User talk:Masem

Wikipedia is a Farce regarding GamerGate Controversy Article

So what are you doing to fix it? So far the project looks so bad I would avoid employing or associating with anyone who claims to be a Wikipedia editor or an administrator. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming a dystopia

     Hello, I am a new(old) user, who also commented on Red Pen of Doom's AE hearing(as an ip). I was watching this GG shenanigans for a while. As an editor, I have no further intention of editing the article. But I could not help but notice the draconian administrative actions taken to the people who tried to contribute. That is why I am writing this to you. During the AE hearing, I saw AllMyEasterEggs also sharing his opinion. This user later banned by an admin due to him being a ban evading sock-puppet account. When I checked his user page I saw that he was indeed banned for being a sock-puppet. But in his original account, AugustRemembrancer reason for being banned is explained, again, as sock-puppetry. The user adamantly rejects this claim and challenges them to produce the other account which he is the sock-puppet of. Ironically, last time he challenged the ban, it seems his second account was counted as the sock-puppet evidence of the first.

     If this ban had happened to me, as a new user who doesn't know the correct procedure, I would have opened a new account too, which would make me guilty of the crime I did not commit. I urge you to investigate this situation because this seems to me a core injustice and it is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Bear in mind that I do not know this user, not even talked to him in any way. I am not related to any gamergate activity, just a person with a lot of free time lately. I am telling this to you, because I don't like the way Wikipedia is heading. (help me Obi-Wan you're my only hope:))And to tell the truth, I am a bit intimidated by the way they treated to this user. I know you are an involved admin, and probably can't do anything administrative-wise, or maybe you looked at it and concluded, as other admins, that he is indeed really a duck.(hah, wikilaw reference, I must be a sock(that rhymed, yea I'm weird)) But at least my conscience will be clear, for I perceive this to be part of a pattern of great injustices, and if continued, it will be the doom of the project known as the Wikipedia. Sorry for a rather long comment, Cheers!

PS: The only "proof" that is presented to him leading to his ban, is that he knows too much about wikilaws and he adjusted his user page. Well, I am digging through wiki policies and guidelines, and created a talk page similar to his, yet this is the first time that I do this. Darwinian Ape (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit- those links do not belong to my comment.

Hello Darwinian Ape, and thanks for sharing this post on this topic and bringing this case to attention. I'm not sure "dystopian" is exactly the best word to characterize this trend but also find it troublesome and my take on it is similar to yours. Tangentially, if you w/could, do help return proper talk page procedure there. Chrisrus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit- Separated this thread from those links.

Yes, I should admit, that the title was a bit dramatic. But this ban was not an isolated incident, assuming the worst in new users who edit this article has become the norm, while established users getting a pat on the back for their un-wikipedialike behaviors. Only way not to be banned in that topic, I'm afraid, is to completely agree with those editors. Darwinian Ape (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't participated much lately on that GG article talk page, but I doubt you could find a singular point of view among editors who contribute there. There are editors with a variety of perspectives and levels of experience (from many years to just a few months) editing this article. I don't know if there is a bias against new editors but there have been many newly created accounts over the past 9 months who appear and have caused disruption because they are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy on consensus. And although there are dozens of pages of talk page archives, new editors are not inclined to do a search and see if a question/subject has already been discussed before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

