Talk:SSSniperWolf/Archive 1

Archive 1

I think the page name needs to be moved

Honestly I think this page name needs to moved to SSSniperWolf as that is her online name and what she's usually referred to. But I don't really know though. But I think this page should he as her YouTube name. But the issue is that there is a unnecessary redirect with that name already taken (SSSniperWolf). but thats just me though. But Still. I think it needs to be as her YouTube name. Cynarisoft (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It probably will be once the redirect discussion is over. Miklogfeather (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Cynarisoft, the discussion about this is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf, you are free to comment there. Your argument is described in WP:COMMONNAME — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

I've nominated this page for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/SSSniperWolf/archive1. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

The removal of +8000 characters based on a users own personal discretion is completely and utterly ridiculous. Assuming good faith, if you want to voice a concern about the quality or place of content of this page, should you not do so in a talk page so as to not blindside and disrupt those working so diligently here? SamWecer (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, what was removed (but has been restored) had multiple solid independent reliable sources and had no strong bias towards either party. We have to AGF, but I truly can't come up with a good faith reason why someone would remove the part that is based on the most established sources. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability

I don't want to start another deletion discussion, but rather would like to work with the primary editors of the article to see whether notability can be established. Most of the reliable sources that are being used are in reference to some recent events involving this creator, which no not indicate sustained notability. It would be good to add more varied sources from a longer period of time that are applicable. Criticalus (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been too much of discussing this at AfD for a notability tag now. It's too late for a notability tag. To enter in a discourse with existing opinions how the subject is notable, and counter the existing arguments for that, and possible new arguments relating to this new version of this article, one should start a new AfD. The notability tag is for articles that haven't underwent AfD already. It is resolved in two ways: (1) someone removes it claiming that the subject is notable (and preferably providing some evidence for that), (2) someone prods / starts and AfD. When begins to appear that the matter is contentious (say, in scenario 1, someone disagrees with the assertion that the subject is notable), the tag doesn't get to be put back up, because maintenance tags serve maintenance, not dispute resolution; dispute resolution concerning article retention is done at AfD. In scenario 2, the tag is removed because the start of a deletion process is an escalation of the tag into concrete actions, and those deletion processes have their own tags, which also equally attract editor attention (even more so), so the purpose of the maintenance tag is exhausted.—Alalch E. 09:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about how the AfD process works, @Alalch E. I don't think it makes sense to start an deletion discussion at this juncture (or at least I will not prod and start an AfD), as it would impede a good-faith effort to make a proper article, but I had added the maintenance tag in order to highlight the lack of substantive sources. Many of the older reliable sources currently used do not have significant coverage of the subject (for example, Variety, Deadline, & THR sources include her name only in a listicle format listing all Kids' Choice Award winners with no other context), and most of the newer reliable sources are related to quite short-term and recent events which do not establish notability beyond those specific events. I wanted to add the maintenance tag to encourage better sourcing to be provided, rather than just jumping into an AfD and clogging up dispute resolution, and to give the article writers the opportunity to improve the article first. Is there any sort of tag which can be placed on the main page which would achieve these goals? Criticalus (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that the most recent AfD was not about this specific article, but rather about a redirect that was being considered a potential WP:BLP violation. That AfD was started on the 21st of October, while this article was made on the 9th of November, so this current version of the article has not been put up to any sort of AfD yet. I would agree that the redirect was a potential violation and should have been deleted, but this current version of the article has not yet had any maintenance tag put upon it or AfD until I first placed that maintenance tag. In that case, is the maintenance tag then acceptable, as it is a precursor to a potential AfD? Criticalus (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The tag wouldn't encourage better sourcing because editors have already been going above and beyond to find sources, as evident in WP:SSSSOURCES. On that page you can see that some editors believe that some of the sources provide a basis for notability. Putting the notability tag on this article whose creation was premised on that conclusion just means that you label their opinion as incorrect, and that's not the purpose of the notability tag. If you want to tell them that they're wrong, you should just tell them "no, this source assessment table is not good, and these sources do not provide a basis for notability". You don't need a top tag for that. —Alalch E. 10:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my view, the sources provided do not seem to meet WP:NTEMP or WP:NSUSTAINED, unless I am misunderstanding those guidelines. The sources listed there under 'Potentially contributes to notability' pretty much all revolve around one single news story involving the subject of the article. It's not that I doubt their reliability, but yes I do doubt the notability based on the source assessment. I think the article should have reliable sources about the subject in general, over the course of multiple years, rather than many sources from the same one to two month timeframe (the past two months) in a way that feels like it treads on WP:RECENCY. Criticalus (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I will wait some days to see if further sources develop, and if they do not, only then will I propose an AfD to get more editors to weigh in. Criticalus (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. —Alalch E. 13:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've studied the topic a bit and she's notable. I don't recommend an AfD. I predict a "keep" or "no consensus". Passes WP:ENT#2 (The person has made ... prolific ... contributions to a field of entertainment) and WP:CREATIVE#1 (regarded as an important figure). —Alalch E. 20:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur that SSSniperWolf is now notable due to the coverage from the conflict with jacksfilms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see the case that SSSniperWolf is notable by the criteria you are providing, but I am still unsure that the sources bear this out. Almost all the reliable sources that are provided in WP:SSSSOURCES (the ones under "Potentially contributes to notability") are related to the coverage of the conflict, whereas most of the biographical information is coming from sources like Tuko.co.ke. Ideally better sources can be provided for this stuff. I looked myself briefly and could not find much. Criticalus (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

