Talk:YoYo Games

Deletion Proposal

The article relies heavily on first party sources of information and fails WP:Notability. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and First Party Editing

I would like to point out that this article is particularly susceptible to vandalism and first party editing as GameMaker: Studio, all of the current content on the page added by editors has been properly sourced, the company has an ongoing history of copy and pasting unreliable content with unreliable sources. Their affiliate companies do as well such as HandyGames which were verbatim copying and pasting mission statements from their website still including trade mark and copyright unicode symbols. This is currently why the protection level of GameMaker: Studio has been raised to prevent vandalism by anonymous editors. I am going to recommend that the protection level of this article be raised and that they refrain from further editing without first reaching a consensus. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not attempt to restore copyrighted material. This is accordance with policy. No consensus is needed. The other content that contains {{citation needed}} template has been there for months, and it has been challenged. It therefore is perfectly acceptable to remove it per our policy on verifiability. I will not again remove that though, as perhaps with effort we can verify those claims. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I still have to request that the properly sourced content not be removed along with the disputed content, this seems rather peculiar to me. Additionally here are some more examples of section blanking, vandalism, and edit warring by anonymous editors and ip addresses to this article. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4
• Example 5
• Example 6
• Example 7

I have gutted the "lawsuits" and "controversy" sections and removed all paragraphs that only cited unreliable sources such as blogs, forum threads or YouTube. If no reliable third-party sources have taken note of those "controversies", we could just as well cover them in a "storms in a teacup" section... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chronicler of forum drama. The remainder should probably be focused on what Techdirt, bitgamer and Coin Arcade report.

I also agree with MusikAnimal's removal of the YouTube video. He's right that it's likely problematic on copyright grounds, and even if it were not, it's not a reliable source anyway and should not be linked. See WP:ELNO. Huon (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, I also concur with this edit, which removed yet more negative claims not supported by the source. Huon (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go through these one at a time, the following image was approved for fair use because of its lack of reproducibility and was used in many news articles for reporting the issue, I hardly see how this is disputed. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the image, you'll see that the window in front is "Image Editor", and the displayed icon is clearly antialiased. Therefore, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be showing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Multiple non-free imagery in the same article is not permitted per WP:NFCCP. To further dispute your behaviour, I fail to understand why poorly sourced contentious material requires consensus for inclusion – when we have now three editors supporting the removal. Removing it was simply in accordance with our policy on verifiability. And finally, again, that YouTube video constitutes contributory copyright infringement, and doesn't even support the claim in the slightest, while also being a clear unreliable source to begin with. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns with an abundance of non-free imagery, but I fail to understand how that justifies removing all non-free imagery, all of which is hard to convey without the imagery thus making their use even more necessary. I have no defense for the poorly sourced content added by previous editors, but given the history of vandalism to these articles by first party editors I am a little concerned with the mass section blanking occurring so abruptly without any discussion, especially when ip shows signs of WP:Sock_puppetry and WP:Conflict_of_interest. The pirate image should continue to be used because it is hard to convey the outcome of the DRM bug without it. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Let's leave the images as they are now. We can post at WP:NFCR and let consensus build there. As for the removal, that is fairly straightforward. We removed the content because it was poorly sourced, that does not require consensus. You can't justify keeping it when you don't have sources to back it up – especially when multiple editors have challenged it. I can't speak for sockpuppetry, but rest assured I and the other administrator are uninvolved parties. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: There is only 1 non-free image on the article now? And I do not dispute the removal of the poorly sourced content. But I do feel the pirate image should stay, and I feel sufficient time should be given to reach a broader consensus, not a quick haphazard one in case anybody else would like to weigh in per WP:What_is_consensus?. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The logo in the infobox is also non-free. I can see how the pirate image could be difficult to convey with prose. Let's leave it as is, though I'm not sure how they'd feel at WP:NFCR. With only two images, both non-free, but good arguments to keep both, it's really a gray area. As for consensus, the policy of verifiability is not up for debate. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, then I believe we've reached consensus in this regard! I hope other editors will weigh in on this as well and take greater care in citing the article, I would like to mention for the record that I am the one that placed the cleanup tags for the citations to be fixed or removed. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't see how the pirate image is difficult to convey in prose. Do the details of what that pirate image looked like enhance our readers' understanding beyond "inserting a pirate symbol on top of the image"? I rather doubt it. Plus, I don't see why that image demonstrates the DRM "misfiring on a paid customer" (which, by the way, is non-neutral language, I'd say). I've removed the image from this talk page because, no matter what we decide regarding its use in the article, here we definitely cannot claim fair use.

I'll also note that BlitzGreg is introducing supposedly "sourced" negative content where the sources don't support what he cites them for. For example, this 2010 article dooesn't mention any 2011 lawsuits (how could it?), any reverse engineering, any iOS issues - yet that's what he cited it for. The other references added by BlitzGreg are not reliable third-party sources; I haven't checked whether they're also misrepresented, but it doesn't matter since they're not appropriate anyway. I'll revert that per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I haven't seen any policy-based argument to keep that content, which means consensus is firmly with removal. See also WP:BURDEN. Huon (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that, you are correct Huon, I mixed that citation with another one, there is also GameJolt. BlitzGreg (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

GameJolt says: "This article was pulled from GameMaker Blog." It's not a reliable third-party source, it's a scooped blog post. Huon (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I can now confirm that this article is under a sockpuppet assault by User:RGribble0, Special:Contributions/77.97.244.79, Special:Contributions/92.238.142.143, Special:Contributions/195.99.213.226 judging by the following revisions. BlitzGreg (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3
• diff 4
• diff 5

Reverse lookup on the ip addresses indicates that these attacks are coming from Dundee Scotland which is the exact address of YoYoGames.

