Talk:Vaush

New support for his relevance

Where we are today I think there is a clear argument for Vaush's relevance.

First of all, there is a valid concern that not having an article on him would be a form of bias, as many of his contemporaries like Destiny and Hasan Piker have their own articles, and by numbers Vaush is one of the largest left-wing streamers, behind only the previously mentioned Hasan, so in terms of leftist politics he is absolutely relevant.

Vaush appeared at the freer future fest as a speaker, and on their Speakers page he is listed placed right behind Destiny and right before presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen. Yahoo finance covered the event and referred to him as a famous streamer

Just today, Tim Pool referred to Vaush and Piker as two of the most prominent progressive personalities on the internet. This was while covering the twitch ban of the two, and several other news sources have mentioned Vaush in the same breath as Piker while covering this as well. Once again, Hasan Piker has his own article and news coverage seems to see them as similar in importance.

Also of note is that Vaush had a very high-profile debate with one of the internet's largest right-wing media personalities, Charlie Kirk (activist) on Tim Pool's showhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fan

I feel like the decision that he isn't relevant was correct earlier this year but especially in the last couple of months Vaush's profile has risen significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBotSO (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how to add links, but I would also argue that his charity streams and their success also add to his relevance as a public figure. Not everyone can raise $300,000+ in 24 hours. TeaTimeTravesty (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Potential vandalism problems?

Vaush is a controversial and contentious figure online. It hasn't even been two days since the article was approved, and we've already had one vandalism, which, admittedly, isn't a whole lot, and in fact, could have been a lot worse. I can see the page getting bogged down in editing wars and aforementioned vandalism and allegations and accusations and whatnot. I'm thinking we should probably semi-protect the page, at least? He has a fairly notable anti-fanbase, which I could see being a problem for this page, what with it being a BLP and all.

If we can't get this page semi-protected (to protect it from vandalism), may I suggest at least making sure every editor is aware of WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:LIBEL? — Sqwyd (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

yeah lock it, sorry about that, i couldnt resist — Preceding unsigned comment added by RifTaf (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it was hours before the article was first vandalized, and even this vandalism is quite minor. I emailed him last night and literally asked him to not tell his audience about this page... and yet he did ;w;. I'd wait until the people who dislike him start vandalizing before going to WP:RFP. SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Just ban User:Mouthyinfadel from editing, simple as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenfreak (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

None of my additions have been vandalism in the slightest. Every addition I've made has been sourced, repairing broken English on the page, or removing clear bias. MouthyInfidel (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind showing some examples of your edits removing clear bias? Sqwyd (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind utilizing the view history feature and looking at the ones labeled "removed bias" by MouthyInfidel? 68.184.136.115 (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why has any mention of history with sexual harassment been erased? Seems incredibly like a pro-Vaush article. Whatisanapple (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As this is a biography of a living person, Wikipedia has fairly stringent rules on what can and cannot be added to such a page. I strongly recommend checking WP:BLPPUBLIC and nearby sections in particular. Of particular note:

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Chaonautical (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Seriously? It is not just an "allegation" and it is verified by even the subject HIMSELF. Give me a fucking break. 184.145.63.76 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If it fits the level of documentation required per WP:BLPPUBLIC, then feel free to collect multiple, reliable, third-party sources documenting the incident and write it up. If the citations are good and the text fits the rest of the WP:BLP guidelines, it should stay up. Chaonautical (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Strange undos for statements unfavorable to Vaush.

After citing a video in which Vaush says he's a communist in one of the additions to this page, and adding "Communist" to his list of political views, it was removed by 9563rj without the user reviewing the source linked. Here it is: Video on YouTube

Good idea to keep this page locked, since it seems like pro-Vaush bias was extreme beforehand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MouthyInfidel (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You timestamped said video to a portion where he is simply stating that immigration is good. If he claims that he is a communist, please timestamp to the proper place in the video. 9563rj (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. Primary sources are not necessarily reliable and/or notable enough for inclusion. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The part where he says "As a communist I want people to be better off" was included within 2 minutes of the original timestamp, and within seconds of the one linked here, 9563rj. You didn't do your due diligence, in the slightest, before removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MouthyInfidel (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing a several hour long video with the intended portion to view minutes away from a timestamp able to jump to any specific second is incredibly lazy sourcing. Forgive me for the assumption that that was either intentionally misleading or claiming that pro-immigration is communism. 9563rj (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Protip: Open up the transcript for the video on youtube, type "ctrl-f communist" and look at approximately the timestamped portion if 90 seconds of watchtime is too long for you. MouthyInfidel (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's ambiguous whether such edits are pro-Vaush or not. Vaush is a rather contentious figure in the online left, and many people who identify with the label "Communist" would not like him associated with themselves. Plus, given that he's part of the online left, and that Vaush has previously identified as a communist, I doubt his community would consider the label "unfavorable" ThereIsNoEllie (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaush's content is not "aimed at young white men"

The line at the top of the article states that vaush's content is aimed at young white men. This information is incorrect, and does not appear in any of the cited referenced. Furthermore it is directly contradicted by a paragraph further down which states:

 Kochinski has aimed to create an inclusive community and has comparatively high proportions of women, and gay and trans people in his audience.

