User talk:Esuka

Been a decent few years, met some decent people, some not so much. Thankyou to those of you who were good towards me.

Hello, Esuka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you're an editor that knows their way around the ratings for television series. I edit a lot of articles for series, but have never understood ratings, so I'm wondering if you could help complete the table at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 1)#Ratings? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Alex^TW 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would love to help you but I've just taken a look through the archive on TVbythenumbers and can't find anything for the shows first season besides one live+3 mention. I'm guessing they just never bothered to do cable shows back then? Let me know if you ever need any help for the shows other seasons, they have those. Esuka323 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even that Live+3 would be handy! And the editor working on the draft page is likely to want to create articles for the other seasons, so I'll let you know. Thanks again. -- Alex^TW 22:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't help more than that. The search system is kinda messy, they have mixed cable and broadcast shows in 2015 on some articles which can get confusing. I have spent like the last 25 minutes looking. Esuka323 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, you found more than I did. Even ratings for three episodes is worth it. Thanks again! -- Alex^TW 22:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I added some more content to the production section. Is the section good enough now. If not, then how far is it?, Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an expert on that stuff, sorry. But I do think it looks good. Esuka323 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I restored your recent edits after I figured out what Amaury was objecting to and found a reference that confirmed season 2's tenth episode was indeed the season finale. Thanks for your contributions to the article... and to Wikipedia generally! —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and same to you too. I read a few of your edit summaries when you've corrected an edit or two of mine and it really helps. Esuka323 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The series doesn't exist anymore because it got cancelled but okay! Powderkegg (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The show still exists. Esuka323 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue isn't that I can't discuss it, it's the fact that no one is willing to face the facts on said issue, and instead of people actually reading the discussion, they're saying "Not enough people say you're right about these facts, so shut the fuck up they did nothing wrong. Oh by the way we're better users than you and our reversions are better than yours so we get to say we're not involved. You're the only edit warrer na na na na na na", instead of actually contributing to the discussion and understanding that what they keep putting back doesn't belong. And they wonder why I'm so frustrated. --Harmony944 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but if the discussion isn't going your way and you see no way to resolve the situation, take a step back from the page before you end up getting blocked for mass reversion. There's also the "Requests for comment" thing you could try if that's not an option for you. I would at least suggest you take the first piece of advice. Esuka323 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka323, Just thought I'd drop you a line to thank you for your support today. It doesn't always happen on here but when it does I am always grateful. We edit many of the same articles (not surprising as television seems to be a common interest) so I am constantly seeing the good work you do. Please keep on doing what you're doing. I'd also thought I'd tell you that I don't think I'll be editing Succession. It really kills me to stop editing an article I've put so much work into but I honestly don't have the stomach to engage with aggressive editors. There are still a number of "problematic" edits that were made that I wish I could fix but I honestly don't want to go anywhere near that article right now. My concern is that I'll get drawn into another conflict and honestly it is just exhausitng not to mention that it wastes time I could be spending working on more important topics/issues. I hope you'll keep an eye on it and fight any random vandals should they pop up. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page anytime. Have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. Thanks again, and I do think you should continue with the page. Don't let a negative experience stop you from doing something you enjoy. Esuka323 (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. We'll shall see. More likely than not, I will end up editing the page agains at some point in the future, especially once it begins inching closer towards its second season. – BoogerD (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd mention something to you about your recent edits regarding The Alienist. From my understanding reading various articles today, The Angel of Darkness is not the second season of the series. Rather, The Alienist is regarded by the network as a miniseries and The Angel of Darkness as its sequel miniseries. – BoogerD (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Esuka323: I was just thinking I'd make you aware of an issue I'm having over at the article American Woman. I believe you were in a back-and-forth with the IP editor I'm dealing with earlier today. Basically, they are attempting to claim that one episode is technically two even though the Paramount Network website (the highest primary source in regards to episodes lists of their own series) lists it as one. Basically they are making a presumption/supposition based off of original research in violation of WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. I'm hoping you might keep an eye on the page and help with making sure unsourced information isn't added. – BoogerD (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for editing your comment. That wasn’t my intention. I’m working with the desktop look of Wikipedia’s editing software on a mobile device so I’d have access to the bolding, italicizing, and comment signing features that mobile editing does not make easy. I must’ve placed my cursor in the wrong place then hit a heading insert by mistake and didn’t even see where I left the cursor. I meant no harm--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Esuka323. Regarding the WP:AN3 complaint, do you have a diff where Matt14451 admits to being the IP user? EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, if you read the discussion you'll see that when I questioned the IP editor, Matt came along and made the edit that I cited in response to you and quickly removed. When I brought this up on the topic, he responded with "Editing as IP address was mistake. I logged out then forgot to log back in". The rest of the conversation between us where I questioned his motives for doing this confirm. Esuka323 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my amendments vandalism, the new project was announced today and I sourced all of it? Im going to have to report you for vandalism to the higher-ups, I'm sorry but you don't have any excuse and this is a clear abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.181.228 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user, your edit met all the criteria for vandalism and was swiftly removed by another user. I just happened to notice your edit too, including the rather insulting one about Scott Gimple. I would suggest that you refrain further from vandalizing the pages and participate in Wikipedia in a constructive manner if you wish to have any sort of future editing here. Esuka323 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still need back up here – very likely that the named account is socking as the IP here, but I can't revert again. As my edit summary clearly shows, what they're adding to the article is not supported by current sourcing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've brought the issue to the attention of the admin on the appropriate board. Hopefully something is done about it. Esuka323 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka323,