While there is a problem with BITEing to an extent, I have to agree with Liz here. I think I've at some point or another disagreed with anyone who has commented more than 3 times on GGC talk page, and they haven't banned me for it (yet). Bosstopher (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher There is a distinction to be made between the treatment of new and old users. While I understand the practicality in suspecting from a new user, this is the exact opposite the Wikipedia wants it's users to conduct themselves when dealing with new users. I am not talking about the obvious trolls that can be spotted from a mile, the case I presented is a prime example of how the new users who dare to make suggestions -constructive ones at that, once you inspect the nature of them- to the talk page are banned with extreme prejudice. From my understanding, it's not even against wiki policy to create multiple accounts, which is the only crime this user is accused of. Even if, as Liz stated, (edit: implied would be more accurate) there are new users with malicious intent,(which I don't doubt there are) WP:NOSPADE and WP:AGF should be in full effect here to protect innocent new users who are expectedly unaware of policies. Especially when they see a topic of their interest seemingly misrepresented in Wikipedia, and decided to chime in. The new rule of 500/30 restriction will solve new users being banned like this by giving them De-facto topic ban, but also hinder the project, and while I admit this is a speculation, I wouldn't be surprised to see the users who met the qualifications but against the narrative, be treated worse and worse. This is a slippery slope. Darwinian Ape (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As a note, you are allowed to operate multiple accounts but you must be accountable for these. Most people that have multiple accounts will voluntarily state "I may also post under X and Y" on their user page, making it clear. Those that silently run multiple accounts and found to be using the account to work against wikipolicy will be subject to community determined restrictions, depending on the severity of the issue. In the above case, the user was found by someone with CheckUser authority to have had previous accounts (that appear to have already been banned) but did not state this when asked, and as such, that's pretty much a ban again for sockpuppet block evasion. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, as I said I don't know whether he is lying or not, nor do I have any information on checkuser search, just that his position seemed genuine and desperate. And not to pester you further, but to clarify: Is this CheckUser search revealed any account other than AugustRemembrancer and AllMyEasterEggs because if not, that may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the admin. Darwinian Ape (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if the admin that ran the checkuser found any other accounts beyond those two (it would be something that can be discussed via the tool). Checkuser results - outside of the purposes of checking for sockpuppets - are generally kept private say to the degree to determine what action to be done. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if the case is that this user was first suspected of being a sockpuppet and banned,(the banning admin's remarks on AugustRemembrancer's talk page indicate the admin is only suspected he is a sock.) later he opened another account, and subsequently kicked for being a sockpuppet(this time correctly but on the basis of the first account's ban.) Then he realized(upon advices given to him in his second acc's talk page) he should have pursued the first account. He does that and an uninformed admin makes a CheckUser search and finds out the applicant has two account both banned and concludes the ban is justified. (I hope your brain doesn't hurt by now, mine is.)

I know I am wasting your time and mine by defending someone that may or may not be lying and, its not a court, and he isn't given a capital punishment(well, for wiki he is) but if this kind of willy nilly banning becomes systemic, it can be damaging to wikipedia much more than a user with sockpuppets. Darwinian Ape (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape, as I understand the restrictions (and I'm not an admin), one by-product of the restriction is that new editors edit less divisive articles, learn about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then in few weeks, they can venture into the GamerGate controversy. This is preferable to them diving in to GG, making some really common mistakes, edit warring and getting indefinitely blocked or topic banned. GG is NOT a good article to learn about how Wikipedia operates, it has too much baggage. I believe that new editors have a contribution to make but let them get a little experience before stepping into a minefield. Also, admins and editors want to see that a new account isn't a SPA account and has other interests besides editing one particular article. A month is not a long time in the Wikipedia world as there is no deadline. The article will still be here in four weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not against the new restrictions that were placed upon the article, in fact I said it will solve the problem of new users getting banned for mistakes, had they done in other articles, would not have get them banned. But I also believe the project will take a blow from not having as much as different viewpoints. This could have been prevented had the more experienced users treated newbies with the same attitude that is expected in any other article of Wikipedia. Newbies are newbies, they(We) will make mistakes. That is why we assume good faith. Personally, I will not touch the article itself or its talk page with a ten foot pole. But that doesn't mean the people who do should be banned just for doing so. Darwinian Ape (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, If the reasoning is in part to determine if accounts are WP:SPAs or not; what actions are proposed for accounts that are found to be SPAs? If "no action", then why do we care if the accounts are SPAs? If "action", then why are those actions not being taken to address the current SPAs[1][2][3] Appreciate any insight you might offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

