Talk:Vaush/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sourcing

I’d like to preface this by saying that I still think this article is a bad idea, but perhaps recent events have lead to more consistent sourcing to prove notability. However, I still believe the sources in this article rely too heavily on controversy (specifically the one regarding pride), which I worry might give the article a tabloid-esque slant. For the record I do think some of the criticisms are absolutely reasonable, but a heavy emphasis on them in the article without more broad information could be interpreted as a hit piece. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Still not notable

I still don't think that Vaush is notable, sorry. I don't see any recent sources that give significant coverage of Vaush.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, seeing the same problem. And most of the sources present do not deal with the subject directly, only mentioning them in passing. Eik Corell (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Vaush's name

I don't know Vaush's name. And I still don't because this article doesn't include it. --162.193.95.222 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

From WP:BLPPRIVACY: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

Vaush's name has not been widely published in reliable sources. In fact, almost all the sources we have don't publish his name at all. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaush has openly given his name and it can be assumed that he does not object to the details being made public. SWinxy (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@SWinxy: Do you have a link? Alduin2000 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2021 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

With all due respect, you should try asking for feedback on your edits instead of complaining about them always being reverted. sqwyd (talk) 08:03, 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)

The issue is that this is pretty difficult to find actual sources for, despite being something brought up multiple times by him. Inkublu ❤ (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

I would like to change the ipa pronounciation from the seemingly RP (/vɔːʃ/) to the more accurate (due to the fact he is, in fact, american) GA /vɑːʃ/, change vɔːʃ to vɑːʃ Ovinr (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. For a previous discussion on this, see Talk:Vaush/Archive 1#Vaush Pronounciation. The transcription ended up the way it is due to MOS:PRONUNCIATION's guidance that "broad transcriptions" should be used as they are "intended to provide a correct interpretation regardless of the reader's accent". However, the discussion did fizzle out before it was fully resolved so more discussion on this to change consensus or solidify that things should be kept as they are might be useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

I would like to add to the personal life section. I want to include that Kochinski has a Sphynx cat named Pigeon and an orange tabby cat named Artemy Luffymatt327 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts - Contrapoints

Why is Contrapoints mentioned as an associated act with Vaush? As far as I know both of them had like two short streams together and then some fallout in early 2022 on Twitter. Does this really count as associated? Or am I missing somthing here? FlocciNivis (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed all the associated acts that aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article per the infobox purpose which is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Alduin2000 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 October 2022

Change "Kochinski is a controversial figure online" to "Online, Kochinski is seen as a controversial figure". This is a relatively minor copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.125.20 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)  Done 3mi1y (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Add detail to Personal Life.

One of Kochanski's favorite drinks is a vodka cranberry. (See Midterm Stream from Nov 8, 2022 3 hours in he starts chugging.) TheNadeFace (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Needs a "controversies" section

Many other streamers, (Contrapoints is an example), have controversy sections even for relatively smaller controversies than he has had. From controversies over his use slurs, to having a history of sexual abuse allegations, if he is noteworthy and worth having an article about, then his controversies are just as much so, especially given how often they precede him online. I'm not sure why there's so much pushback to such a benign suggestion here; the controversies behind him are wildly known inside his fandom and even among many who are simply passively aware of his existence online. I for one don't see the problem in noting what is already known to most here. Cheeseywiz98 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why add a controversies section when his controversies are already adequately covered in the current reception section? Alduin2000 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not at all, in the slightest, true that his controversies are adequately covered in the reception section. How do you claim to know that his controversies are all already covered, exactly? Are you a fan of Vaush by any chance? 67.235.161.10 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this comes off nasty, but it's simply not true to claim the controversies have been adequately covered and it's strange that you seem so certain that they are. Chemreac (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I direct you to User:sqwyd's response to Should be deleted. Inkublu ❤ (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the reception section describes negative reactions/controversy, I feel like renaming the section to "Controversies" would be appropriate. Additionally that section's first sentence may be worth including in the lead as well. aismallard (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aismallard: Having a reception section that describes both positive and negative reactions is generally seen as far preferable to a section solely dedicated to controversies, which may undermine NPOV (see WP:STRUCTURE). Alduin2000 (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This Page Desperately Needs a Separate Controversies Section as Well as Additions to the Reception Section

Full disclosure that I was formerly a fan of Vaush and am now of longer a fan of Vaush. That being said this wikipedia page objectively leaves out numerous serious controversies about Vaush that are very obviously verifiable and yet go completely unstated anywhere in the page, which is incredibly disturbing. Firstly, this: (4) Vaush is obsessed with paedophilia and child porn (updated masterpost) [TW: Pedophilia] : Enough_Vaush_Spam (reddit.com) This absolutely, it goes without saying, must be included.