I was hoping you might take a look at the article for the new television series Camping. There seems to be some disagreement over there regarding whether or not ratings under a million should be written out with two decimal places or three decimal places. You are essentially the television ratings guy around here (as far as I am concerned) so I was hoping you might help out over there. Let me know. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka323,

Given that we have such a history editing alongside each other on numerous television-related articles, I was hoping you might have a look at an issue/conflict that has arisen over at Heathers. What it boils down to, at least as far as I can see, is that the information that another editor has contributed, and that I am contesting, is unsourced. Additionally, it does not fall into the same sense of verifiability as the cast and character sections or episode summaries do as the information being presented cannot merely be verified by watching the content of episode or its onscreen credits. I have other issues with the content but that is major sticking point. You can see the discussion had thus far over on the article's history and its talk page (found here Talk:Heathers (TV series)#Edit conflict). I'd love to get some outside opinion because, as I'm sure you know, one call victim to short-sided and not realize when they may be in error. I hope you can be help of here and to hear from you soon. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my thoughts, hopefully the issue on the page can be resolved without much issue. My first thought admittedly when reading what was added was that it had little relevance to an encyclopedia. It's unsourced and doesn't really add anything beyond a few trivial points. I would suggest making a topic on the television project page where I suspect you'll get the same sort of reaction in that the information doesn't belong in its current state. Esuka323 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esuka323:, Thank you for being so prompt in taking a look at it. Another editor, Lbtocth, also commented on how they found the information to be worthy of removing. I am personally hesitant to remove it again at the risk of being accused of edit warring. Do you think you might intervene? I think we might already have grounds for removing the information as its unsourced nature is pretty cut and dry. – BoogerD (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka323, I'm having another issue over at Into the Dark where another editor is insisting on adding column to the show's episode table that lists each episode's runtime. I pointed out that, that information is already included in the infobox and that nothing in the MOS or WP supports the notion of including it in the table. He went ahead and reverted and you can guess where its gone from there. I was hoping you might take a look at it so that I might avoid getting embroiled in an edit war. Thanks! – BoogerD (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's really weird, I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that, not even IP editors. It's such a pointless thing to do because as you say the information is there in the infobox. It doesn't provide anything of value to the reader who will know how long said episodes are anyway because they would have watched them. Esuka323 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. Having an issue over at Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) where another editor is attempting to have a draft I created back in July 2018 deleted because he believes it to be at the wrong title. He believes the correct title for the draft should be (2019 film) even though there has been no confirmation from a reliable, secondary source as to when the film will premiere. A third editor created a basically copied-and-pasted new draft yesterday and the first editor is trying to have it essentially replace the original one that I created. Please see Draft talk:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) for a discussion that the first editor initiated. – BoogerD (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Esuka323. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka323,

I was hoping you might do me another favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. – BoogerD (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that I've created an article for the organization here: Got Your 6. – BoogerD (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, I've been unwell and really feel awful at the moment. I hope your issue is resolved, you know my talkpage is always open and I'm happy to help when I can. Esuka323 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka323,

I was wondering if you might take a look at a discussion (see here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists) that I've been pulled into in the last two days. An editor recently removed an episode table from an article I was working on citing a lack of sourcing. However, in the last year-and-a-half of serious editing I've been doing on here, I've been led to believe that such sourcing of titled, directors, writers, and airdates were unnecessary if the episodes of said series have already aired or been released. The two editors engaged in the discussion have stated that this is not the case so I am hoping if you, and potentially other in the WP:TV community might be able to help here. Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...might need to go through the pages that I've edited in the past. I'm pretty sure that when I've added Awards and nominations sections that I've put them in the middle. It might be worth going through some the pages you and I frequent to double check. I've already started to go through some to change them. Thanks for correcting me! – BoogerD (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and sorry if I caused offense. I just happened to be browsing these pages and noticed the changes. I'll leave any further changes up to you. Esuka323 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The article was written with a specific citation style when it was created and then edited of the course of many months. After the series began airing, new references were added to source the ratings for each episode. However, they did not adhere to the citation style/formatting that had already been established. Also, we have gotten along very, very well over the last year, please don't rush to accuse me of edit warring when I've reverted once. I enjoy working with you and I'd appreciate it if you didn't dismiss what I was saying out of hand and claim "You have no grounds to alter." without specifying why you believe that is the case. I am sure the two of us can deal with this issue civilly and come out the other end the same as we started. You are one of the few consistently reliable editors that I can of turning to when issues arrive here or there and I wouldn't want anything to happen to ruin that dynamic. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were being entirely unreasonable with your actions, I wasn't changing any "citation style" to suit my personal preference(Per citevar). I was complying with the standard used on television page episode tables & dvr tables. I noticed that despite the effort you made to alter the DVR citations, you had left the episodes table alone. I don't know about the other editor, who also seems to be one of few people to make the effort to keep tables up to date, but I certainly won't be spending the extra few seconds just for one article. I don't care much for Wikipedia drama, so I'll avoid the page in the future. Thanks. Esuka323 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my goal here is not to argue with you, get into "Wikipedia drama", or, as I said above, cause our editing relationship to deteriorate. I would be truly saddened to find that we couldn't call on each other any longer when we have issues with other editors. I will say, in response to your message above, that there is no "standard" citation style when it comes to Wikipedia. As WP:CITEVAR states, "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas;" I'm not sure if I understand fully what you said above but I believe you were saying that you no longer desire to edit on The Neighborhood article because of this dispute. Well, I hope that is not the case. The work you do on Wikipedia, both updating television ratings and many other things, is invaluable. Please know that I truly value all that you do. I really hope that, in the future, if I reformat a citation of yours in order to keep it consistent with the citation style already found in the article that you don't take offense to it. Listen, I totally understand you desire to avoid the "drama". I don't know how many long and drawn out discussion I have gotten wrangled into over the smallest and most unimportant stuff. I hate it. I think that I, like you, find the most value in creating and adding things to Wikipedia rather fretting over specific things in an article. I don't know...I hope we can resolve this and still walk away as friends. I know this was a long message but I hope you take that as a sign of how much I don't want there to be any animosity between us. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocth^talk 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Esuka323,

First off, thank you for all of your diligent work over at the Murphy Brown and Murphy Brown (season 11) articles. I will say it is such a poor use of time for editors on here to have to be dealing with those who are clearly not here not to truly contribute or work with others. I am messaging you in order request that you might take a look at the most recent edits over at Who Is America. An editor is insisting on reformatting all of the short summaries in the episode table with bullet points instead of in the paragraph form that the article has been using. They have brought up Saturday Night Live as a means of defending their reasoning as the season articles for that show use bullet points. However, those articles use bullet points to list trivial information found in each episode and they do not list ever single individual sketch. I'm not sure it is written so explicitly that short summaries are to be written in single paragraphs but that has largely, as I'm sure you know, been the case. I will say, for instance, that other episode tables in other television series articles don't bullet point different subplots in given episode. It's just not done. No one has objected to the article, being Who Is America, following typical television series formatting and this other editor doesn't seem to be making a convincing case to change it to a format that is almost never used. Not sure where you'll fall on the issue but I'll hope you'll give it a look. I'd go ahead and revert the editor again myself, including the points I've made here, but I believe I've reached the three reverts limit. Get back to me when you can. – BoogerD (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka323,

Sorry to message you again so soon. Quick question. Do you know if there is anything in WP or the MOS regarding the formatting of article titles when it comes to like a television series with a possessive title? For instance, Jack Ryan was moved from it's original official title of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan. One editor explained to me that it was due to WP:COMMONNAME though I took a look at that again and couldn't find anything in it regarding possessive titles. I'm creating a new article with a similar title structure and I'm trying to figure out if it is against Wikipedia to have a possessive title. Hope to hear what you think. – BoogerD (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't, I'm not overly familiar with Wikipedia policy beyond a few of them seen from Wikipedia drama between other users. Esuka323 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry to bother you with it. Guess I'll just go with my gut on it. Haha. – BoogerD (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! lol Esuka323 (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been opened at WT:MOS#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America? resulting from edits that you made at Who Is America?. Accordingly, your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for including me in this discussion, I really appreciate it. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia MOS but I've edited enough television pages over the course of 2018 to know that his proposed style of changes is not used on any page that I've seen. I can't really add much more than what I've said on the discussion so I hope that's enough. Esuka323 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka,

Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the festive period and Wikipedia drama? It's supposed to be the season of goodwill not edit warring problematic editors. I think I've seen more drama this past week than I've done in the entire year of 2018 lol. Esuka (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? I've said it in the past and I feel compelled to express it again: this is the sort of behavior that almost makes me want to leave the site and not look back. I took a look yesterday and found out that my final edit count for 2018 was over 20,000. So, ya know, I feel I have contributed something worthwhile to the project in the last year. I probably put in more man hours than most last year for, well, a variety of reasons. I do want to keep helping to improve the site but I can't do it when its adversely effecting my health. For what its worth, Amaury was making a comment on Lbtocth's talk page and saying that in a conversation he had with IJBall and Gonnym that camera setup is not needed for dramas as multi-camera/single-camera only concerns comedies. While that may generally be true, I don't believe anything in the documentation of the infobox prohibits the filling of the parameter in dramas. Sounds more like an opinion of those editors rather than a policy. I dunno...food for thought there. Anyways, hoping for a productive year of editing with you my friend. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up, you do some great work here. If anything it may just be worth taking the easy route and template edit warring editors and report them. Honestly you've done way more good here on pages than me over the course of 2018. And thanks, same to you. Esuka (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kinds words. Thought I'd let you know that I'm done exerting any more energy over this topic. A great number of editors have been brought in to discuss this whole issue and seem to have determined that I, and others, were in the wrong. I tried to express that sentiment here: Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#Infobox sourcing. The IP misinterpreted what I was attempting to express and asked that I provide evidence of past talk page conversations and edit summaries where I was led to believe the series/episodes themselves provided the sourcing needed for that parameter of the infobox. I have no intention of combing through a years worth of edits to prove that I was led to believe that by handful of frequent editors of television articles. Furthermore, I pointed out to all that were involved that they might bring this whole issue to the attention of editors over at Wikiproject: Television as numerous articles (including ones I pointed out) run afoul of not providing inline citations for the camera setup parameter of televisions series infobox. Anyways, I'm just sick and frustrated by the whole dang thing. Really worn me out for the day. I would never make edits without having either been led to believe something by other experienced editors, have a firm WP or MOS policy to point to, or feel as though a consensus has been garnered. Ugh. I try to do go work on here and I try and treat everyone with respect. I have a lot of "real world" issues going on in my life and I truly don't need or want any additional stress from Wikipedia. Sorry to vent to you but you have, over the last year, proven to be quite the colleague on here. Thanks for all the good editing you do and your continued assistance. – BoogerD (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear about the stress this has caused you, you seem like a nice person and don't deserve that. I made a report about the IP on the admin board and they have been nothing short of irritating to deal with, ugh, the ego. I don't know how many more times I can repeat myself at this person before they understand that their actions were wrong. I think you can probably tell that I feel the same way about this issue, I'd be shocked if they escape with no punishment, infact I'd probably not even bother reporting someone again if no action is taken. Anyways take care. Esuka (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Esuka,