An article so poorly that it motivates newcomers to edit is a reflection of the quality of editing. for all the complaints about Arbcom, they got it right to break up the cabal. Complaining about new editors motivated to join a new community is not nearly as bad as experienced editors that created WP:DUCK sock/spa accounts solely for editing their POV into the article. Some had their "first" edits at Arbcom in December/January and only just met 500 edits in their new incarnation in the last month (over 500 hedits, less than 50 to mainspace). Why a SPA editor with barely 500 edits, only to gamerGate, and less than 50 mainspace edits is preferred over a passionate new editor is a dystopian version of the project. Which is more probelmatic? How about reset the 500 limit to before the ArbCom case so all editors involved could be scrutinized and we'll see who stays. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

gif

Regarding this which I thought would better convey the commentary I explained on the article that it was placed on than any image. I was wondering if there were any policies against gifs? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Gifs should obviously be small and short enough to show what the animation intended, so sizewise I think you're fine. But you need to be able to explain from an NFC standpoint how the animation is critical to the readers understanding of the article. Having not played the PT demo but knowing the situation with it, I'm not 100% sure here, the article is lacking such necessary information: I get the gist from text that there are horror elements, ghosts, and strange events that happen and that you play from an first-person perspective, but that's all text stuff. You need to be able to say why this particular segment of gameplay is crticial to see. I don't know what the answer is for that. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure either. This source elaborates that this is Lisa's first full time appearance and that is one of the most terrifying moments. Although that doesn't explain gif over image. My reasoning of why I chose the gif over the image is to explain to the readers that all the player can do is sometimes do the opposite of what he wants to do and has no choice but to move further along to the ghost in that particular scene. Perhaps I can explain that better? I should note that a comment made by Rapunzel-bellflower (talk · contribs) here led me to ask you the question of the policies of gifs. I know you as an expert of this kind of stuff. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Again, not having played it but knowing the gist, if you can find sources that say this specific moment was one of the scariest in the game, in part that you could only progress forward to something you knew was bad, that would be reason to include the animation. So I would focus on trying to find sources to support that specific scene and the nature of gameplay/horror, as to better justify the image. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So in short. Fair use Jifs CAN be acceptable on Wikipedia if they justify the guidelines of NFC? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Yes, in general , Gifs aren't disallowed, but consider that we do discourage animation only in that some people have slow connections, that people print out pages so they become static frames, as well as it being larger-than-type fair use. You need to be able to show to a degree of why showing the animation is necessary over, say, showing a screenshot, and for that, it is best to use sources that discuss the visual direction of that scene and the like. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

• From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election

• In focus: The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts

• Traffic report: Inner Core

• News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes

• Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls

• In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize

• WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology

• Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - Facts vs opinions

Hi Masem, I've noticed the questions that you raised at WT:NPOV, and thought that some of the discussion between myself & another editor at this Talk page might be apopos.

I'll try to put something together for the WT:NPOV discussion, but at a high level I think:

• WP:NPOV requires that we: not state opinions as facts; not state contested assertions as facts (especially where the Article deals with the disagreements around those assertions); err on the side of treating things as opinions.
• WP:NPOV is not able to be consensus-ed or WP:IARed around; This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
• WP:RS standard for reliably sourcing opinions of the authors is manifestly lower than that for the same authors (or publishers) as sources of fact.
• when covering a disagreement or controversy (especially a polarised dispute), we should include all points of view, attributed.
• popularity does not make opinions facts.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Power-gig-drum-controller.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Power-gig-drum-controller.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Powergig-guitar-promoimage.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Powergig-guitar-promoimage.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

• News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans

• In the media: Scrubbing Parliamentary biographies; Wikipedia's invisible history

• Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated

• Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust

• Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin

• Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime

• Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander (journalist)

Just posting this to ya since I don't want anything to do with GamerGate articles and you're a saint for still putting up with them. Have a feeling that there may be some bias there but that's just me. GamerPro64 00:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Darkness

Would The Darkness game be considered an open world game? ThanksECW28 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember, while you can travel between various parts of the world map, it's not open world, but mostly to revisit sections. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources - reliable v usable

