Talk:Jesse Cox (YouTuber)

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

YouTube Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Internet culture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Plagiarism accusations

Are we really warring to cover something that just happened on Twitter? I've started a thread at ANI:

[1]

There are WP:BLP issues with this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if multiple editors have supported the retention of this information. I see both sides, though it's not right of you to create multiple sockpuppets and meatpuppets to enforce your thought. This should have been done earlier so we could have had a discussion abput this and not resorted to an edit war. You should have pinged us before just endlessly reverting. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and [3] seems to show that a credible and verified twitter account has responded to his work being plagiarized. None of the other tweets are necessary, except maybe to document one or two defenses against Katz's allegations. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InvadingInvader, rather than admit you were rash to restore contentious, poorly sourced content, you're seeking to blame me, and have made a false accusation that I'm associated with other accounts here. If you think it's worth continuing in that direction, please bring that to the ANI report. Then have a look at my talk page; we can ping a few admins who know me, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these IPs and usernames are doing the exact same edit, which various accredited Wikipedia accounts have been reverting, AND considering that the IPs and users attempting to revert the accredited editor's reverts have primarily or only edited Cox's page, it's easy to conclude that this is potentially sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Replying to InvadingInvader, the IP was NOT a part of it, they were a 3rd party. You seem to have figured that out though. Just thought I'd let you know. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 05:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the reminder. I still think that the Racket thing and Katz's tweets do provide enough merit for the time being, and it's likely that a secondary source will be covering this very soon. I'd leave it up for now, but there is a point to be had with regard to BLP and sourcing. If these remain the only sources and no one ever hears of this again, I'd side with removing the information or making it so that it's only a short sentence. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regarding what the IP said, I would recommend that you NOT ping admins for a content dispute, as that could be seen as canvassing. Also agree with II here, I'd support that resolution too. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't leave up borderline sourced, contentious material that just happened yesterday, in hopes that "it's likely that a secondary source will be covering this very soon." We wait for the coverage. Really. As for pinging admins, Yoshi24517, that was proffered in the spirit of establishing my credibility--I'm not fond of being taken for a sock--rather than canvassing a content dispute. Night. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m off to bed, but I will be more than happy to discuss this tomorrow. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Other than this primary source from the person making the claim and comments on Twitter, do any reliable sources mention this? If the only sources covering this are from the person making the claim, that's not really a good argument for inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no. I can see where we're going though. I'm going primarily off of the Twitter feed and the involvement of verified accounts, but BLP does create a possible situation where the usage of verified Twitter accounts and blogs could pose something that's hindering its inclusion. The original reason for reverting the removal was for both legal threats/personal attacks made at some editors as well seeing the removal as more so vandalism and blanking rather than a BLP content dispute. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that it is completely inappropriate under WP:BLPSPS to include anything if the only source is a tweet by someone else making an accusation since such claims involve third party living persons. If the tweets have been covered by an RS it may be okay to include some mention perhaps even including the tweets as addiyional sources provided nothing is souced exclusively to them but I emphasise the may. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm pulling out of this debacle altogether anyways. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Neither the tweets nor Katz's self-published post are reliable sources. I've removed it once again per WP:BLP until independent reliable sources cover the matter. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Schazjmd--and I've redacted it. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got my edit warring block to end early, so I'm making this clear right now: I'm pulling out of this conversation, like what II did. I've had my RBK bit taken away, and for a good reason, too. What I see happened, to me, is it was a very clear cut violation of BLP standards and it was libelious, and I fully understand that now, after talking with 3 different admins about it. I'm probably not going to comment on this matter anymore, but I would've said that I'm down to not do anything about it until there is a RS for it. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 03:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]