Secondly, there isn't a single mention of Vaush's relation to Poppy, a person who he admitted to sexually harrassing for years over discord. There is so much evidence of this and his subsequent cover-up and attempts to gall her into silence, and yet, surreally, it isn't mentioned a single time. There is a google docs masterpost with the chronology of everything that happened but I can't find it at the moment.

Thirdly, more minorly, no criticisms of Vaush's politics from the left are contained here, either. You could cite videos by other leftist online creators challenging Vaush's views, specifically anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, some Democratic Socialisits, as well as other Marxists. These critics include Professor Flowers, Noah Samsen, JohntheDuncan, Bad Mouse, Xexizy, FellowTraveler, Socialism For All, Hakim and BadEmpanada.

I suggest there be a 'controversies' section, with the first two issues put in that section, while issues like criticism from a politics perspective are put in the 'reception' section. 67.235.161.10 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding information that is basically the opinion of Redditors to a Wikipedia article is not welcomed here, or on any other page, nor do Wikipedia pages want a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crucially, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources (WP:SPS). SWinxy (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not just the opinion of redditors. If you went to the link, it is a collection of pictures and links of Vaush himself saying things. You could also mention these things while just citing the original video clips or message screenshots of the things he has said. Chemreac (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I know you have long-standing rules and have probably had endless discussions about this, but 'independent, reliable sources' is an incredibly loaded term. I won't trouble you by debating what that is supposed to mean, but I would at least ask whether the opinions of other youtubers about Vaush count, or whether they do not count as independent, reliable sources no matter what? Chemreac (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See this list. Review this. It will give you a good idea as to what is sought as far as a 'reliable source' etc. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and no, other youtubers thoughts matter not, unless deemed to be important enough that they are reported on in a RS and then you are citing from said RS. Thx — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessarily phrasing in descriptions

Ian is for some reason described as a “self-described left-wing YouTuber and Twitch streamer…” and also “from what he describes as a libertarian socialist perspective.”.

Similar phrasing is not used for similar political figures such as Hasan Piker, who is just described as being “left-wing” and “ discusses politics from a socialist perspective.” and David Pakman who’s described as “an Argentine-born American progressive.”. 31.208.30.80 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure some source we have labels him as left-wing. Hasan Piker's lead omits the "self-described" phrase for being left-wing, but deeper down says Piker has been identified as a progressive, leftist, and a democratic socialist. I think it's reasonable to say he is left-wing and then follow up with an additional "says he is a libertarian socialist." SWinxy (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling Sargon of Akkad Alt-Right

I’m actually not a fan of Carl Benjamin but I don’t think it’s accurate to call him alt-right. And notably Benjamin’s own page just calls him far right rather than alt-right. Wouldn’t that be a better phrase to use for Vaush’s debate against him than alt-right? 198.200.115.29 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Both sources do mention far-right so I made the change. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

Please prescribe a link to the the term "BreadTube" in this article which directs to the wikipedia article describing what BreadTube is, thanks. AlexanderTheAlex (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done BreadTube is already linked. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo

• 
  Current photo (2022)
• 
  Alternative A (2021)

I'm not terribly enthused about the current image; Vaush appears to be looking away from the camera and it's not a very good photo of him (though it's fairly sharp). There's an alternative on Commons (alternative A), and I found three videos (vid 1, vid 2, vid 3) from Modern Day Debate that appear to have valid CC licenses (and so we could take screenshots from). I'd prefer to get a reasonable quality photo of Vaush where he's looking at the camera, so I figure opening a discussion here may be helpful in terms of getting those screenshots and brainstorming. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

While it provides a more frontal view of his face, the photo is still pretty low-resolution compared to the other. EytanMelech (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

artistry

ian is a competent artist for example he designed his own channel logo, should this be listed in "personal life"? Phoub327 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Vaush pronounced as "Vowsh?"

This Wikipedia article claims that Vaush is pronounced like "Vawsh." This is incorrect because Vaush is pronounced as Vowsh by the majority of people including Ian. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibLcl8jxY8c&t=29s MakingAUsername (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Vaush prounounces his name like "Vawsh" most of the time. I can't recall a time he's said "Vowsh" when it isn't implied he's joking. Counterproof: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hKJLDC4IaDI at 0:11, 0:17, 0:37, 0:59, 2:25, 2:27, 2:36, 4:17, 5:33, 10:16, 12:05, 14:15, 14:48...I could go on, but this is plenty evidence to support /vɔːʃ/ as the correct pronunciation. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Vowsh" is a meme in his community, commonly used to deride people mispronouncing his name. It is pronounced "Vawsh". — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah it's actually voosh 49.206.6.56 (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

He's right, it's voosh 199.216.105.20 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of Online and Sexual Harassment