As I probably qualify as one of the "primary editors" I'll just note here I have nothing to add to everything Alalch E. already said. User:JzG/And the band played on... — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How long do we actually want the "controversy" section to be?

It already makes up slightly more than half the article. Trade (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The article should be a reflection of how reliable sources report on her. She tends to attract drama, so this is the natural result. But we should be vigilant to ensure we keep a NPOV. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should incorporate the rest of the Wikitubia section or can we all agree this is sufficient? Trade (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the Wikitubia and I don't care what they say. The article should reflect what reliable sources say, and in this case controversy is a substantial part of that. If someone has done literally nothing but good we shouldn't try to pad out whatever minor controversy they've been involved in to "balance" an article, nor should we downplay controversy around people who attract drama.
If some new controversy pops up in reliable sources, we should add information about that to the article. If a positive story (e.g. some in-depth article about her cosplay) or independently written biography pops up, we should add information from that to the article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We want it to be zero bytes long, i.e. we don't want to group content under a "Controversy" heading.—Alalch E. 21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E., is that a universal rule? Because Pope Francis#Controversies, Eminem#Controversies, Bill Gates#Controversies, Quentin Tarantino#Controversies, Pitbull (rapper)#Controversies, Tom Cruise#Controversies, Doja Cat#Controversies and some 1400+ more, all living people. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a hard rule but it's a strong recommendation, see WP:CSECTION. Thanks for those examples. Some are better and some are worse examples of controversy sectons and what type of content makes their way in. For example, Pope Francis: none of those sections need to be grouped under "controversy", that's pure editorializing. For example "Theological disagreements" -- yeah, so what, people have theological disagreements. Why paint that as a controversy? No it isn't a controversy, it's theological disagreements. Doja Cat: a rapper saying socially unacceptable things is not controversy, it's the norm; where's the controversy section in Ice-T who sang about killing cops? That aspect is integrated with his career. Tom Cruise: First his views grounded in his religion that can simply be a part of "Scientology advocacy" without labelling them as a "Controversy" (the whole of Scientology is controversial anyway), then stuff that doesn't belong in the article (the video), then "Purported influence", a stupid heading the content under which can also just be put under "Scientology advocacy". Etc. —Alalch E. 00:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E., if you liked it I'd say knock yourself out. ;-) (and it's actually 3600+ as my original search had unconditional spaces 7400+ as my original search had unconditional spaces and didn't include the singular "Controversy")
Personally I have no strong opinion, I was just noting that a section titled "controversies" is not uncommon. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a super strong opinion either, but I'm leaning toward dismantling many arbitrary and over-editorialized "Controversy" sections and more toward having more "free-floating" h2 and h3 sections, which, then again, to many would look "not nice" and "not tidy" etc. It's a structural problem. The stated conventions (that go way back as an unwritten rule that no one questions) are not in harmony with the state of affairs. At all. P.S. Going by memory of something that was recently said, there was a big drive on probably the biography wikiproject to clean up a lot of controversy sections, I think in 2019, and they did that, but it isn't humanely possible to deal with it all. If I'm wrong on some fact here feel free to strike this comment as I don't have the evidence next to me right now.—Alalch E. 01:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

