Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 19 September 2014 (→Vivian James image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives and sandboxes My articles Awards received Dreadstar's Archives Dreadstar's Sandboxes Defender The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin Award! The Vandal Eliminator Award * I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94 RL Barnstar The Real Life Barnstar - For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1 Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1 Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1 Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

Sarkeesian talk comment

You should not threaten to block someone over three-day-old comments less than a day after that person criticized your WP:INVOLVED block of another editor on a closely-related article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly can and should do so. You are quite incorrect in your assessment of WP:INVOLVED; and your comments about that do not make me 'involved' with you either. And if you continue to disruptively comment on other editors on that article talk page, against WP:NPA and WP:TPNO, you will be blocked, whether by me or by another admin. If you want to comment about other editors, take it to your user talk pages or use the appropriate DR steps as outlined at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you also saying admins can and should engage in direct personal attacks against people who criticize their actions while threatening to block other people who criticize their actions?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks there, - and the archiving had nothing to do with any of that, if it did then Gollum's comment would have been a compliment, since it's directed at Samwise Gamgee who is Frodo Baggins', indispensable friend and assistant in the movie trilogy I was watching, helping save all of middle-earth and humankind. In any case, you need to re-read and find a greater understanding of WP:NPA, WP:TPNO, WP:INVOLVED and possibly other policies and guidelines. Also, you may want to reflect on your own editing pattern and history, and certainly stop making comments about others on article talk pages - something you have yet to address in your continued commentary here. Dreadstar ☥ 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Disciplining someone for bad behavior is not becoming "involved." It's what admins do. Montanabw 09:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

Thanks as always for handling the assorted bad edits and comments. Several of those folks are lucky they've avoided blocks this long. At any rate, your attention is much appreciated. Could you restore protection to the article? It seems to have expired, at least last time I checked.--Cúchullain /c 13:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been assessing whether or not the article merited full protection, but it looks like for now semi-protection is working; with only a small number of exceptions. I'll keep an eye on it and please feel free to post on my tp or email me if you see evidence that full protection or editor behavior needs to be addressed. Dreadstar ☥ 16:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant semi-protection; I was on my phone so I couldn't tell that it's evidently already semi-protected. Thanks again.--Cúchullain /c 19:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James image

Um, excuse me, but WP:F9 did not apply to that image as I gave a claim of Fair Use.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a copyrighted image, and it failed WP:NFCC. This is clearly not "encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article. The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point..the character created by 4chan is designed to look like a normal female gamer. ". Additionally, it was already being misused, do we really need even more to deal with. There are multiple issues with that image. Dreadstar ☥ 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The caption is not the relevant commentary. If you read the article there is this quote: "After 4chan members donated over $5,000 to the Indiegogo campaign they were allowed to create a character who would appear in the winning game. The character created by 4chan, named Vivian James as a play on "video games", was designed to appear like a normal female gamer. Vivian James was criticized by Allegra Ringo of Vice as "a character masquerading as a feminist icon for the express purpose of spiting feminists". So the NFCC was definitely met in every respect and it would be not difficult to use some of the additional commentary in the Vice article, and other sources, to make that even more apparent. The fact is that you used an invalid speedy deletion criteria and so even if your argument about NFCC were not wrong this would still be an inappropriate use of your admin tools.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content to discuss, I don't see encyclopedic value in the image as it relates to the text, it adds nothing to the article and appears to be a mere decoration. There was no inappropriate use of admin tools here, I saw a copyright violation with an invalid non-free-use rationale and deleted it, an action well within policy. The image fails WP:NFCC#8, it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding, it's just a drawing of a girl. Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the NFCC guideline the mere fact of the character being the subject of sourced commentary is sufficient to meet the criteria. It also states this criteria is gauged by considering due weight and balance, which is again a case where this is valid as the character is very prominently associated with the group in reliable sources. You used an invalid speedy deletion criteria and are presenting an invalid NFCC claim to avoid taking responsibility for it. Reverse your improper administrative action post-haste.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to carefully re-read WP:NFCC#8, the mere presence of sourced commentary is insufficient, it very clearly states. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". You've mentioned "invalid' criteria in regards to my actions twice now and keep repeating it even though I explained it fully in my above comment. Additionally you've now cast false aspersions on my motivations, I'd recommend you discontinue those kinds of comments. I'll take your request under consideration and review the deletion, there may be sufficient textual content to justify the use of the copyrighted image as fair-use, that particular area of policy is can be cloudy. Actually, I sympathize with your position, having been on receiving end of several WP:NFCC objections to non-free images I've uploaded over the years. I'll look at it again in the morning, it's past bedtime for me now. Dreadstar ☥ 05:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, regardless the validity or not of the NFCC#8 rationale, you cannot use admin functions out of process, and I'm afraid this has just happened here. Speedy deletion criteria can only be used narrowly for cases when there's previous community consensus they're applicable, and if this file had a good-faith claim for fair use then criterion F9 was not applicable; that's what TDA referred to as "invalid criteria", and he's right in this regard - this is not a judgement against your assessment of NFC policy, but of speedy deletion procedure, which you haven't followed properly here. If you wanted to delete this file, which is a completely legitimate thing to do, you should use the proper channel for non-admin editors like prodding it or filing a NFC review, not take advantage of your capability to do it instantly.

I'm concerned that you seem to not understand this basic tenet of administrators accountability - the admin flag is not unrestricted permission to use it according your own judgement; there are limits where they can't be used, as they're not backed up by the community; and when you are outside those limits you must behave like any other editor and seek consensus for your actions, just like anybody else. From this side, it appears as if you've forgotten what it's like not to be an administrator and how to step out of that role when circumstances require it. Will you please listen this good faith request that you reflect about your own behavior? Diego (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've already addressed the F9 issue above, there is no need to keep repeating it here - unless the intent is just to harass me - I think it's bad form to continue attacking me for a minor drop-down box selection error. My argument for speedy falls under WP:F7, because the fair use claim seemed to be invalid. I will take this to WP:NFCC myself, in the meantime I've restored the image because of the additional text in the body of the article that I did not see before deletion. Thank you for pointing that out. Dreadstar ☥ 14:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the image.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)