User talk:SethRuebens

July 2020

Hi there, thanks for your edit to Britannia (TV series). I have rolled back your edits because this section is not adequately sourced, and contains original research. If there are WP:RELIABLE sources which you can add, please do so, but until there are then this section should not be included.

A one line mention on the University of Westminster's newsletter, which does not directly mention the claims and instead just links to a YouTube video, is not a reliable source. Having a certain amount of YouTube views or signatures on a Change.org petition does not make them reliable sources.

Also, please add your signature to talk pages when you leave messages, as you have not done so on User talk:2601:603:1B7F:B510:A8CE:B7A7:E898:63C4. Tvcameraop (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello there, thanks for the reply. I have put the edits back on, because the section IS adequately sourced via a number of secondary academic and publicly published references. Please see the website: www.britanniatvseries.com for details of these.

As for the number of views the videos have and the amount of signatures on the petition (along with the countless comments) these clearly demonstrate that there is a publicly known controversy surrounding the show. Hence the use of the word 'controversy' which they clearly demonstrate and not 'plagairism' which is the claim of the author and his sources.

Furthermore, I have noted that the above user has created a number of pages for Sky TV, who are the copyright holders of Britannia:

File:Tvcameraopworksforsky.png

Thank you.

SethRuebens (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Tvcameraop[reply]

Thanks for replying. Just to clarify... I do not work for Sky (and if I did, I would disclose it), and I created those pages because I watch a lot of TV, and noticed that they hadn't been created. I would like to see some more reliable sources added, but I think that is best kept to another editor as I am rather busy at the moment. Please feel free to add them if you can! Tvcameraop (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi Acroterion/, thanks for your advice. I have opened an area of Britannia's talk page for the controversy issue to be discussed. I am a little surprised that you have commented only on my page and not that of the above user (Tvcameraop), the other person/s involved in this, who seems to have pretty much only created pages related to Sky TV. Furthermore, perhaps you could help in this matter: why are letters of support and comments on websites from university's not considered as secondary referenced sources (when they clearly are)? They have been published and are in the public domain (the University of Westminster link is on a newsletter on their website). Also, what constitutes being noteworthy? Given that tens of thousands of people know about this issue (via Krushkoff's videos), 1,500 people have signed a petition in support of the claim and hundreds of comments made in outrage about this case. It seems to me that there is a concerted effort from those connected with Sky to suppress this information spreading in the public domain: it is clearly related to the show and of public interest. Thanks! SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you because by my count you've reverted four times in the past day, which is a bright-line violation of Wikipedia's edit-warring policy. You can be blocked immediately for any reverts beyond three, and even fewer at times. Other editors have reverted no more than twice.

Since I'm an administrator, I deal with behavioral issues, and edit-warring is a behavioral issue. Administrators don't take sides in content disputes, unless there are other factors such as violations of the biographies of living persons policy, vandalism (narrowly defined), defamation, legal threats and the like. I won't adjudicate the discussion.

However, some advice: Wikipedia deals in sources to the extent that they are covered in secondary sourcing, such as academic research (which is itself subject to vetting by its level of secondary citation) and journalistic sources - mainstream sources with a reputation for fact-checking. As far as I can see, you're using primary sources to amplify a dispute. Petitions, online discussions and other such conversations aren't significant until they've been picked up and commented upon by secondary sources. That's where your problem seems to lie. Has this dispute over authorship been reported upon in major media?

In general, Wikipedia editors take a dim view of the importation of off-Wikipedia disputes of this kind into the encyclopedia - it's not a battleground for this kind of dispute, and it disrupts the encyclopedia. Of course, if it's picked up by journalists, it can be cited and mentioned in proportion to the coverage it receives. Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTE. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify, Acroterion. I will be mindful not to revert more than twice on this (or other pages) in the future, if at all. I would like to query one thing you've said, though, which does not make sense to me:

"Wikipedia deals in sources to the extent that they are covered in secondary sourcing, such as academic research (which is itself subject to vetting by its level of secondary citation)..."