This is the correct information, and is supported by citation 4. --852derek852 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The source is the Independent article. Maybe the wording can be changed so that it doesn't imply that he aims his content solely at young white men, but I think that the type of content he makes (more edgy than other leftist content creators) has absolutely been geared towards young men (and this is backed up in the sources), and I think this is an important aspect of his channel that should be reflected in the lead. Perhaps Kochinski opposes the online right, and has attempted to deradicalize young white men from the alt-right by utilizing techniques widespread in the left-wing BreadTube community whilst maintaining an inclusive community. is better? What do you think 852derek852, and what do other editors think? Alduin2000 (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually purchased a subscription to the independent for this. The quote about "insecure white men" refers to the audience of streaming platforms such as youtube and twitch, not Vaush's audience. It is also directly contradicted by this quote from the article:

"One consistent criticism put to streamers is that the majority of their audience tend to be male. This reflects the nature of the platforms’ demographics: 62 per cent of YouTube viewers are male, 65 per cent of Twitch. Vaush recognizes this and wants to change it: “I think I do relatively well with incorporation of women. Which I’m proud of because I am a very shouty man, and I do appeal to masculine tendencies … but I have a lot of trans viewers, a lot of them are gay. You can tell this from polling and from the memes that come out of my community. I’m proud of this because something that characterizes the online right is an absolute abject cruelty to trans people.”

I do appreciate the work you (Alduin2000) have put into this article, just want to make sure all of the information is correct--852derek852 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Brain fart moment Alduin2000 yes, your rephrased version is good--852derek852 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

April Fools'

I believe we should edit the article to state that Vaush lives in Vaushington State for April Fools... Okay, I will see myself out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdalwinAmillion (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaush Pronounciation

User:Alduin2000 made a great point about removing the weird pronunciations for the word Vaush, I have since added the correct one. However, joke pronunciations such as /vaʊʃ/ or /vuːʃ/ have, while being incorrect from Vaush's standpoint and used as a joke, become pretty common when referring to him. Shouldn't we still offer those as alternatives in the article? AdalwinAmillion (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:PRONUNCIATION, "Less important pronunciations should be omitted altogether, relegated to a footnote, or to a dedicated section in the article or infobox." Personally, I think these other pronunciations are unimportant enough to be omitted. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: Regarding the primary pronunciation listed in the article, I believe the correct pronunciation should use the vowel /ɑː/ (which was previously displayed before the removal of the excess pronunciations), as opposed to /ɔː/. To my knowledge, /ɔː/ is an uncommon vowel in General American that typically only occurs before r and l. So just from that standpoint, I would think it is incorrect. What is your reasoning for believing it is /ɔː/? – atomic𓅊7732 20:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this as I don't know much about the IPA symbols, but when I hover over /ɔː/ in the article, it says that it is the same sound as the "au" in "fraud". I think this is fairly commonly used even in words where it is not followed by an r or l; fraud is a perfect example actually. If you watch videos by Vaush or others in which they pronounce the name Vaush, the "au" in Vaush is pronounced in the same way as the "au" in fraud, so I think /ɔː/ should be right. On the other hand, hovering over /ɑː/ shows that this is pronounced in the same way as the "a" in "father", but this doesn't seem to be the way I've seen anyone pronounce the "au" in "Vaush". Alduin2000 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

After trying to read up a bit more on dialects and the cot-caught merger, I think I found my issue with it. For me, the vowels in "fraud" and "father" are pronounced the same. Apparently, General American still has a degree of separation of the two vowels, especially in the eastern part of the US. I speak something closer to Western American English in which the merger is much more complete and I had assumed previously this was more widespread. Apparently in a broader phonemic transcription it is still /ɔː/, though I personally realize the vowel as [ɑ], and while I don't have a recording of Vaush pronouncing it himself on hand to determine whether he does as well, I would hazard to guess that, growing up on the west coast, that is probably how he realizes it as well. However, after referring to MOS:PRONUNCIATION I see that the broad transcription of /ɔː/ is the right choice encyclopedically. Wikipedia learning moment. – atomic𓅊7732 03:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I found a recording where he uses [ɑ]; of course, the link is blacklisted, but if you go to Youtube and add "watch?v=FXK6XUXxQK4" after the ".com/", you can find the example