Telewest Broadband IP Network Services Genesis Business Park Albert Drive, Woking Surrey UK

Special:Contributions/195.99.213.226 said they're a YoYo Games employee, but that alone is not a reason to dismiss their edits. I advised them to create an account; if that's where User:RGribble0 came from, that's not sockpuppetry. 92.238.142.143's edit looks like unrelated vandalism to me. Huon (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: Please see my SPI case, as this is also connected to section blanking from an older account User:Jaymd 123 and it appears this is not the first time they've attempted this. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: I would love for you to look into this sock puppetry request. I think you will find I am not that user. I would love for you to look into the involvement of User:BlitzGreg on the page [1], you will see that he has simply been copying an pasting onto that page also and therefore showing his clear bias against the company YoYo Games Ltd. I shall refrain from removing content on this page but please nte that the User:BlitzGreg does work for a company within conflict of this company and software so this is a bit hypocritical.

I am in no such way affiliated with this company or any competing companies so this is a little confusing to me, I've also contributed to the cleanup of Unity3D articles which were badly destroyed by first party editors. There is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that these ip addresses and accounts are related with such similar edits, and a reverse ip lookup proves them all to be from the same exact area. It is however peculiar that some of the ip's also spun the article content negatively. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Your information is clearly negative and there is no relevance to anything positive at all! You are doing your utmost to defend your actions that show a clear bias. Please understand my actions. If you wish to state that what you are doing is right then please show me why.

I do not follow, I am firstly, not the one that added the content, and secondly have contributed to multiple game engine pages as I just showed all of which I have no affiliation and am completely unbiased to. Now I am interested in working to provide proper citations for this article and relevant information in order to make it of higher quality, I am willing to work with you as are the other editors if you would simply stop warring and stop section blanking and work with one aspect of the article and how you think it could be improved. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored and a certain degree of freedom of speech can be exercised here. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will kindly stop removing content (although, I do see it as very rude and looking above so do various other people (So much for a "talk" system when you kinda rule the roost...)). I will be adding relevant content that is due so much because of the lack of positive content that you have provided. I would like to ask for you to give me access to do so on the GameMaker Studio [2] page also as there is a lack of positive content there. Would you be willing to do this? (I would also like to add that I am very new to this side of wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGribble0 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and do not have the power to grant that to you, but I can offer you this. As I stated on the GameMaker: Studio talk page, if you want to post the content I can review it and add it for you if you like, and you can also provide a URL of the new logo or whatever that you feel better represents the subject and I can upload it for you with the proper licensing. BlitzGreg (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I would still love permission as you do realise a lot has changed since your last positive comment.. My information would be reliable, relevant and up to date. You do not mention any of the key features.. [3] The GameMaker: Marketplace has been added [4], GameMaker: Player [5], Sony PlayStation support [6], Microsoft Xbox One support [7], Here's some more info which I would love for you to add [8] [9] [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGribble0 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semiprotected

One month per discussion at WP:AN3 (permalink). It is hoped that editors affiliated with the company will understand our WP:Conflict of interest guideline and not make themselves vulnerable to admin action. If you are affected by a COI, please get consensus on the talk page before changing the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Content Removal

I will start this by apologising to you User:BlitzGreg my actions where a bit rash. I would like to ask if the section "2013 April Fools' Day joke" is allowed on this page and the GameMaker Studio page? Both the references are from forums and from my reading of section 10 on WP:ELNO this is not allowed. The coin arcade article is still allowed though. Please correct me if I am wrong. RGribble0 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a bit excessive to mention this here. I've removed the entire section, and I would urge anyone who thinks this was wrong to please make the case here instead of just putting it back in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it the same on the GameMaker Studio page? or is that allowed? let me know if I should be posting that on the talk page of GameMaker Studio instead of here. Me being a wikipedia noob here. Finally, the DRM "Controversy" is covered on both this page and the GameMaker Studio page, is that not a duplication? RGribble0 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Issues banner"

In my opinion, after ongoing changes on this page since 2014, the banner is not in place anymore. Most importantly:

• Many independent (non-primary) sources have been added
• The list of games has been moved to List of GameMaker Studio games, thus making the article more to-the-point

Shall we remove the issues banner? HollandMill (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Contains Information that Is Out Of Date

It's been a while since this page has been looked at. Currently it refers to GameMaker: Studio as being the main product, this product was made end of life in August 2018. The Latest product is GameMaker Studio 2. It refers to Sandy Duncan and Mike Dailly as being key persons on the company page. Sandy left with the acquisition of GameMaker by Playtech as referenced in the existing article), and Mike left in November 2018. The current senior staff are Stuart Poole (General Manager) and Russell Kay (CTO). YoYoGamesTeam (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Err, editing the page when you have a conflict of interest. Being warned about it and then posting about the edits here a day later. Isn't the correct order to do things. - X201 (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

When notified of potential conflict of interests, was advised instead to outline changes in talk. YoYoGamesTeam (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but preferably beforehand. The changes that we are talking about are however objective so I see no reason to undo them. HollandMill (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)