With regards to this case: Ben Krushkoff is the 'primary source' as it his claim of plagiarism (in videos seen 40,000+ times), over a body of work he created at university; I provided links to 'secondary sourced' references, the main one being a letter from an academic and a highly respected screenwriter (which, for the record has been supported by a third source, the head of the university faculty). I also provided another secondary academically sourced reference: a newsletter from a different university website (from their legal department) referencing the lecture Krushkoff gave on the subject and linking to his videos. So, there are multiple, non-primary and academic references about this matter.

It is also clear, in my mind at least (and those who I've consulted about this issue) that the the case is clearly well-known and in the public domain, due to the amount of signatures, comments and video views. Just because newspapers have yet to run with the story, it does not mean it is not noteworthy (there are many reasons as to why the British media may be hesitant to publish it): facts are facts, it is a controversy known by tens of thousands of people.

Based on what you've said, it would seem that references should be allowed and the page reverted. Thank you for your time, SRSethRuebens (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By academic coverage, we mean peer-reviewed papers or books by experts in the field, not something said by someone in academia. If you can find no journalistic references, it is very hard to make a case for sufficient notability for inclusion - subjects must be sufficiently notable that the papers have covered it, then Wikipedia will cover it. Wikipedia is not a first stop on the way to notability, it is the last stop. Acroterion (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying again, Acroterion. With the greatest respect in the world, taking into account what you've said (above): the videos can be argued to act in exactly the same way as books (providing academically referenced sources of information to the public, about academically submitted work). They have been peer-reviewed by multiple sources from within academia (which is exactly what I provided the links for in my edit: written academic secondary-references about the work- x4, the main one, certainly, could be included in a journal article). The calibre of the referees can not be brought into question.

As the videos have been seen tens of thousands of times (more people than the average attendance at a Premier League football match) and the petition signed by 1,500+ people (more engagement than many front page articles), to suggest that a reference to the controversy on Wiki is being used as 'a first stop on the way to notability' is clearly a non-sequitur. The numbers themselves are facts. Given that the people at the heart of this controversy have a major influence on the UK press (a member of a well-known family of television journalists, who have worked/work at numerous papers, and what was a majority owned News International business at the time), it is understandable that they have yet to run with the story.

Please note, I'm not trying to get the last word in, here, but genuinely believe the reasons you have quoted for not allowing the revert are questionable, if not disproved. Multiple academics (the ones closest to the original story) are united in the belief that Britannia has been spawned from plagiarism - this cannot be questioned - and due to the fact that the story remains in the public domain, and is known by tens of thousands, I remain of the absolute belief that a section on the controversy should be referenced on the page (as do other higher ranking academics I've spoken to).

Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about entertainment, if it's notable you should be able to present discussions of the issue in Variety, the Times (either New York or London, ), the Guardian or the like. We don't source to videos unless it's coverage of major media, and any time you have to start with "it can be argued that" you're not on a solid footing. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote authorship arguments, it's a place to document what is already being broadly discussed in multiple outlets. You might also want to read WP:RGW. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion This is not just about entertainment at all, it is about somebody's academically submitted work. It is therefore an academic controversy, every bit as much as it an entertainment one.

You, yourself, have said "Wikipedia deals in sources to the extent that they are covered in secondary sourcing, such as academic research (which is itself subject to vetting by its level of secondary citation)...". The following are screenshots of one of the references taken from original linked page. They've been written by Robin Mukherjee, who, if you follow the link, you will see co-wrote the film Lore (Academy Award nominated as Australia's foreign language entry) and a number of episodes for some of the UK's most popular television shows:

File:Letter from Robin Mukherjee in Support of Copyright Claim over Tribus Part One.png

File:Letter from Robin Mukherjee in Support of Copyright Claim over Tribus Part Two.png

So Mukherjee, who it cannot be denied is an expert in this field, was also a Scriptwriting lecturer at Bath Spa University when Krushkoff submitted his work there, ergo he is an academic. 'Staggering' and 'Non-coincidental' are the words he used.