And given that it's a made-up word, I don't see any basis to assume that the [ɑ] represents some underlying phonemic /ɔː/. It's not like /ɑ/ doesn't also exist as a phoneme. If anything, /ɔː/ is misleading as a representation of how the name is pronounced by the person who created and goes by that name. Chofam (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, he says his name at the 0:28 mark in the video. Chofam (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Atomic7732, what do you think about this? I haven't read through MOS:PRONUNCIATION properly. Do you think /ɔː/ is still right encyclopedically if Vaush's dialect shows the cot-caught merger? Alduin2000 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede

The following is hagiographic POV nonsense which should be removed from the lead (see [1]): "Kochinski opposes the online right, and has attempted to deradicalize young white men from the alt-right by utilizing techniques widespread in the left-wing BreadTube community whilst maintaining an inclusive community."

There is little if anything that is genuinely inclusive about Vaush.

107.122.161.53 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

He has been in multiple debates against know right wing figures like Sargon and Charlie Kirk.

He regularly speaks about one of his initial goals when starting his channel being de-radicalization. Offering an alternate to all the right-wing streamers. Though I will say I don't see the methods widely used in breadtube.

To my knowledge he has not shared his channel demographics but based on the chat there are quite a few minority members and he rarely bans people for anything other than video game spoilers.

TeaTimeTravesty (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, potentially libelous statements

I was just looking over the version history and noticed several entries by User:ShanGuy37 that are containing poorly sourced and potentially libelous statements in regards to Vaush's political opinions. Would that not warrant a RevDel? AdalwinAmillion (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"The Kharkiv kid finder" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Kharkiv kid finder and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#The Kharkiv kid finder until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ––FormalDude talk 06:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

Hi FormalDude, just wondering which sources you think are unreliable in the article? Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Citations 3, 10, 18, and 26. ––FormalDude talk 03:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That they're WP:SPSs? You could have tagged them individually with {{SPS}} rather than tagging the page without providing an explanation. SWinxy (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Also citation 2 is student media (WP:RSSM) and citation 29 is WP:NEWSWEEK. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

sigh. So yes? The policies you linked to don't support the notion that they are inherently unreliable. The sources from student media are questions on notability, not on reliability. On Newsweek, Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. Newsweek in this case is reliable. SWinxy (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The standing consensus is that student media is generally unreliable. This Newsweek article is far from being an exception to the standard, it's actually the type of content Newsweek was depreciated for: mediocre clickbait 'journalism'. ––FormalDude talk 05:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSSM, "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community." The student media source is currently being used to make a claim about their school or local community, specifically that a specific person is/was a student of that school. Source 3 is a primary source but the statement it is sourcing is also supported by a reliable secondary source so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Also, it should be said that it is clearly a reliable source for the information it is being cited for. Reliability is distinct from whether a source is primary; in principle you could have a reliable primary source, but then you face the question of whether what the source says is notable enough for inclusion. But as I say, here we have a secondary source to support the claim anyway. Source 10 is a primary source but is currently being used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. The same is true of source 18. For 26, see WP:Interviews. 26 clearly falls more on the side of a primary source, but it was conducted by a recognised journalist who is independent of Vaush, it was published by that journalist (not by Vaush), and the subject of the interview is Vaush's own political beliefs, so this seems to fall under WP:ABOUTSELF too. For the primary sources, the question of inclusion seems to be one of due weight rather than reliability, so the tag I think is in error if it is being used for these sources. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the Newsweek article. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to address the primary sources issue, and I have removed the Newsweek sentence. ––FormalDude talk 05:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to push back on the removal of the Newsweek article. Newsweek has never been deprecated. Since the last discussion in November 2019, the noticeboard classifies it as neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable. The content of the article is not clickbait--it's not misleading or exaggerating. It may be a bit tabloid-y, but there is nothing wrong with its inclusion for a singular sentence. SWinxy (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK states very clearly post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. And Wikipedia is not a tabloid. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry FormalDude for even more questions, but I'm unclear why you think the Focus source fails to verify the paragraph it is supporting? Thanks for any clarification. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Originally I tagged it as unsourced, but then you removed that tag claiming it was sourced by the citation at the end of the paragraph. So I read that article and I do not think the sentence "A debate between Kochinski and Charlie Kirk hosted by Tim Pool on August 4, 2021 sparked controversy on the internet forum 4chan due to members of the website's community perceiving Kirk as having had a poor performance in the debate" is accurate or verifiable. ––FormalDude talk 02:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ok. Which part of the sentence do you think is not supported? Clearly the fact that they had a debate is verified by the article, and that that debate was hosted by Tim Pool. So what about the claim that the debate stirred controversy on 4chan and that the controversy was due to a perception that Charlie Kirk performed poorly? I think the following quotes support those parts of the sentence:

The stream caused upset among some members of the 4chan community

and

There are those who appreciated the debate, calling it “awesome” and “level headed”. [...] However, it appears to have riled certain members of the 4chan community.

and under the section called "What did 4chan have to say about the debate?"

The qualm of those complaining appears to be that Charlie Kirk was insufficiently challenging. Instead, 4chan users called on each other to “keep spamming Nick Fuentes in the chat”.

—Alduin2000 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This would be more accurate: A debate between Kochinski and Charlie Kirk hosted by Tim Pool on August 4, 2021 caused upset among some members of the internet forum 4chan. ––FormalDude talk 16:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That would fail to include the was insufficiently challenging aspect of the last quote. Holzklöppel (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Unban from Twitch

(Disclosure: I have a Conflict of Interest regarding this article (Explanation))

Information that may be pertinent is that Vaush has very recently been unbanned from Twitch again, however I am not sure whether this is something that can be reliably sourced, and whether it at all is necessary to mention, so I'd like to see what others think, it's up everyone else whether it's necessary to add. Inkublu ❤ (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It indeed appears he is unbanned. Anyone have objections to adding a little note about it? SWinxy (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is very biased and basically does not allow any negative information about his (self-admitted) history of sexual harassment or transphobia

It is clearly written in a very self-serving manner and ignores his admitted history of sexual harassment, his transphobia, and other criticisms of him. Any attempts to make it unbiased has resulted in locking the page. I think it should be deleted because it’s functionally useless and gets astroturfed by his discord and subreddit every time a vote is held or an unbiased change is made. 184.145.63.76 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These things are not covered because they are not covered by reliable secondary sources and are therefore either unverifiable or unimportant aspects of Vaush as an encyclopedic topic. Various criticisms of Vaush are currently included in the article under the reception section. If you think that the article is excluding an important criticism, you are free to provide reliable secondary sources here on the talk page and changes will be made to the article to reflect these sources. If you think that the article is not written from a neutral point of view, please point out some specific changes so that they can be discussed and possibly used to improve the article. A deletion discussion was recently conducted and resulted in no consensus to delete, even amongst those not "astroturfed" from his community, so it is unlikely to be deleted any time soon. You can see the discussion here. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion someone even linked a thread from reddit where his fans were rallying supporting during the deletion vote, which obviously points to astroturfing.

The sexual harassment is admitted by him in a video that is sources in this very article. How is that "unreliable"? Also, many of the main editors of this article keep switching back the 'sexual harassment' time stamp on that label to "poppy controversy" clearly an attempt to hide the truth. 184.145.63.76 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying there was some astroturfing, I'm saying that even amongst those not astroturfed, there was no consensus to delete. That was the opinion of the closing uninvolved admin anyway, and seems to be reasonable conclusion based on the discussion in totality. The source you point to is primary, not secondary, and there hasn't been broad coverage of the allegations in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia does not take major accusations lightly; per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." If you can provide appropriate sources, then the allegation will be included. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The article itself has a TAG that signals it "heavily relies on primary sources" so I am not sure what the issue is in having one more primary source. It is not a "major accusation" -- he has admitted to it and he even discusses it in a video LINKED AS A SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE (citation 10).

And even if a journalists does publish a third-party source on this subject matter, you will smear it as unreliable I am sure, because the page is being edited by Vaush fans. 184.145.63.76 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A tag indicating that the article uses too many primary sources is not an argument to use more primary sources in contravention of Wikipedia policies. Personally, I think that the current usage of primary sources in the article is justifiable as they are used only to flesh out information on things that are already covered in secondary sources. Either way, "What about other content?" is generally not a very good argument. Please assume good faith; if you have reliable secondary sources on this then provide them and they will be incorporated into the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

the page is being edited by Vaush fans. See WP:STEWARDSHIP: editors who are active on a particular article are more likely than not people who have a personal interest in said topic or knowledgeable on that topic. If you have specific changes you'd like to make, be specific ensure it is supported by independent and reliable sources. SWinxy (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion someone even linked a thread from reddit where his fans were rallying supporting during the deletion vote, which obviously points to astroturfing. I linked to said thread. There was clear disruption on that AfD discussion (from both keeps and deletes), and it's important to be aware of campaigns like that for closers and regular editors. That was the most hectic AfD I've ever seen, but the closer is the one who makes the final^-ish decision--it's not a vote. Having it astroturfed doesn't indicate the debate is invalid. SWinxy (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Should be deleted