I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like that editor is in a collaborative mood though they note collaboration in their edit summary. You can't get a more reliable source for industry news than Deadline(Though Entertainment Weekly is equally as good). It seems more like they're removing the information because they don't like it. And in this case their personal opinion is irrelevant, if it belongs and is reliably sourced it should stay. Esuka (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way. I may disagree with elements of WP or the MOS but I can understand when someone edits or removes content based off of something that they are citing from there. But when you only offer your own personal opinion as reasoning...that doesn't seem to abide by Wikipedia policy. Sometimes information can be added that is both sourced and trivial and a revision is called for. However, this doesn't appear to be one of those situations. – BoogerD (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realized I removed the ratings by accident until you reverted me. I am not sure how that happened. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, that must have been a weird error. That was mostly why I put a ? there because I know you didn't do it intentionally but I had no clue how that could have happened. Esuka (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka,

Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ([1]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added column citations, they weren't 100 percent required but it's not really worth the back and forth nonsense. Esuka (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've messaged Alex 21 and YoungForever about the issue as he and she have commented on it in the past. I agree that both of our experience over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television in the last year and a half has been that sourcing is not required for episodes of a series that have already premiered. In fact, they always are removed following an episode/season's premiere. At some point in the future we may end up removing them from the tables as including them really isn't consistent with television series (or television season) articles. If this becomes more of an issue perhaps we'll have to reach out to other WP:TV editors to get involved. Anyways, thanks for your input as always. – BoogerD (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird that we're only seeing issues on Facebook show pages. I don't recall anyone threatening to or actually removing episode tables on broadcast or cable show pages. Esuka (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I thought you swapped out the original source. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, you didn't do anything wrong. It was my bad for not including an edit summary. It was such a trivial thing that I didn't think anyone would notice. I do find it odd that the editor who did it made like a billion minor edits in such a small space of time. Sure they're not being disruptive but usually when an IP does that they are. Esuka (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka,

This ip address strikes again including personal attacking and hounding me. Have you encounter this ip address recently on disruptive editing? This ip address is known to be a problematic editor. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just got out from an overnight stay in hospital(Gastroenteritis), so apologies for the slow response. I haven't had any encounters with them lately but I'll keep an eye out and help when I can if I notice them being disruptive on pages I edit too. Esuka (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about your gastroenteritis. I hope you are much better now. Stay healthy! — YoungForever^(talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ip address has strikes again with disruptive editing on The Code (2019 TV series). The ip address changes the table color just because he or she wants to. It (#B60000) was fine before as it is compliant to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, what do you suggest be done? If anything they're not edit warring just yet and are marginally disruptive. Any report would obviously be asking for retroactive punishment based on their long and extensive period of warring/unplesantness. That said I'll keep the page on my watchlist. Esuka (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure since the ip address is only occasionally (temporarily, may subject to change) being disruptive for having I just don't like it attitude without any rules/guidelines to back it up to changes. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I swear the ip address seems to always creep back into TV series articles to do disruptive editing with the intention that veteran editors wouldn't notice. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They should have been banned a long time ago. How they have survived after countless warnings is nothing short of remarkable. The next time they break WP:3RR an extended block is inevitable given their history. Esuka (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This ip address finally got blocked for one month due to disruptive editing and using multiple accounts to do disruptive edits. I guessed this ip address has been doing a lot of disruptive edits lately.— YoungForever^(talk) 00:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, more so because they're playing the victim card. It was a long time coming and given their inability to change and collaborate peacefully with others a perma ban is probably on the table for them next. Esuka (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am pretty sure this ip address has been resurfaced to this ip address 161.65.221.201. As their editing patterns seem to be pretty much the same. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, they haven't really caused any issues beyond some WP:OR on some pages. If it is them they're not behaving in an overly aggressive or rude manner yet. I saw another IP that blanks their talkpage on the Star Trek Discovery talk page who was problematic but not the same person. I think some people just have fragile egos and don't like being told when they're wrong lol. Esuka (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I supposed to see in this? The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you are literally linking to the same thing four times, that's discouraged. I have also never seen that parameter used on any TV page, but seeing as you are happy to force it onto the page without discussion there's not much I can do. Esuka (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=The Guardian.". Be quiet. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the references section, you are linking to the same page four times, no one does that. It's the very definition of overlinking. Esuka (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read the part I just quoted? That's specifically says you can do that! I'm done with this. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now read the link I left on your talkpage so you can better understand my point. Oh wait you removed it because your ego is now bruised and you're resorting to uncivil remarks. You won't be missed from my talkpage. Bye. Esuka (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? I have reverted twice in less than 24 hours from disruptive editing (an ip address keep saying the series was not canceled when it was canceled with a reliable source). — YoungForever^(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though I would suggest if they do it again to report them on the vandalism board and leave another warning. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Esuka (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it gets pick up for a fourth season by a streaming service like Lucifer (TV series) did by Netflix, then editors can update with a reliable source when comes to that. But for now, Star (TV series) is still canceled. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? Clearly, one editor is disruptive editing. She repeatedly remove the Episode table just because they don't have episode summaries. According to MOS:TVEPISODELIST, episode titles, directors, writers, and released/airdate, are enough for an Episode table. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That persons attitude is horrible. If they revert again, I'll be sure to restore. Be careful not to be drawn into an edit war with them and wait until I have a chance to revert them if it comes down to that. Esuka (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you insist on presenting the episode summaries as walls of text, as you have already done twice [2] [3]. The summaries are much easier to read when different segments are presented in different paragraphs. Banana Republic (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how episode summaries are handled on Wikipedia TV project pages. I've been more than fair towards you and even informed about the discussion that had taken place on the shows talkpage. Take the hint please. Esuka (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:YoungForever#Another Life (2019 TV series). Anything you want to add? I noticed you sometimes do Reception so, you maybe familiar with this. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen their edit history? They didn't make a single edit in nine years and reappear to argue about user generated content. Very strange. Esuka (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Clearly, the editor do not seem to understand user-based content is not acceptable to use on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The editor is still not getting it, attempting to use the ignore all rules card, and keep on insisting to add the user-based reviews. The audience reviews are not on most TV series because they are not acceptable to use because they user-based which are not reliable as they are not professional critics. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'm sorry to see you have deal with nonsense like that. Esuka (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's starting to get to me. I am going to have to ignore the editor in order to remain civil. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the editor had fell off the radar again. Lol. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he'll be back in 2028 given his nine year intervals between editing lol. Esuka (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka,
Can you watch this article? An editor keep adding incorrect information of characters the article. I have reverted the editor twice already as I watch the series and even double checked. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think I see what you mean. I was planning to watch the series myself at some point too. Esuka (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally, I enjoyed watching the series. Hopefully, it gets renew for second season as there is a cliffhanger at the season finale. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix renewals are super random and hard to really predict as they don't post ratings. But hopefully things work out for the show. Esuka (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esuka,
Can you keep an eye on this? An editor keep on adding full name of a character and that's not how she is credited at all. When she was cast, she was only credited by her nickname. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Requests for comment (RfC) for Sonny Valicenti. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something that absolutely has to be changed in the article. People could always wait until its confirmed for sure. It wasn't the case. An ip address boldly changed it which was why the whole discussion started. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP editor in question has a long and extensive history of conflict on here. It's too bad some editors just can't take the hint by edit summary and needless discussions need to happen so problematic editors can be sanctioned if they decide to edit war over it. Esuka (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had gave the ip several warnings and then, he or she gave me the same warnings which is the misuse of a warning or blocking template on his or her part. The ip's edit behaviors are equivalent to 119.224.3.221. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Our Boys (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacob Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Take a look at this. It's ever-growing. The three newest additions today: AlextheWhovian, StopBrexit and Tyandi. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, thanks for this. I think you'd agree that Matt clearly has issues. There are words which are better left unsaid to describe people like him. Esuka (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the edit! The article's much better now. Can't believe such a trivial change was reverted. -- /Alex/21 14:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Alex. Kinda funny how he tried to imply I reverted him just to help you when I have a history editing that page if you look back. Your edits made the most sense and I won't be explaining myself to him further, he has no right to ask. Esuka (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Radiphus (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official CBS of Mom (TV series) [4] which says the episode title is "Audrey Hepburn and a Jalapeño Pepper", not "Popper". This is a primary source. iTunes is a secondary source. But, then you said on YouTube where the series is run by Warner Bros. Television says Popper. I honestly don't know which one is correct. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was changed at a later date by Warner Brothers to popper? Though if you feel that it should be pepper until the CBS source shows as such feel free to revert me and then change at a later date. Esuka (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe https://twitter.com/casanvar/status/1187744919345127425?s=21 ? –xeno^talk 14:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love that protomolecule reference, and I'm not sure about that source(Because he doesn't directly say the show is in production). We need one that confirms for sure that the show is in production. I felt the instagram post from Amazon Prime was a good one. Esuka (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand why some editors continuously pushing to add them when MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC explain why audience/user ratings are not appropriate to use on Wikipedia articles already. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think its just people who don't like a show attempting to push their agenda onto a page. They all read from the same script and its really quite tiresome to deal with. Esuka (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They all claim audience/user ratings can't be added because of political reasons when it is not at all. It's guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to retract your accusation of sock-puppetry from where you made it at AN:EW. You have refused,, using - at best - crap logic to support your view. Perhaps you were unaware of - you know - basic IP addressing, but a simple Google check would note that the IP 46.226.190.219 geolocates to the Isle of Man, in the UK - a bit further from my location in the Chicago metro area. Seems a bit of a commute, right?
