on their own if they wish to buy from them. You are, however, very correct that a pretty concerted effort has been made on various board war game oriented sites to prevent such information from being available. Welcome to the majority!  :)
Oh, on the signing thing, I admit to simply not caring. But I will try using that button you mention.
pax, smn--Stephen newberg 16:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I did the deletion. First, I do not work for GMT (or any hobby company for that matter). Second, I did the deletion because I concluded the content violated Wikipedia's talk page guidelines in being sensationalistic and also Personal Attacks. I should have left the appropriate codes when I did so; I apologize for that. As to the legal issue, the information that was here is specifically covered by law as being illegal to use in a harrassing manner. JT8814 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And who are you, JT8814? I really hate this deal where no one uses names, but only IP addresses and handles. No one else willing to have their names attached to their acitons?
And how, specifically, is publication of public information using it in a "harrassing" manner? Or how was it a personal attack, for that matter? Is the disclosure of a criminal record a personal attack or "harrassing"? How? Its public. All rather confusing. Seems to me it this is just a bunch of people arguing about what a supposed reference should disclose, which puts a huge dent in the concept of a reference. Wikipedia showing its stuff.--Stephen newberg 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC) pax, smn
Stephen, the source for that information clearly states that disclosure for public harassment is illegal. And since you did it both here and on another listing, and given the wording used, the clear purpose was to damage others. That is harassment. Respectfully, what you are calling providing information that might be of value smacks more of an angry reaction. I've played and liked your games for years, and always held you in good esteem. I ask you to pause and "catch your breath" a bit here. JT8814 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Also (sorry to add to my previous post but I forgot this part, Wikipedia has specific policies regarding biographical information, especially for living persons (I believe they are referenced earlier in the talk page as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). What was put on this page (and the other one) appeared to me to violate both.JT8814 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
JT8814, you are in error, as many people have been on this point, and you are right, by this time it is making me a bit angry. I suspect it all revolves around people not using their names, a pet peeve I have with the internet in general. However, to the point: I did not originally post any of this, here or elsewhere. I simply restored it when some un-named person working from only an IP address deleted it all after someone else had posted it. If you check the history of the entry, you should be able to determine that immediately. It just takes looking. But as the only actual name that has ever come up in all this editing, I find it seems to be me that the focus comes to. Interesting that, eh?  :) As per the entry alteration itself, since it was factual and the entry had already brought in both historical background and the name of the owner, and a hot link from the entry went directly to a sales oriented site for the company turning the entry into a promotional device, the edit's addition seemed pretty reasonable to me.
As per your argument for the editing itself, the first section does not address the point. How is disclosure of public information harassment? I can see ways that can occur, but as added information about the ownership of a firm that is purely historical in an entry already dealing with the history of the firm and the owner, I do not see how that would be such a case, unless worded remarkably poorly. Thought I did not make the original entry about Billingsley's child molestation conviction, I did read it fairly carefully, and it was simple accurate reporting except for the question of if his particular instance was or was not pedophilia. By straight definition, I suspect it was not, but rather a different form of child molestation. Either way, I do not think it would under any existing statue in the US or Canada qualify as harassment. However, the second section of your commentary, that is biographical information limitations, might be very appropriate. Where would I find it, please? I would like to look it over, as there are obviously biographical data in entries all over our most excellent on line source here.
pax, smn--Stephen newberg 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Newberg said: "How is disclosure of public information harassment?"

The California Office of the Attorney General has clear guidelines for the use of such information. The effort to persuade people to not buy products from a company of a registered sex offender is not acceptable use and the posting of his status here by you could get you in some serious trouble if the person you are harassing goes to the Attorney General and makes a complain against you. pronoblem 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense, Pronoblem. No 'effort' is being made. Information is simply being provided. If you will look at the guidelines and the statue we are discussing, I think you will see the provision of information is not considered making such an effort. Basically, you are just wrong. However, Mr. Billingsley is certainly welcome to advance such an effort to the Attorney General. I look forward to hearing of the response. In addition, I note with some amusement that you still seen not to have managed to figure out that I did not post the information. Go check the history, or even the posts just above.
pax, smn--Stephen newberg 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It clearly states: "A person may use the information disclosed on the Attorney General's Web site only to protect a person at risk." pronoblem 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
However, the information is not just there. I do not recall which poster used that portion. Once again your are talking to the wrong person. However, information of the conviction has also been published in the newspaper and is part of the public record of trial results available from the court system. In fact, if you look back again over the entry history, you will see that when someone asked for a citation, that is what I supplied. Please find for me in the act where it talks about refering to the newspaper or court record and how that is not allowed. Also, one might consider how in fact one assesses risk, but I suspect, having not used the site you are discussing, all that is beside the point.
pax, smn--Stephen newberg 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)