SSSniperWolf and Omegle

Probably time to talk about this..
The section was added by @Pyraminxsolver in SSSniperWolf (Diff ~1184231474). I was aware of the story and the source but had omitted it because it's a serious allegation for which I'd rather see more than one source and more investigative journalism. I had already toned it down to reflect what the ComicBook.com source says.
@Davest3r08 removed the ComicBook.com source for it. The reliability of ComicBook.com hasn't been assessed (inconclusive section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources), but they would be independent for this story. This is unlike the Nickelodeon awards because Paramount owns both ComicBook.com and Nickelodeon. Note that ComicBook.com is way more careful in their wording than The Hindustan Times for this story. Also note ComicBook.com actively declared their conflict of interest on their article about the Nickelodeon awards.
I've written some speculation on the matter. While it wouldn't be appropriate to post that here, I feel it does matter for the argument I'm about to make. So I dumped it on Pastebin for you to read and will assume you read or skimmed it. There are actually more videos that I haven't watched, but I'm already dumber for having watched any of them. If some actual non-tabloid journalist wants to investigate this I'd be happy to share what I found with them.
While it seems there's something up, we don't know what exactly. ComicBook just made a reference on the side to the matter, no indication of investigative journalism there. Compared to my own findings, the reporting from The Hindustan Times appears to be accurate, but there's no indication they asked Shelesh for a comment and no indication they considered options C and D from my speculation. As the accusation is quite serious, my vote would be to remove the Omegle stuff for now. If new sources pop up, primary or otherwise, we could have another look. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, I actually removed the ComicBook.com source after @Skyshifter showed that it is considered low quality on the peer review. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 00:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sooo. are we gonna hide the versions mentioning Omegle Trade (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

no Pyraminxsolver (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Trade, that would go a bit too far in this case IMHO. There's no real doubt these videos exist and she hasn't denied it either. She made them private, so she is aware of the controversy. We are only describing what the sources say.
I'm not saying The Hindustan Times is wrong - the opposite, actually: their reporting seems accurate to me. But there's no indication or proof they dug deeper, and that is something I'd really like to see before we put this kind of thing in someone's article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well that and the also the fact that the section seemed to go put of it's way to be as vague and unspecific as humanly possibly. I dont if that was deliberately Trade (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Trade, that was reflective of the (now removed) source I added, and yes, being cautious on a BLP seemed advisable to me. But it seems the wording has been changed again to be more explicit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Using her channel for the most basic claims about the channel evident from basic identifiers such as handle and date is not OR

@Skyshifter: You're mistaken about this. This is not original research, it is encyclopedically appropriate research into the topic, but not original research, that consists of merely transposing publicly available information from valid WP:ABOUTSELF sources in order to verify encyclopedically relevant claims. There are no claims being made not present in these valid and authentic sources and no original conclusions are being made. —Alalch E. 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I misread it as "this channel was active between 2011 and 2012". I guess the videos do confirm that "This channel was active in 2011 and 2012", though I don't know if it is relevant to add Skyshifter ^talk 21:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Such chronological detail is always highly relevant. Without such details as the supporting structure we get erros and confusion such as described here: Special:Diff/1184759344 —Alalch E. 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, do you agree with this (special:permalink/1184840209) sectioning? (Life and career: Early life and career beginnings, Rise ..., ... Personal life). "Early life" (x was born in y to parents abc etc.) content can't be lumped together with "Personal life" (relationships, basically, and noteworthy details about personal life as an adult). These things aren't mixable.—Alalch E. 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E., this is just my personal opinion, but I'm coining a term for it now: the "and" disease. Next time you're in a department store, check if they suffer from it: "beds and pillows, sofas and coffee tables, dining tables and chairs, computers and laptops, dresses and skirts, swimwear and diving gear, wallpaper and glue.. Amazon suffers quite a bit from it too: "Women's Tops, Tees & Blouses, Women's Fashion Hoodies & Sweatshirts, Women's Swimsuits & Cover Ups, Women's Lingerie, Sleep & Lounge, Women's Jumpsuits, Rompers & Overalls, Women's Coats, Jackets & Vests, Women's Suiting & Blazers, Women's Socks & Hosiery.
Once you see it you can't unsee it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The anditis has struck, yes. It'll sort itself out over time. We gotta have some structure and not only give a subheading to the doxxing allegation content, which only serves to highlight content instead of dividing it. —Alalch E. 15:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"Anditis", I love it. Okay, as long as we're aware. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we make a FAQ for this page?

