Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

(

)

... that the creator of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 intended for it to be a statement of "free speech absolutism" to break a "cycle of hate"?

ALT1:... that Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 opens with a message of "Je Suis Charlie"?
Reviewed: A-Force

Created by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Note: This article is currently at AfD, here. Harrias ^talk 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus to keep. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure. EEng (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, make yourself useful and rate the nomination '''tAD''' (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit tells you what is going on here. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What I did on another Wiki has no bearing on a DYK nomination. This hook and article is neutral and factual. It's amazing what lengths people would go to in order to stop something they don't like being on Wikipedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not difficult to find at all. You have thrown your own motives into doubt so you will excuse us if we view your contributions with a jaundiced eye. I can never, ever, imagine making that edit. I am surprised, to be honest, that your response was not to say that you made a serious mistake with that edit and you are now editing in a more constructive manner. It's the only response that could possibly earn you the benefit of the doubt now. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

OK, since you insist, let's start with the fact that your fair-use rationales [1][2] betray a misunderstanding of the requirement of Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) because the value supplied ("Only to be used in this article") has nothing to do with what NFCC#3 requires. After you fix that I'm sure someone else will come along to do a full review, and when that happens I suggest you remember WP:NOTPLACEFORHUFFYPOSTINGOFSHORTCUTSNOTLIKELYTODISPOSESOMEONETOHELPYOUOUT. EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup: Given the nominator's nasty history as seen in the link Philafrenzy supplies above, I would like to invite other editors to scrutinize the nominated article carefully, to ensure that its appearance on Wikipedia's Main Page "Did You Know" section (if indeed that happens) will serve DYK's purpose of highlighting new content, helping draw new editors in, and other nice things. WP is of course WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's also not WP:THEKNOWINGTOOLOFPROMOTINGNASTINESS. Jus' sayin'. EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Further followup: Turns out the nominator's offensive, primitive, and inflammatory vandalism -- renaming Simple's Muhammed page "Camel raping paedophile cunt" (see link posted above by Philafrenzy) -- was not a one-time thing. Stimulated by his clueless and unapologetic response (also above) I looked again and stumbled onto this followup he made [3], inserting into that same article an image of a male anus penetrated by a sex toy, with the caption "Picture of Muhammad".

Either of these two edits alone would bring the nominator's judgment into more-than-serious question, but the combination of the two is such that it behooves us to make absolutely certain that this article meets the very highest standards, prior to even considering featuring it on Main Page. Under no circumstances can anything be accepted on the nominator's GF, as we often do here at DYK, given that his prior actions have overdrawn his good-faith account to a negative balance that, frankly, cannot be made good for a very long time, if ever.

I might point out that the nominator, by these edits, managed to simultaneously denigrate three quite disparate groups -- those who hold Muhammed sacred (by associating him with sexual acts the nominator apparently feels are humiliating); those with particular sexual tastes (ditto); and Wikipedia (by using the project as a vehicle for the first two) -- quite an accomplishment, I must say. Tellingly, a glance at the nominator's contributions at Simple [4] suggests a preoccupation with certain sexual practices such as to suggest, in context, that an element of self-hatred may be in play here as well.

Contrary to the nominator's accusation, when I posted my original comment on this nomination ("Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure") it was not with a view toward derailing it, but as a lighthearted (if that word may excused) way of alerting my fellow editors to the need for a heightened level of quality control. But the men and women of Charlie Hebdo didn't die so that Wikipedia could feature the kind of dumbfuckery this editor has inflicted on it in the past, and we need to be absolutely certain this isn't a continuation of his sick and destructive little joke.

If the nominator has any sense of decency he'll spare the rest of us that unpleasantness, withdraw the nomination, and slink quietly away. But if not, I invite other editors to opine on how we should approach this matter. (Anyone brave enough to review deserves free QPQ for life.)

EEng (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For the moment the matter of the flawed NFCC rationales (see the above) remains unaddressed, and there's no point bothering with this until that's taken care of. With any luck that will be the passive end of this matter.

Further ALTs:

ALT2 ... that Vice News called the developer of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 an "idiot", saying that the game could be "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?

ALT3 ... that far be it from ALT3 to call the DYK nomination of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?