If you see the references re-published on the website linked, you will also note that the Head of the Course at the time, Dr Paul Meyer, has also been quoted as supporting Mukherjee's statement (above). Furthermore, the University of Westminster website references the videos and the lecture Krushkoff gave on the subject: they wrote it was 'very well received' on the screenshot (below) from their newsletter (itself a form of electronic newspaper) and 'terrific' (elsewhere).

File:Reference on University of Westminster's Centre for Law Newsletter Referencing Krushkoff video's and lecture on the Britannia controversy.png

Reference on University of Westminster's Centre for Law Newsletter Referencing Krushkoff video's and lecture on the Britannia controversy.

These are multiple, secondary-sourced links, all from within highly respected academic institutions.

For the record, I genuinely believe there is a concerted effort to supress this story getting on Wikipedia, not because it isn't a controversy of national and public importance (it is), but because there are people involved in the controversy who would rather not see the story getting further exposure, on this site. News International, or whatever they're called now, should not be allowed to control Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention (and note I'm making no attempt at reverting the article or adding to it) SR SethRuebens (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been following this issue for some time and for the record I am an author who has signed the petition in support of the plagiarism claims.

I've also been reading this page and the discussion with interest, and would like to point out the following:

According to Wikipedia's own guidelines 'notability' is not a pre-requiste for inclusion in the body of an article itself, rather 'notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article (WP:NOTE)'. From what I can tell, there is no attempt to create an article about the controversy?

With regards to the inclusion of the controversy within the body of the article, I have read the guidance on WP:WEIGHT. It clearly states that 'neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...'. Surely the views of the university website news page, linking to the videos is not being called unreliable? I also believe the letter written by the university lecturer/writer to be reliable (if not, then why risk publishing it in the first place?).

Following the "Credible claim of significance" two-part test on WP:SIGNIF I believe, therefore, that the article should mention this dispute:

   A. is the claim being made reasonably plausible to be true?

Given the academic support in this matter it is more than plausible.

   B. assuming that the claim were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

Yes, in both instances. If the claims are true, many of us believe that they are, then both the subject (the controversy) and the author (Ben Krushkoff) would be regarded as notable.

I would therefore like to see the original article reference the issue, as without it it is neither neutral or fairly weighted.

5.61.207.163 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Britannia (TV series). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have genuinely tried to act in good faith, debated the issue and been polite, which I believe will be clear to anyone who has read the article. I will read the guidance you've linked to, but would like to ask if have you posted similar warnings to other users in that debate? If not, I feel that is unfair and would question why. I am also keen to see your response to the above user. Thanks and regards, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) I note that you haven't, which I feel is unfair. SR

No, you've been accusing other editors of bad faith and being in cahoots with the production, none of which the editors who've patiently offered policy-based responses to your lengthy demands have done.,Refusal to accept polite policy-based responses is disruptive and wastes our volunteer editors' time. You may be blocked or topic-banned if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have accused anyone of anything and (in another thread) have politely asked for evidence of this. Furthermore, as you are engaged in this topic and debate, could I kindly ask your advice as to where one might find any further guidelines that supersede the advice on claims of significance WP:SIGNIF? SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editing