I could easily see people making misconceptions about the article and SSSniperWolf herself. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What misconceptions? You mean the fact that most of the "Controversy" section from Wikitubia have been exclude? Trade (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted before?

Why was SSSniperwolf's wikipedia page deleted for a long time. Now it's back, but I don't understand why it was deleted in the first place. 76.65.45.114 (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't enough news stories about her back then to justify an article Trade (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires subjects to have significant coverage (not just footnotes) in WP:Reliable sources. (basically: media with a solid editorial oversight and clear editorial policy) Before the conflict with jacksfilms the community judged there weren't enough sources. The deletion discussions are linked at the top of this page. See also Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia? for a similar case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Please add an Infobox picture. Why doesn't her infobox have a photo of her? It had one just yesterday, an article of such a high-profile and famous person like herself should have an info box photo. Can anyone please add one?

Thank you, it would be much appreciated. 🙂 76.65.45.114 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You are encouraged to take a photo of her yourself and upload it to Commons under a free license so we can use it

Just dont steal one from the internet Trade (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy only allows the use of freely licensed media that anyone can re-use without asking the author for permission. There are exceptions like movie posters where we allow fair use because a freely licensed image could not possibly be obtained. In the case of SSSniperWolf, anyone could take a picture of her when she visits a comic con for example and share it with a free license. Or she could be asked to donate a selfie to WP:VRT.
We'll add a photo when we have one that is, beyond reasonable doubt, freely licensed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Premature GAN?

@Skyshifter, @Davest3r08, maybe it's better to put the GAN on hold as there's no picture yet? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree for other reasons (such as the sourcing as I stated in the PR), but not a picture. Not having a picture doesn't impede a GAN, it just means there are no available images to use, which happens. Non-illustrated articles can become GAs. Skyshifter ^talk 01:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it seemed like an image would increase the odds of getting GA status. I'm not sure date of birth, heritage etc is mentioned in any article that is both a RS and not Tuko. Those facts could probably be sourced to primary sources instead (SSSniperWolf's videos), though I'm not sure that would be any better.
Why even chase GA for this article I wonder? Frankly I don't see the benefit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be a quick fail as the article is very unstable, even 3 days ago content had to be deleted from view. So wait till the content is settled. Even another AFD is possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, do you know why there's seemingly no log entry for the revision deletions? I can't even see which admin did it. Was User:Alalch E. even notified about this?
The last revision deletion was for a legit reference that happened to include some (most probably outdated) information that is specifically not allowed per our policies. The revision deletion from 14:56, 12 November 2023‎ was for content relating to a dispute between SSSniperWolf and Azzyland. It was unsourced. There are some sources for it, but only tabloids which are not WP:RS and primary sources. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I made the mistake. I just wanted to provide verification for the full name of the business. Didn't even look at other information in the source (should have). I wasn't notified but it doesn't matter. We shouldn't talk about this too much on the talk page because it could diminish the effects of sanitization (suppression was used, not ordinary revdel, that's why there is no public log entry). The article isn't really unstable. —Alalch E. 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is stable but i can't promise it will continue when the protection expire in three months Trade (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, see Special:Diff/1184966432. Never mind, you seem to be aware of why some content was removed from view. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy that articles with recent deleted revisions can't be GA? Trade (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That would not be the case. But instability could be an issue if the the content keeps changing in a big way. Then by the time an assessment takes place, the article could be different from what was assessed and, then assessment is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Separate article

Could the doxxing incident be its own article? I believe it has enough reliable sources to support it. NiameyH (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's really not Trade (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Spouse

The info sheet mentions Evan Young as her husband. If I recall correctly, Young an Shelesh divorced. Did I just get false information or are there just not reliable sources for it? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