EEng (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Those suggestions fail WP:BLP. DYK nominations should not focus on unduly negative aspects of living people. The faulty image has now been removed, and all we're seeing now is bringing up edits I made on another Wiki when I was messing around with a mate when we were high on nitrous oxide. Where is all this sensitivity coming from all of a sudden? Wikipedia had the Jolly Darkie Target Game as a LEAD DYK in Black History Month, it's not like I'm nominating this for Ramadan! Focus on the article, not the subject. It's new enough, long enough, and balanced. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Words fail. EEng (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You fail '''tAD''' (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You should just be thankful I came up with hook suggestions which had nothing to do with sex. I thought that would be a way to circumnavigate the prudishness on display here. Instead I've ended up with a load of Freudian kink-shaming rather than impartial analysis of whether this article was new enough, long enough and balanced enough. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're acting as if I made that game myself and using DYK for promotional purposes. I didn't create it, and the hook and article are no more promotional than any other on Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There are limits to free speech. You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you have a history of doing that. Quite frankly I don't think the time will ever come when your presence here will be free of that taint. Do you frequently edit while intoxicated? If so, how can we trust your editorial judgement? Also, would you necessarily remember every instance of editing while intoxicated? Are you intoxicated now?

DYK's purpose is to reward new-content contributors for their efforts toward building the encyclopedia. As mentioned earlier, however, your prior actions created a contributions deficit, toward the paying off of which this article you're created -- even discounting its suspect motives in the context of your prior "work" -- might go 1/100 of 1% of the way. As far as I'm concerned you've got less than zero entitlement to any such reward.

To paraphrase, "DYK is not a suicide pact", and I intend to do all I can to make sure other editors see the serious potential for real-world harm here. EEng (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is no problem with the article. Do I have any formal notice that I can't take part in DYK because of edits I made for the lulz on another wiki which were reverted instantly? Don't you think the 20,000 visitors to the MSS2015 article would have found something wrong there if there was anything? Can't you look yourself and see if there is anything wrong? This seems to be just digging new rules out of nowhere to prevent something someone might not like from being on Wikipedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Real-world harm". Now I've got to seriously ask if you are intoxicated... '''tAD''' (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm stone sober, though you haven't said whether you are.

We don't know whether there's a problem with the article, because experience shows your judgment, sobriety, and (yes) motives cannot be trusted, so the highest level of scrutiny must be applied. For example, several of the references aren't in English. Are you fluent in Spanish, German, Dutch, and Indonesian? If not, how do you know what they say?

For potential for real-world harm, see Charlie Hebdo shooting and (if you really needed to be told that) WP:CIR. EEng (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're making this up as you go along. I've been here since 2011, made 25k+ edits, been blocked twice, and written 5 Good Articles. I have had no warning of any kind telling me to cease and desist from DYK. Now you're saying Wikipedia could get shot up because of this DYK. Get a fucking reality check. If they do, that's the individual's fault for being mentally unbalanced. This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And in addition, I did not add all of those foreign sources, other people did. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The nominator is very determined to get this on the front page isn't he? I wonder why? I hope I am not being over-dramatic but I don't think we should underestimate the potential real world implications of this appearing on the front page for 12 hours. Mainstream news sources have not covered this because 1) the creator of the game is clearly an idiot and they probably don't regard it as much of a story, and 2) because they don't want to start a riot or instigate a terrorist attack. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the DYKs do not appear in mainstream news sources. It's simply babyish that you think this will instigate a terror attack, and that makes Wikipedia take the POV of not reporting facts in order to not upset terrorists. Plus it is supposing that anybody offended by this deliberately offensive game is a terrorist. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

These are good points but it only takes one doesn't it? And unlike you and me the offices of Wikimedia and the people that are employed there are not anonymous. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I missed the bit when an otherwise suitable DYK hook and article is failed because somebody somewhere might take offence to it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