I am going to ask you - once again - to apologize for the accusation. If you don't, I am going to insist on a checkuser to be run on myself. When it comes back as negative, I am going to immediately seek your block for making an enormously destructive accusation, as it taints any edit the user makes from that point unless they are cleared. Please do not consider this a threat; it is an absolute promise. I will not wait very long for you to respond before acting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Enormously destructive"? Don't be so dramatic. But thankyou for confirming that there's no due process on this website. I've made close to 9000 edits with not a single warning or anything from an admin and someone like you comes along and gets me blocked without giving me a chance to discuss on the area. There's only one word for that, disgusting. Esuka (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you got me blocked after 13 minutes of the topic existing. So much for allowing people the chance to response eh? Esuka (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for casting aspersions, which you were warned about — and instead doubled down on it. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me 13 minutes after a discussion was made, especially after the user who created has a long history of clashing with other editors is not a good look. Not only did you not give me a chance to respond you just straight up blocked me. But that's okay, I'm done with the senseless drama of Wikipedia and am walking away from editing here, it's not worth the hassle or my time. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go. But you cannot accuse editors of being engaged in socking. You file an Sock investigation request, instead. El_C 12:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally abused your powers by not giving me a chance to even discuss. 13 minutes of a topic existing and blocking is absurd. I've never been a problematic user here unlike the guy who created the topic. I could ping in some of the editors I've seen him clash with and you can see what I mean. Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. Esuka (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here you are doing it again. Again, you cannot accuse someone of socking, that aspersion counts as a personal attack. If you continue with these, your talk page access will be revoked. El_C 12:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what again? Am I not allowed to be horrified that an admin would ban me within 13 minutes of a topic about me being created? I don't spend my life on this website. I should have been given the chance to respond. And that "Aspersion" can be fully backed up by other editors. Many of the current Marvel pages have users who have had serious problems with him. For the record I'm not asking to be unblocked but I seriously question your judgment. Esuka (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're skirting the point. You accuse someone of socking instead of filing an SPI report. Then, when you were taken to task for making the accusation, you doubled down with more accusations. Now you even repeat the accusation yet again with a Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. That is not an acceptable manner in which conduct oneself. El_C 12:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a user within 13 minutes of a topic existing and not allowing them the chance to respond isn't an acceptable manner for an admin to act either. Is that some kind of new record? I've never even had a topic created on any admin board about me before unlike the creator. I should have at least had the chance to grace it with my presence. Why so trigger happy with the block button? Esuka (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trigger-happy, I challenge. You violated policy, it was brought to your attention, you ignored that warning and continued with the violations. I blocked you because I evaluated that it would prevent further disruption — yes, even at the cost of acting swiftly. El_C 12:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been disruptive or anything on Wikipedia, I have no history of doing so. My talkpage can confirm that. I'm a mostly ratings focused editor who has worked colaboratively with others for almost 3 years. You weren't preventing disruption, you were displaying poor judgement without hearing both sides of the story. My talkpage doesn't even have a single warning or anything from an admin. So blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego, you should be ashamed. Esuka (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting further aspersions, or your talk page access will be revoked. I will not warn you again. Anyway, the accusation was the disruption. I think you're failing to grasp that. El_C 12:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not immune from criticism, even as an admin. I would suggest you too not level accusations against me, my point was a valid one. You blocked me within 13 minutes, you had no grounds to do so. The topic I responded on was done, the admin had closed. I had no intention of even responding to it again. So blocking me to "prevent disruption" as someone who has never even been in trouble before today has no basis in reality. If you are revoking my talkpage access it just shows you can not handle people telling you that you were wrong. Esuka (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to bring my decision up for review in any forum you see fit, including but not limited to an unblock request. El_C 13:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made. I would never have a fair hearing. But let's not drag this out, I'm just staggered that someone could even think that blocking someone like me who has never had a block or a warning because a stray comment hurt someones ego is good judgement. Congrats I guess? Esuka (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You minimize. That's a serious accusation, which you have made repeatedly (even here, in this very conversation). Again, that is disruptive. Anyway, you have a rather low opinion of the prospective admin who would review such an unblock request, an opinion which I maintain is unfounded. El_C 13:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can not handle people telling you that your judgement was shockingly poor, kindly leave. To even think that blocking a user who has never been problematic ANYWHERE on this website before the little drama earlier is good judgement is absurdly bad decision making. I have a right to express my concerns and thoughts on your actions. Esuka (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle it. But I will not permit you to repeatedly accuse other editors of socking, even after it was brought to your attention that it was inappropriate and disruptive. El_C 13:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're deflecting, my thoughts for the past oh half hour have been on your actions as admin. And "brought to my attention" that's hilarious. Consider from my point of view, the person refuting my claims has had more Wikipedia drama than I have had edits here. I'm not going to apologize for not taking him seriously. I'm well aware of how