Please log in to edit. I've blocked the IP. If the only thing this account is doing on Wikipedia is to import an un-noticed-by-the-media dispute onto Wikipedia and to accuse other editors of bad-faith editing, then you may have your editing privileges removed. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a debate. The other users are clearly avoiding answering the questions posed to them. I have been accused of things by them, when acting in good faith, yet these have not been picked up on by you. Can I ask, politely, why? It does not seem neutral at all. SethRuebens (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are promoting a cause, and nobody else feels that the cause has reached the necessary level of notability or documentation for inclusion. Talkpages are for concise proposals for article improvement, not one-sided campaigns by a single editor - that's not a "debate." Your conduct is becoming disruptive. Find mainstream sources, or recognize that without convincing other editors that you have a policy-compliant proposal you will have to wait until those criteria are satisfied. Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" WP:SPS. Mukherjee is an unquestionable subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable and independent publications. Asking the other editors response to this - and yours - is not being disruptive. Just because the reference isn't in the mainstream source, yet, does not mean it can't be used in the body of an article. I did not make those guidelines up and note that a number of other seemingly senior editors have left my edits in place, or made minor adjustments to them. It does not feel to me that you are acting in a neutral manner in this case. SethRuebens (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Your behavior has been tendentious, excessively repetitive and unacceptable. If you continue on this course, you will be blocked for a longer period of time and topic banned from any mention of this TV show anywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SethRuebens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is totally unfair and, I believe, biased. The only reason I have repeated myself in the talk page of the Britannia thread is because I have raised a number of points that were ignored by the users who repeatedly changed mine, and others, edits. I have not been rude or behaved in an unacceptable manner. You have accused me of being tendentious, yet this controversy is unquestionably real: a student spent two-and-a-half years of his life developing a television show, and experts at his university and others believe Britannia to be based on this work. Given that 1,500 people are also publicly backing the claim and videos on it have been seen by tens of thousands of people, I have the absolute right to discuss the controversy on Britannia's page. It is not neutral 'as is' and trying to ban me or threaten me to stop the discussion - and not others -is totally unacceptable. I therefore request this block is lifted immediately. SethRuebens (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request does not give me confidence that the behavior you have been blocked for will cease if you are unblocked, nor that you even understand the issues raised in the dispute. As such, I am declining your request. I suggest that you heed the warning of Cullen328 above. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: Can you at least explain why I'm being discouraged (not allowed) to debate the matter on the talk page? I have clearly asked a number of unanswered questions relating to Wikipedia guidelines. That's not encouraging freedom of speech, being bold or promoting neutrality.

"Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing."

By putting a temp ban on me, for following the above guideline, and essentially ordering me to stop debating does not seem ethical. Thanks in advance. SR [User:SethRuebens|SethRuebens]] (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also wP:sock and wp:forumshop might be worth a read, and drop this Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, SethRuebens. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Britannia (TV series), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

The discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Britannia_(TV_series) is your opportunity to make your case for your edits. I encourage you to make a statement there. Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: I will be posting something later on today on the thread, as have been away from my PC due to more pressing matters. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Britannia (TV series) and Talk:Britannia (TV series)) for disruption.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly explain how I was being disruptive? I have not made any edits on the article. The fact that there is a dispute going on about the neutrality and independence of the references, and that you have blocked me and not other users (who have ignored my questions) seems totally biased. I ask that you set out your reasons below. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SethRuebens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not made any edits to the article in question, today, and have not been disruptive at all. Furthermore, as you will see in the dispute section that's been initiated by another user, I am following protocol. This does not feel correct or balanced SethRuebens (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Come back once the dispute resolution is concluded in your favour. Yamla (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@JzG: @Yamla: Can I ask if you have banned any other users in the thread who are opposed to my edits? And if not, why? I have seen one or two of them posting blatant lies, accusing me of things and not engaging in discussion/avoiding questions re. Wiki policy. I'm asking because I believe unless you do so, it is indicative of bias (and would raise the question why). I just want to make this article - and Wikipedia in general - a neutral and unbiased source of information. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTHEM. I haven't blocked anyone, including you, involved in the dispute. --Yamla (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also WP:SPA and WP:RGW. Guy (help!) 18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yamla, but you denied the removal of it. I'm genuinely not concerned as to whether or not I can edit the page until the dispute is resolved, but feel it is extremely biased considering some of the things that have been written by one or two of the other users: why have one rule for me, and another for others who are ignoring relevant questions? @JzG: I am extremely dubious over the authenticity of some of the users (not all) who grouped together to stop the edits taking place; I will read the pages you've linked, please take a look at these: WP:PAID WP:FIXBIAS. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've warned you, accusing other editors of paid advocacy is an extremely serious accusation. An accusation of that kind with no substantiation, or as a means to win an argument, may led to further sanctions or a full site block. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SethRuebens, there's only one other single-purpose account active on that article. Spoiler: it's the only account that supports you. Guy (help!) 22:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Have a look again at the history of the article and some of the comments in the talk page. There isn't just one account who supports this position. Maybe some of the tens of thousands of people who know about this scandal - and the 1500+ who have signed the petition - have just signed up and feel as angered by the multiple academic and expert claims of 'blatant plagiarism' as I have?