An AfD and Deletion Review found this article notable. Again, we have a case of I don't Like it here '''tAD''' (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I want it on the front page because just like any DYK it is (sighs) new enough, long enough and written in a neutral and verifiable way. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. We race to Wikipedia headquarters. If you get there first, you can pull the hook. If I get there first, the hook stays. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion, why don't you put your full name and home address on the talk page claiming responsibility for the article? If not, why not? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I have no obligation or requirement to do so, nor am I the sole contributor to an article which anyone can edit. Anyway, wouldn't they have killed Wikipedia in 2008? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If Wikimedia Commons has a whole category on caricatures of Muhammad, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day why the sudden fear and crybabying right now? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen such ridiculous partisanship in a DYK nomination review. Either these reviewers are grossly misinformed of what Wikipedia is and is not (mustn't offend those few people who are offended by everything!), or are letting there admiration for Muhammad get in the way of what should be an impartial review. Always changing the tune. First it was the images. Then apparently I'm not permitted to take part in DYK. Then it's suggestions I can't speak all the languages (as if I were the only person writing it). Now we've got to mollycoddle the poor little dears who might let a neutral sentence on a webpage cause them to murder people. An embarrassment, to be honest. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular admiration for Muhammad, and if you think that's behind my (or Philafrenzy's) concern about this then we're back to clue and WP:CIR. On top of all the above, see WP:IRL. Neither I nor Pf is a "reviewer" here -- just pointing out some serious issues. EEng (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget these strawman make-'em-up rules, what is wrong with this article and hook? Here comes the DYK checklist

New enough
Long enough
Hook is cited
Content is verifiable
No abuse of BLP
Content is not plagiarised
QPQ done
Hook is under 200 characters
Hook is neutral
Hook does not abuse BLP
Hook is not about an imminent electoral candidate
Hook relates to real world although about fiction
No image involved with hook

That's the crux of it '''tAD''' (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned before you're not someone whose judgment can be relied on, so we won't we taking your word for it. As one of the sources in the article put it, "if Hebdo had the right to print their controversial cartoons without fear of reprisals, then the right to be a pointlessly provocative asshole should also be upheld" -- maybe some editor who agrees with that will come along and review this nom, so that pointless asshole-ishness can be propagated to Wikipedia's main page, as you so much want.

There's a huge difference between this and the "Jolly Darkie Game", which was a commercially offered product that people would apparently spend money for -- that says a lot. The subject of this nomination is an overtly provocative giveaway which, for all we know, everyone on earth has had the good sense to simply leave alone. Everyone but one person, anyway. EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had any actual warning telling me my judgement can't be relied upon, that's new to me. And again, you are going for the subject rather than the article with what you are saying there. That sure betrays why you're here. I clearly wasn't the only person to notice the game if it has survived two AFDs. All we see here is partisan personal vendettas, cowardice (THEY'RE GONNA KILL US!!!!1!!) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT '''tAD''' (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Pointless asshole-ishness" = reporting on an actual notable product in a neutral way. I getcha m8 '''tAD''' (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just review the fucking hook. This isn't a notability test - it passed that TWICE mate '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating of the game itself = Pointless asshole-ishness.

Putting it on WP's main page = Putting pointless asshole-ishness on WP's Main Page.

EEng (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Again with the strawman. So no DYK can be what Eeng considers to be asshole-ish? That sure ruins the point of a neutral encyclopedia, does it not? Two reviews have found this game notable, leave it to the reader to decide whether it is good or bad. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the subject's notability. I'm questioning whether it serves the purposes of DYK, or WP overall, to feature it on the Main Page. EEng (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Show me the guidelines on that subject. Go on '''tAD''' (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"D13: To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules, and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval. Just because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified." EEng (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thus we arrive at our conclusion via Argumentum EengDoesn'tLikeItum '''tAD''' (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Noum, but what it does establishum is thatum considerations, other than those on the checklist you posted earlier, may be brought to bear in deciding whether a hook should appear on the Main Page. Let's waitum to hear what other editors thinkum. EEng (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how the moral high ground is being taken by someone who has twice as many blocks as me, and all since August 2014! But of course, I'm the rascal. Two blocks, one of which three years ago. That means I can't be trusted or take part in DYK. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The circumstances of my blocks may be seen on my talk page, and I stand by everything I've done except where you see a retraction or apology (which you do indeed see here and there either on my talkpage or in followup edit summaries -- none involve blaming nitrous oxide, BTW). Anyway, this has nothing to do with moral high ground, but common sense. As I've said, let's waitum to hear what other editors thinkum. EEng (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If y'all can't stop insulting each other, I'll be willing to close this nom as disruptive. My personal position is similar to Eeng's, though as I still value the idea that any article can be a DYK, as an editor I'm holding my peace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)