NintendoTTTEfan2005, in this article from 9 November Young is referred to as her "estranged husband". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Gaming

Should this page be added to the Category of Gaming related pages? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Kids Choice Awards

I believe SSSniperWolf won several Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards for "Favorite Gamer". Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead Trade (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but how should it be mentioned? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Add it to the Reception section Trade (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

👍 NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But I don't see it. Did someone remove it or something? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Rise in prominence and shift to reaction videos section. Just control+F "Nickelodeon". Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ok NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting a section into an article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: speedily closed due to nominator withdrawal, per WP:WHENCLOSE (first bullet, note 1). The nominator is thanked for using a relevant process to test an idea with the community, but is advised to then also include a relevant and substantive rationale in the opening statement when making formal proposals such as this one in the future (how doing something will make the encyclopedia better in light of our established practices).—Alalch E. 17:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Maybe Jacksfilms-SSSniperwolf conflict or SSSniperwolf doxxing incident? Idk. [[User:Trainrobber66|trainrobber]] (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose No good reason given for splitting the article. I don't think it meets WP:NEVENT, nor does the content about the incident in this article make it excessively long. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Agreeing with Schazjmd. This topic does not need a separate article, and I agree that it would not make the article too long. Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

ok [[User:Trainrobber66|trainrobber]] (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image from shorts channel

@Miklogfeather, I have my doubts about the legitimacy of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nJ8TRclMEk for c:File:People Who Got Caught In 4k shorts 0-5 screenshot.png. There are several things about https://www.youtube.com/@SssniperwolfShortss/channels that seem off.

• First of all, it's spelled "@SssniperwolfShortss". Looking at the other channels, she knows how her handle is capitalized.
• In the banner image it's spelled "SSSniperwolf Shorts", different from the channel name and still wrong: lowercase W.
• The photoshop on the banner image is REALLY poor. Sharp edges, blunt cutouts.
• None of her official channels link to it on their channel tabs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
• Account is not verified. (though Little Lia and Sausage aren't verified either, but all the others are)
• Google search for "SssniperwolfShortss" didn't return anything useful either.

Has she ever linked to that shorts channel herself somewhere? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are good points. I assumed it was legit because of the subscriber/view count, and that I wouldn't put it past Sniperwolf to have a channel like that, but you may well be right. It's still weird that it's the only video on that channel marked as creative commons.

I will note though that she has her handle written all lowercase in her main channel's description and the Little Lia channel branding reeks of bad Photoshop too, so it's not impossible that it belongs to her, Miklogfeather (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Miklogfeather, I agree it's not impossible, but I'd really like to see her referring to that shorts channel somewhere.
Being the only CC video is a bit odd. If it had been at someone's request to extract a picture, wouldn't they have asked her to relicense a video on her main channel? My best guess is that it's relicensed to test if Creative Commons helps to please the YouTube algorithm. It probably doesn't. YouTubers are known to experiment with video titles and thumbnails, so why not experiment with the license as well?
As for the main channel description, it says "Hi I'm SSSniperWolf! You can call me Lia, sniper wolf or sssniperwolf!" To me this only says "it's okay if you write my handle in all lowercase". @GRuban, as a license reviewer, what do you think? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the consultation, folks, my official rates are ... . Honestly, the most straightforward answer is to write her and ask. Her official channel page giver her email address, click "more links", "view email address". It's also on her Facebook page, without the extra clicking, right on https://www.facebook.com/SSSniperWolf as (title of this article) at komboventures. If I were doing it I'd write:

Hi, I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia (give user name and user page); we have an article about you, SSSniperWolf, where we're using an image from the Creative Commons Attribution licensed video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nJ8TRclMEk, and we're debating whether it's actually your video or a copyright violation. Can you please clear up the debate? If you could, please respond, both to me, and to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and say whether you licensed this image for reuse. Thank you, (give name).

I can send the email myself if you insist, but if one of you can do it that would be better, as this isn't really my area of interest, and I'm no one special, just another editor. Perhaps I have a bit more experience in evaluating free images like this, but that's the thing about experience, the only way to get it is by doing.