Hi Masem, Apologies for the interruption. I was intrigued by some of the discussions at WT:NPOV. Would it be possible for you to provide a quick ("25 words or less") run down on why the sources that I mentioned have been rejected as "unusable"? I'm finding it hard to believe that author's writings / columnist's opinion columns aren't "reliable" for verifying those opinions. Thanks in advance for any insight that you can offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are not usable/reliable here, but they have been excluded by discussion on the talk page as fringe opinions from poor RSes (llike Brierbart) I don't agree with this and that's part of the overall issue. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response; I genuinely appreciate it. The "WP:FRINGE because not WP:RS" and "not WP:RS because WP:FRINGE" line of thought seems disappointingly like circular reasoning. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And I have a hard time in a situtaion when we are talking about a group as a notable topic that their veiws, or opinion pieces that reflect their views, can even be called fringe positions with respect to that group. (Other factors, like on video game journalism, absolutely,). --MASEM (t) 22:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about using a company's logo

Hi @Masem:, I found your knowledgeable comments here and would like to ask...

I've been working on an article about a technology company, and I'm looking at the logo updated for the ForgeRock article.

I would like to do the same (put a logo in the infobox like this), but I haven't uploaded images.

Do I need to get the company's permission to use their logo? What should I do?

Thanks, Justapersona^{(Come talk!)} 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement to get permission to use a logo from anyone. Except in cases where the logo is "simple" per the Threshold of originality, we'd tag the image as non-free, meaning we're using as fair use with additional restrictions for Wikipedia, as defined at WP:NFCC. Using the logo to identify a notable company as the lead or infobox image on an article about that company is an allowable use for this. When you upload the logo via the Upload File wizard (link on the left of the WP page screen), you'll want to mark its use as the non-free logo of a company, and fill in all the appropriate fields as described on the wizard page, and then you will be set.

That said, you do have an option if you want to try to contact the company to get permission to use the logo under free licensing terms, as described at WP:CONSENT. This is absolutely not required and probably should only be done if you have previous contact with the company. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Talk Question

It's been a while since I read the full thread at NPOV, but does your question regarding us looking at non-RS affect WP: LABEL? As in whether or not we use non-RS to determine if the label being used is contentiuos. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Yes, it is certainly related to the use of labels generated from RSes. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dong Fang Zhi Xing

Hello! I suspect that when (sadly) the true death toll becomes known, there will be a great number of visits to Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing. I created the sinking article, while you created the original ship article that you later merged with "my" article. Please, help me watch the categories. This was NOT a maritime incident (at sea), and it is about a shipWRECK, not about a ship. Thanks for your help! There could be a lot of good faith but not helpful edits when the death toll hits the wire. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: Please continue to make any fixes as needed to categories, etc. as I noted on the talk page, my area is not normally shipwrecks but I say this being a major news story and copy/pasted from an existing shipwreck (which likely was a maritime shipwreck, hence why the term lingered). --MASEM (t) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've reverted the link that I added to the article. The definition of "maritime" that you're using is very narrow and you probably should look at the term "maritime transport" which is defined as "the shipment of goods (cargo) and people by sea and other waterways." I'm not going to try to restore the link but I do suggest that you bring the matter up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Shipwrecks talk pages. Shinerunner (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing

--Spencer^T♦C 04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

• News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out

• Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition

• Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia

• Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings

• Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier

• Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013

• In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim

• Traffic report: A rather ordinary week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

• News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

• Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

• In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

• Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

• Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

• Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rock Band 4 logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rock Band 4 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Spot on

'Islam', 'feminism', 'veganism', etc., are not each composed of a single individual believer, and it is anti-scientific to believe otherwise. 'Veganism' cannot be found guilty of eco-terrorism, though certainly a subset of adherents can be, and so on. Good point to make. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, 108.52.24.214 was Gamergate's official catspaw IP assigned to take out The Red Pen of Doom by filing an AE complaint in a manner that would prevent any BOOMERANG. The owner of this page, being an expert on Gamergate planning boards, likely knows this, but casual readers might not. We're seeing a lot of IP editors in the Gamergate space suddenly, it seems. Perhaps someone ought to make a scorecard? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Bernstein can't read a diff or follow a simple contribution history, he attacks the IP and attacks Masem, who's contributed more to the encyclopedia than he could ever hope you. How long will the project tolerate this babbling fool? 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)