He said there was only one SPA, you are right, there are two. One created as the dispute was active.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the above sanctions apply to the discussion about Britannia

Doug Weller talk 11:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Doug Weller (and to any other editor reading this who has comment on my page). The Britannia case brought me here, and I fully intend to add other edits, to other unrelated pages, when the chance arrives. As for Britannia - as I've just posted in the dispute debate in case you're not following, I can now state: Industrial Scripts referenced secondary source (Mukherjee et al's) quotes, about the primary source (Krushkoff's work and allegations), to their 53,000 subscribers; Krushkoff's videos have been watched around 45,000 times; 1,500+ people have signed the petition in support of the claims; hundreds of people have written messages in outrage (proper research will show you this); and websites/videos detailing the alleged plagiarism are ranked number 1,2,3,4 & 5 out of a search string with 39,500,000 results ('biggest fraud in TV history'). That a small amount of editors haven't been able to find reliable references to this controversy, or have said it's just one person's views, should tell any neutral reading this enough. I will continue to debate over there and am more au fait now with Wiki guidelines. It's been a great learning process! Cheers, SR SethRuebens (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

You stated you were the creator of this image of Ben Krushkoff: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Krushkoff_Profile.jpg. Do you have a relationship with him? PAVA11 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should really have the courtesy to answer my questions first. The photo is in the public domain, I downloaded it (and will change the tags if pleases you). I've been fascinated by this case after watching his videos and Britannia, and am thinking to write an academic article about it, what with all the references I've now got piling up. What's your story? You seem determined to stop any mention of the disputed origins off the Wikipedia article, in spite of all the academic, subject-expert and public backing Krushkoff has received? Do you know him? Has he or the claims upset you in some way? Please answer the list of other questions in my opening statement on the dispute page, as well. SR SethRuebens (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to find out when Season 2 was coming to the U.S., it's not that interesting of a story. PAVA11 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been putting up a pretty solid resistance! It's been a good debate. For the record, a quick Google search pulled up the following: Epix will serve as the new Stateside home for the UK fantasy drama Britannia, rerunning Season 1 on Sunday, Aug. 2, before premiering Season 2 on Sunday, Oct. 4. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Every file you've uploded to Commons is either a copyright violation or out of Commons project scope. It is not a repository for enemies lists. You are very close to a full site block on enwiki for you behavior toward other editors. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your comments and threat, but please note I have followed UK guidelines on copyright law throughout (see fair dealing: copyright doesn't apply if the reproduced work is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation) and I am acting civil towards other editors (see the dispute page re. Britannia). Whilst I am still a relatively new editor here, and finding my feet, I thoroughly intend to act within the boundaries of Wikipedia's guidelines - and general spirit of neutrality and boldness - and plan to edit many more articles, on different subject matters entirely, in the near future. SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Herbythyme has noted, fair use is not allowed - ever - on Commons, and is only allowed in very restricted circumstances here on enwiki, which the image does not meet. You appear to be determined to make up your own policies and to argue with anyone who patiently tries to explain Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies to you. You have personalized the dispute with other editors to an unacceptable esxtent and are targetign specific editors who oppose you on policy grounds, That is antithetical to the editing ethos on Wikipedia. If your sole purpose in editing Wikipedia is to advance an off-wiki agenda rather than to improve the encyclopedia project on a broad basis, you may lose your editing privileges here. You have already been restricted from editing the single thing that you appear to be interested in until you can convince experienced editors that your edits comply with Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to yourself and all the other editors reading this, I am simply trying to find out why my edits were removed, so that I know what is and isn't acceptable here. For your/their reference the edits are supported by the following: We now know that: a third source (subject expert leaders in their field of script development), who have referenced a secondary source - an Academy Award nominated writer and academic's quotes, about the primary source (Krushkoff's allegations over his academic work), to their 53,000 subscribers; Krushkoff's videos have been watched around 45,000 times; 1,500+ people have signed the petition in support of the claims; hundreds of people have written messages in outrage (thorough research will show you this); and websites/videos detailing the alleged plagiarism are ranked number 1,2,3,4 & 5 out in a search string with 39,500,000 results ('biggest fraud in TV history'). This is no off-wiki agenda as you have implied, merely the enhancement of the article to reference all relevant viewpoints. I will read the guidance on Commons approach to 'fair use' after work and only ask for neutrality from yourself and other editors with regards to this matter and myself. Kind regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told across multiple forums, wp:primary, wp:rs, wp:blp, wp:undue, I will add wp:crime and wp:consensus. I think that's all the ones you breached (and it may be all the (ones we have)Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh (I forgot) wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And wp:sock, is there (serious question) any rule or policy you did not ignore or breach?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SethRuebens. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not appealing this here, as have had zero faith in the impartiality of those I was 'debating' with (not much of a debate when they couldn't answer the questions!). But, for the record, quite clearly multiple attempts to discredit me have taken place over the last couple of weeks, by a group of editors who banded together to stop the Britannia article from being neutral. So obvious why! Alongside the questions on Wiki policy that were never answered, when presented with further independent reliable secondary/tertiary sources, I get banned for an offence that quite clearly others were taking part in from the start. At least I have a record of all, so thanks for that :) BB, SR! SethRuebens (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:sock.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I am not going to appeal this via the open site, as I'm quite certain of what would happen. Interesting how the user who initially removed my edits about a Sky show, who had pretty much only started threads for Sky throughout their time here, (which I fairly pointed out and who deleted their list of articles after I did so) wasn't warned. Or another user who couldn't answer a number of my questions about policy which undermined his/her position, but was intent on trying to discredit pretty much every action and post I made (often with the help of a totally biased senior editor/admin, who has a record for the similar behaviour, and who threatened me with bans from the beginning) wasn't warned either! At the end of the day, it's been an interesting process and quite clearly led by a few people who couldn't stand the truth or a neutral POV being represented on the Britannia article. A shame really, for the greater good of Wiki, but I'm quite sure the story itself won't go away (no matter how much money and time Sky, Vertigo et al throw at it). Kind regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because THEY did not breach policy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly know or even say that, especially given the OP's clear link to Sky? Prior to the ban (funny how it came at a crucial time in the dispute) it was one rule for me, and one for the others. Collusion and running to a preferred senior editor for help, when losing an argument. Really great way to encourage new editors to join the site (and more than a tad hypocritical imho)! But it's all good, as I say, and makes for very interesting reading. tut tut :) SR SethRuebens (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What rule did they break? are you saying that have a wp:coi, on what grounds do you base this? And how are you talking about, what OP?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP who removed the edits had listed articles that they'd created on their talk page: they were almost exclusively about Sky TV and its employees. If that didn't reek of a COI, I don't know what does. When I pointed this out, the editor deleted the list. I then got threatened with a permanent ban for posting a screenshot of it. Never once did I see any warnings or questions posed of that editor. I also got threatened with a ban just for asking: is it likely that Sky, the production company and former tabloid journalist, at the heart of the of this of scandal, would want to remove the edit noting the controversy. I didn't accuse anybody, just asked, and get threatened. And as soon as the dispute seemed to be going against the small clique of editors opposed to me (who were so quick to discuss their approach on one of their talk pages, almost as if they were instinctively drawn there), boom, I get banned. As I say, Wiki rules and guidance only seem to be applied to one side. It does make me question how unwelcoming this place is to new editors. Has Wikipedia itself become the sockpuppet of the rich and powerful/greedy corporations, I wonder ;) SethRuebens (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings over what? And no having an interest area does not mean they have a wp:coi.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the user who first undid your edits has this edit history [[1]], I am seeing no evidence they even predominantly edit topics related to SKY TV, in fact I cannot see one SKY TV topic edited in their last 50 edits, can you? So you are also breaching wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. See the top of this page - and this image - as it was that user who first rolled back my re-edits I believe (and I meant and mean no disrespect to that user, merely saying it looked suspicious, which others I spoke to agreed with). I joined up as an editor, her, because I had an interest in the author's plight - a true David and Goliath battle (not that I wasn't interested or wanting to edit other articles, in other areas, in the future). Yet time and again I am accused of running a single purpose with an agenda, with WP:SPA mentioned a lot - like it's some kind of crime. SPA defines a single-purpose account as 'a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles'. Yet you've just said that an having interest in an area (only Sky TV and no other broadcaster, is pretty narrow you must admit) is perfectly acceptable. So again, one rule for me, one for other editors in the debate. Anyway, happy editing and hopefully there'll be some more secondary or tertiary sources posted by someone else on this matter in the future for you all to pick apart. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is their edit history [[2]], I am also not seeing a heavy bias towards editing in the SKy TV topic. All they did was to create a few articles. This in no was indicates a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth thinks policy based objections are violations, not his continuous pushing of a dubious and poorly sourced claim using multiple accounts. PAVA11 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point another warning is needed. If you keep casting aspersions about other users you will lose talk page access. I suggest you read why your were blocked, read policy and either drop it now or formulate a proper appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a COI I would declare it, but I don't - as has been stated elsewhere! Out of interest, there may be a COI problem with Seth as the Chrome "user image" (see the top right of File:Tvcameraopworksforsky.png) matches with this picture from Krushkoff's claim website. I am NOT saying Seth is Krushkoff, but it was an odd coincidence I spotted when on commons earlier. I was going to add a uw-coi but it has already been done above and as the user has been blocked for sock-puppetry, I don't think it's necessary. Tvcameraop (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I also found it suspicious that Seth uploaded a picture of Krushkoff (since deleted) claiming it was their own work (see above). It would explain a lot. As for my COI, I can attest that I, like Ben Krushkoff, am not being paid by Sky. PAVA11 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SethRuebens unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § SethRuebens unblocked

