Talk:Jesse Cox (YouTuber)

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



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


 * 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)
 * and 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)


 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Replying to, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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,, 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Noted. I'm pulling out of this debacle altogether anyways. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thank you User:Schazjmd--and I've redacted it. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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)