he interacts with other editors here, I was tempted to jump into one of dozens of discussions about his behavior over the years as I don't agree with it. Not one admin told me to walk back my comments before your little trigger happy block. Esuka (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to apologize — you just needed to stop from making the accusation again. Which you didn't. Hence, the block. And that is incorrect, EdJohnston had already issued such a caution (diff). El_C 13:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check the timestamps of the posts on the discussion, my posts were made HOURS BEFORE Edjohnson even made his. I was asleep when his posts were made, and the post about me on the admin board was even opened. So how could I violate a warning if I was asleep? Esuka (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless when it was made, it shows that another admin also considered your accusation to be an aspersion. No, the warning came from the user to whom you made the accusation. They asked for an apology, which you were not obliged to give. But you were obliged to stop from leveling the accusation again, which you failed to do. Again, hence the block. El_C 13:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You said I violated a warning made by another admin which I did not(And used that as a basis to block). I made the posts several hours before Edjohnson made his. I have violated no warning, so you have accused me of doing something which I have not. Is this a new Wikipedia policy to block users without warnings? Wikipedia policy clearly states you should not block without giving users a warning first. The only action should have been to make me aware of Edjohnsons warning and allowing me a chance to respond. Esuka (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said I violated a warning made by another admin — I did not say that. Again, the warning came from the editor who was the target of your repeated accusations of socking. You chose to ignore that warning and continued with the accusations, even right here in this very conversation. Sorry, but that reflects poorly on you. El_C 13:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly stated "Edjohnson had already given you a caution" that should have been the end of it. Instead you took it upon yourself to block me knowing I had not made a single post for hours before the discussion was made. You're essentially overriding another admins judgement against me. Which again is shockingly poor judgement. Esuka (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misquote me. I said EdJohnston had already issued such a caution. I didn't specify the when. El_C 13:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be pedantic. The judgment against me had been made, that should have been the end of it. I have no history of blocks or any warnings and you can view my talkpage history to confirm that. So overriding EdJohnstons caution and blocking me within 13 minutes of someone opening an admin discussion about me is disgusting. I don't deserve that. Esuka (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly something you can bring up in an unblock request. El_C 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's disappointing that you can't see that your actions were wrong. I have never caused any issues to deserve being blocked within 13 minutes of a discussion about me being opened. So someone had a bruised ego? Right. Indefinite block for me eh? Again I was cautioned, that should have been the end of it. At the very least someone could have made me aware of that instead of blocking me. That's double punishment for making Jack Sebastian upset. Esuka (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was every indication that you were going to continue with the socking accusations. And, indeed, you have. In this very conversation, even. El_C 14:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the topic was marked by Edjohnson as "closed" when he made his initial post shortly after I last commented. That to me was the end of it and I had no reason to return. I have always respected things like that, if an admin says something is closed, it's closed. The only thing left was for the discussion to be archived. But along came the trigger happy admin to block me before I could even see for myself that there was a follow up post by Edjohnston to tell me that my behavior was unacceptable. Thanks for that. Esuka (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in this very conversation, you reiterated the accusation by saying Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. Those accusations have no place on Wikipedia outside from the designated SPI request. El_C 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making assumptions about me with no basis in reality. You don't know the first thing about me yet here you are making claims that I would continue a line of thought even after an admin marked a topic as closed. I have no history of doing this. You never even gave me the chance to explain myself or my reasoning either before blocking. Just to recap, I have been cautioned hours after my posts and I have been blocked too. That's two punishments for the high crimes of upseting Jack Sebastian. A bit excessive no? Esuka (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a personal attack → You were warned against doing so again → You continued to make the same personal attack → You were blocked for a short duration. El_C 14:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I made a deliberately vague comment implying that I thought he may be socking, he asked if I was accusing him, I said yes. I left the topic after Edjohnston marked as closed. I wake up today to discover that not only have I recieved a caution for my actions, I have also been blocked too. That's TWO punishments for upseting someones ego. The right course of action for any competent admin would have been to let Edjohnstons caution stand and make me aware of it on my talkpage. Instead you blocked me within 13 minutes of a topic being made about me and prevented me from defending myself before acting. Your reasoning that I would continue to be "disruptive" has no basis in reality. Esuka (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am forced to repeat myself, because my points remain unaddressed by you. You were warned and you ignored that warning, opting to continue with the attacks. Even in this very conversation. El_C 14:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the right cause of action for any competent admin would have been..." -- this seems to imply El_C is not competent. As I am not them, I'm not sure about the reasoning, but you actually did continue to be disruptive by continuing the accusations, so it kind of worked. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 14:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't warned by an admin. I was warned by a known problematic user who has since gone onto Edjohnstons page and called me an "unapologetic jerkoff" see [5] Good job with banning me based on his word, I trust you'll be banning him too for personal attacks right? Esuka (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can issue warnings to other editors to refrain from attacks. It does not need to come from an admin, per se. And Jack Sebastian did go back to strikethrough their inappropriate comments. El_C 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only after being made aware by Edjohnston that he would be banned for personal attacks. But the fact is he made them and he made personal attacks against Sebastian James on the admin topic I responded on. He has made numerous personal attacks within the past 24 hours yet he escapes without a single warning or punishment. Esuka (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their personal attacks were regrettable, but they were in response to and he was upset because of the serious accusations made by you. And Jack Sebastian recognized they were wrong in that by strikingthrough the offensive comments. El_C 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't striked through any comments on Edjohnstons page, I'm still an "unapologetic jerkoff" apparently. And the excuse that he was "upset" is ridiculous. You don't go aiming abusive comments at other users if they upset you, that's very childish and shows that someone may have issues. You're allowing him to get away with abusive remarks while keeping me banned. So I think we're done here. Esuka (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean comments such as blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego? El_C 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on topic. Why should Jack Sebastian escape a ban for making abusive comments about me and Sebastian James. Being "upset" isn't a reason. Enforce your rules correctly, he has broken then. Esuka (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point irony as I see fit. And at least Jack Sebastian attempted to self-correct, which is more than I could say about you. El_C 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You never gave me the chance to discuss my actions on the topic created by Jack Sebastian. Instead you blocked me within 13 minutes of it being made. Perhaps I should have called him an "unapologtic jerkoff" as that doesn't seem to be a bannable offense here right? You don't seem eager to warn or block him for saying it. Esuka (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were already given that chance when Jack Sebastian asked you to stop accusing him of socking. But rather than self-correcting, you doubled down. El_C 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled down? I made two comments and a third admittedly I mocked his outrage. I was done with that discussion and had moved on. I would have been happy to accept Edjohnstons judgement as admittedly I did overstep in the end. Instead I got hit with two sanctions for my actions which is excessive. Esuka (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this conversation feels circular at this point. Please feel free to launch an unblock request. I reiterate that your view that it would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made, is unfounded. El_C 15:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about unfounded comments you have made plenty about me. I don't believe I would get a fair hearing and still don't. It doesn't look good on you as an admin to block me based on the word of an editor who has since gone on to make abusive statements about me. I would love to see the rules applied here fairly which they're clearly not. Esuka (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi El_C I understand that Esuka did not respond optimally, but probably no one does when being blocked for the first time. Is it possible you had misread the timeline? From what QEDK and Esuka are saying, Esuka had been warned and had not repeated their comments following that warning? I'm hoping that with some agreement that a different tack could have been taken, we might be able to retain this editor. –xeno^talk 01:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your willingness to go out on a limb for Esuka, Xenothe issue is not his edit-warring (though that is mostly what he was blocked for). His interactions with others well before his block are cause for concern, and his retirement now is very much like someone deciding to take their ball and go home when they don't get their way. The fellow has been here for over two years; they know what CIVIL and NPA are, and they tossed it out a window. If they want to throw a tantrum and quit, we might be better off without them. begging them to reconsider only serves to reinforce the behavior that saw them blocked. They even considered it a "slap on the wrists" that they can just shrug off. I would argue that Esuka knows what the rules are before any warning are issued.

If Esuka comes back, it has to be on their own steam and accepting that accusing folk of socking and other acts of rudeness has consequences. Judging from their own comments here, they don't seem to accept that. If they aren't going to try to be better, we are better off without them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey esuka, just reaching out to suggest you simply withdraw your allegation of multiple account misuse and agree not to repeat it. probably you could be unblocked at that point, as a block would no longer serve any preventative purpose. –xeno^talk 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou but I'm done with editing Wikipedia. The very person who got me blocked has since gone on to make abusive remarks about me and has escaped punishment. I can't possibly continue to edit here when rules are applied so selectively. I wasn't even given the chance to respond on the topic made about me either. Esuka (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would be unfortunate - I value your contributions. I can understand your frustration at being blocked without the chance to respond. I haven't looked into anything beyond your talk page which was on my watchlist. I'm just suggesting that walking things back might be helpful to calm tensions. –xeno^talk 15:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't. I've done nothing to deserve this treatment. Sure I did overstep a little but you know, we all make mistakes. That said there's a few editors out there that cover ratings so I won't be missed lol. Esuka (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d miss you. Maybe step away for a minute, come back with a fresh perspective. Sending legitimately salvaged coffee your way. –xeno^talk 15:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, its appreciated. I'm probably wasting my time doing this but I'm disputing the reasoning behind the block on the discussion area. Esuka (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, bud. Miss your work for WP:TV! If you're still monitoring your page, maybe think about making it a wikibreak instead of a retirement? I had a three month break from editing last year, best thing I've ever done, I came back completely refreshed. All the best with everything else you set your mind to.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to advocate for you to come back to named-account editing, but ultimately it's your choice. Happy trails. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Amaury • 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]