It is especially biased when you consider that details that are relatively unsourced like him getting unbanned from twitch are allowed to be added, but details such as his self admitted sexual harassment are removed regardless of the sources added (including his own videos which are added on the page as sources for other material).

This page should 100% be assessed by someone higher up for bias. Not sure who the person responsible for the page is but the editors are using terms like “VDS” which is obviously something only used in the Vaush community (clearly Vaush fans). Also recently, he had a stream which he detailed how he is trying to “build a fortress” to “rewrite” the bad narratives of him. It’s obvious that this is part of the attempt to rewrite the public narrative of him and therefore needs to be assessed accordingly. Right now it is too glowing for a character who is mired with controversy.

If his controversies are not allowed on this page like they are for actually well known streamers (Contrapoints for example) then it’s obvious this is just a fluff piece his fans are writing for PR and therefore should be marked for deletion. This is obviously part of his “Vaush Fortress” campaign (Google it for clips) where he discusses “rewriting the narrative online”. This Wikipedia page is clearly a part of that plan 2605:B100:11A:2429:61F6:6FE:446D:B37E (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@2605:B100:11A:2429:61F6:6FE:446D:B37E I agree that, at the very least, there should be both a "Reception" section and a "Controversies" section, aligning it with other Wiki pages about controversial figures. There is a definable difference between general reception to his online presence, views, and debates with notable figures, and past issues with his behaviour/statements which people have taken issue with. Cdanychuk (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@2605:B100:11A:2429:61F6:6FE:446D:B37E These claims are being removed because they go against Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' policies (see: WP:BLP), most notably WP:BLPCRIME.

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Even if he has admitted these himself, it has not been taken to a court of law, and thus, is innocent under the law, and therefore, these claims do not belong in the article. That said, if you want this article to be deleted, Wikipedia has such facilities to allow you to submit deletion requests for articles (see: WP:AFD). Do note, however, the current iteration of this page has been nominated for deletion before, however, nothing came out of that, so the page has been allowed to remain.

While I very much doubt you're on Wikipedia to write about personal grudges against other people (WP:AGF), I would like to remind you of WP:BATTLEGROUND; Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal goals. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! sqwyd (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of people who have not been convicted in a court of law but have admitted to sexual harassment have wikipedia sections devoted to their allegations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Thanks :) 184.145.63.76 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Without reliable secondary sources or coverage on the harassment, we can NOT include them under WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for attributed controversial statements. While Vaush admitting to sexual harassment could be marked as an attributed controversial statement within the context of a section already rife with quality sources, there are no secondary sources to justify creating a new section about the harassment in the first place. Cadenrock1 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Vaush is NOT as notable as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. You are deluding yourself if you think his allegations are anywhere NEAR the size and scope of Bill Clinton's or Donald Trump's. They are not, and that is an objective fact, proven by the fact that a) literally everyone knows these presidents have done awful things while at the same time, everyone knows who they are, and b) these people having entire PAGES dedicated for their allegations. Good day. sqwyd (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal Life

I think if you are to include Vaush's pansexuality, it would also be relevant to state he's semi-polyamorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukeboxjoints (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jukeboxjoints do you know where he said this (either on one of his livestreams or on a tweet)? May or might not be worthy to note polyamorous. lmk. SWinxy (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit proposal

the "Early life" section in the article is not properly capitalized. It should read "Early Life". Because I can not fix this by myself, I'm asking someone who can to please do so. MikelAx7 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:HEADINGS, section headings are formatted in sentence case. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent treatment of sources

My contribution was removed due to the sources being YouTube links. There are still YouTube links being used as sources in the article. What's up with that? Santiago Arderíus (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Whats up with that: this article is being brigaded by Vaush fans and basically has a highly favourable and biased pro-Vaush slant. Anything that is even remotely critical gets removed for bullshit "bad sources" reasons, meanwhile the article is full of bad sources and misquotes/misattributions lol 184.145.63.76 (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you point to the parts of the article that are bad sources and misquotes/misattributions? AdalwinAmillion (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)