Please read wp:spa. and wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also wp:tenditious, you are wasting a lot of users' time over this one issue. You might be better of sepspending that time trying to get RS interested in it, then you would have no issues here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given we are now back to waiting time on this tired issue the unblock may have been a mistake. They are literally here only for wp:not reasons. They are only here not even for one article, but for one cause, their claimed IP theft. They are here to try and use us as a venue for their greviances.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Britannia does not fairly represent all significant published views on this matter and that fact, alongside what thousands of people (including subject experts) are certain is the theft and misuse of my academically submitted work, is extremely damaging for me. If you don't want to waste time on it, then don't join in the discussion, simple. I am not changing the page but absolutely want other people to do so for the aforementioned reason. Thank you very much. SethRuebens (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, as only one (possible) RS has had anything about it. When multiple RS report this, then it would not violate wp:undue to mention it. So get onto the BBC, the Times, Channel 4 news, The Telegraph, and The Guardian, and get them to do stories on it. When they do, we can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. WP:RSSELF: 1x Academy Award nominated writer, author of a book of screenplays, expert screenwriter and academic; multiple x published academics; 1x University Legal Faculty newsletter; 1x World's Leading Script Editing Company = multiple reliable sources. On top of the article written in an internationally distrubted business magazine by a well-respected journalist. As/when/if it features in the MSM (which is NOT a pre-requisite for inclusion in the body of article), then this disgraceful situation would warrant an article on its own. 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest you read wp:bludgeon, as that is what you seem to be doing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will now make this a warning, if you continue to waste users time on this issue I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you see fit User:Slatersteven, but please take a look at WP:LAWYERING. At every turn members from a small clique of editors have tried to find ways to stop the article in question being WP:NEUTRAL, have tried WP:OUTING me and looked to get me banned from the site (successfully so, last time, but overturned on appeal by the Arbitration Committee). They, the committee, looked at my case and decided I am allowed to continue to discuss what is a serious issue on the talk page of the Britannia TV Series article. Given that I am certain that the page is totally inaccurate in regards to who it says created this show (a notion supported by thousands of others) and that is impacting my own life and career I will continue to push for it to be changed, in a fair and reasonable manner. I feel the above comments, one after another, are tantamount to harassment, WP:HARASS, but you keep on doing you and I'll keep on doing me. SethRuebens (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per the discussion at ANI, you are hear-by banned by the community from editing on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]