Until we get a response that proves it, though, I would tend to believe it is legitimate. I knew nothing about the subject before this ping here, but clearly she has no shortage of different YouTube channels, and they do reuse the content from the other channels, what with other languages, "Top Videos", etc. They also don't all link to all of each other, some are only linked to by one other, so it doesn't seem out of the question that this one isn't linked to by any. From our article about her (and even the content of this video!) she seems to be very active on YouTube, not just posting her own, but also watching and interacting with other people's videos. If this were a low visibility channel we could hypothesize she merely hasn't noticed it, but since this channel has 324K subscribers and 444 videos it is hard to believe she wouldn't have noticed it, and would not have taken action if it was a channel devoted to nothing except violations of her copyright. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I see the image is actually up for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:People Who Got Caught In 4k shorts 0-5 screenshot.png, so this is a bit more urgent. I guess I will weigh in there as well. --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

GRuban, thanks for your input. Please be aware of spam harvesters, I've altered your comment. I was hoping someone else would, but as nobody seems to have taken the bait I contacted the komboventures mail address.
Alalch E., as I wrote above: "My best guess is that it's relicensed to test if Creative Commons helps to please the YouTube algorithm. It probably doesn't. YouTubers are known to experiment with video titles and thumbnails, so why not experiment with the license as well?" Whether we should accept that as a license (did they even realize what they were doing?) is another question, so I asked about that in the mail as well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point about experimenting, missed that. —Alalch E. 13:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

GRuban, I forgot to mention: there may be a reason for her not to take action even if it is unofficial. It's possible to monetize videos from others on YT. This is common for videos that feature music, but I also uploaded a clip of a show from the NPO and the NPO claimed it, IIRC they monetized it too. I'm unsure what kinds of organizations can monetize videos from others or whether anyone could do it, but Channel Red possibly could.
If the shorts channel is otherwise productive, that's what I would do as doling out copyright strikes tends to hurt one's reputation. The shorts channel owner probably still gets the revenue up to the point where a video is claimed, so they could still be making a profit as well.
No reply yet (wouldn't expect anything that fast) and the mail hasn't bounced either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

GRuban, funnily enough, I found two stock images of Shelesh on Getty Images. I tracked down the photographers and sent them an email with a similar template via Proton Mail. They haven't answered yet. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Davest3r08, only two? I see several more. But professional photographers are typically not jumping for the opportunity to give their work away for free. Why would they even care whether this article has a picture or not?
You'd have better odds searching social media for a fan who took a picture of her at a comic con. Or contacting her directly. Unless you're willing to pay muchos pesos to buy the actual rights (not just a license, ffs don't spend money on Getty!) from a professional photographer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, fair point. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Davest3r08, if the Commons file is kept we should use File:Alia Shelesh YouTube shorts screenshot.jpg instead. (see User talk:Miklogfeather#PNG vs JPEG) @GRuban, perhaps you can look at it to confirm it is a screenshot from the video as Shelesh has been on a deletion spree lately. I know you can't do a license review right now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

c:Commons:License reviewed them both, joined the new one to the other deletion request, let's see how it plays out. Honestly, the best solution is if SSS responds to her emails!--GRuban (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Haven't heard back yet. The shorts channel also has no mail address, but granted, neither does the top videos channel. The Little Lia channel however does. A mail address could have confirmed ownership, but alas, it's not there. In defense of the channel being hers: in the titles of the videos on https://www.youtube.com/@sssniperwolftopvideos/shorts she sometimes forgets to capitalize the "w" in her handle as well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Image kept on Commons, thank you User:Holly Cheng! --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Still haven't heard back btw. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2024

Xerysz (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you update your article

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

Change 3-11</ref> Shelesh said that she had found the Douglasses' address on Google, that "had no idea how to dox", that Douglass was "creating drama to pay [the pair's] bills", and called him a "creep". Shelesh said that she had found the Douglasses' address on Google, that "she had no idea how to dox", that Douglass was "creating drama to pay [the pair's] bills", and called him a "creep".<ref>Arya, Vaishnavi (14 October 2023). "Jacksfilms accuses SSSniperwolf of 'doxxing' him, asks YouTube to demonetize 'dangerous creator'". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 6 November 2023. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Text "archive-

it should that "she had no idea how to dox" not that "had no idea how to dox." This is for grammar." ignored (help) 71.209.98.2 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. 〜 Askarion ✉ 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References