Online streamer Ian Kochinski ‘Vaush’, has been accused of both online and sexual harassment by a woman who went by the alias ‘Poppy’. The scandal started in 2017 when Vaush sent allegedly unwanted sexually implicit images to her on the gaming social media platform discord. After going public, Vaush started an online campaign in his community to find ways to "scare her into shutting up”, and repeatably made unsubstantiated claims of a continued sexual relationship between the two. [2]https://docs.google.com/document/d/13TquMb9AeoF01ILRSs1JcKOh8PRwO_in/edit The Incarnate Truth (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The person who compiled the document (BadEmpandana) is not a reliable source, at all. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 02:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If this gets picked up by reliable sources then we can cover it but we can't go digging ourselves. This is an encyclopaedia not a true crime podcast. DanielRigal (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But Vaush himself apologized for the sexual harassment, thereby confirming its veracity ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A "confession" does not necessarily confirm the legitimacy of a claim or event, and can be easily misunderstood. A reliable documentation source should probably be required too. Dominique Lyon (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Supposed death

Has anyone else heard of the supposed death of Vaush? 47.40.177.156 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a meme within his community that he was supposedly replaced with a federal agent when he lost weight. I don't think it's significant enough to be on the page. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo edit request on 2 October 2023

I would like to change the Photo used on the main page to Brianna Wu’s request Cloudylime (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I should link the tweet sorry [3] Cloudylime (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Edit requests are intended to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request access to the article itself (for the latter, review the protection policy, then make a request at WP:RFPP) The linked flickr file is currently licensed as "All rights reserved", which is not a compatible license.

Brianna Wu:"Creative Commons" is the name of a family of licenses, not all of which are accepted here. Please be aware that all licenses which we do accept are (deliberately) very broad; in particular they are not revokeable and allow - subject to the license conditions - commercial reuse. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if this is acceptable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Brianna Wu has now updated the license on the linked Flickr file. I'm not particularly familiar with Wikipedia policy but I think that should fix the issue. GreatKnightJ (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

|answered = no GreatKnightJ (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Shapeyness (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"is an American left-wing... who debates and discusses politics online from a libertarian socialist perspective"

Is the adjective "left-wing" really needed here? We're giving his political orientation (libertarian socialism) in the same sentence. It seems a bit superfluous. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Well left-wing and libertarian socialism aren't synonymous so I'd say it's fine 77.56.53.13 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but the later is more specific than the former. If we have the specific ideological alignment, wouldn't that be better to use than the less specific term? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against removing left-wing as redundant, no strong opinion one way or the other though. Shapeyness (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite the first sentence so it's more concise, that's fine. No need to start a discussion. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No mentions of his atheism/antitheism

I noticed that there are no mentions here of his outspoken atheism/antitheism. I feel this should be mentioned. 2601:CF:4500:E250:DA68:C3FF:FE41:526F (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a publication that mentions it or goes into detail about it? If not, it might not be worth mentioning. SWinxy (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"is autistic" would be better than "is on the autism spectrum"

The very source used in this article says "Vaush on his experience being autistic", he's called himself autistic many many times, and this is generally the preferred way to put it, not necessarily for all autistic people, but definitely for those who hold more progressive & pro-neurodiversity-movement views regarding autism (see the identity first vs. person first question), which I think includes Vaush.

I would edit it myself, but the article is protected so I can't. Lekim9 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly would you like changed? SWinxy (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In the "personal life" section, I think it should say "he is autistic" instead of "he is in the autism spectrum". Lekim9 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

He is not on the spectrum however. It’s a self diagnosis that he came up with to avoid accountability or to grant him perceived authority when speaking on subjects he doesn’t know about. It should say “self-proclaimed autistic person”. 2A02:AA1:1026:21F4:3069:38A7:7B3F:611F (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you know this? Provide a WP:RS to back it up. Bbf242 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Vaush is a liberal/progressive not a socialist in practice.

All he does is promote the Democratic Party and shill NATO. Gengeros (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaush article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 45.59.33.46 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Vaush is implied to be a libertarian socialist even in the voice example. He has said it explicitly many times (ex. his Twitter). Therefore, because he considers himself a socialist, he should be referred to as such under WP:BLP:Self-published sources:Using the subject as a self-published source. By no means should he be labelled as a liberal because he has opinions—that are tangentially related to socialism at best—you don't agree with. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

He’s definitely a liberal 47.40.177.156 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay...Do you have a source to back that up? It's generally frowned-upon to not refer to someone as their self-referential description in the first sentence without a very good reason. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:NPOV trump that? I could be wrong.

It's without a doubt incredibly controversial subject but idk which rule would be prioritized here. IMO the best way to word it would be "refers to himself as a libertarian socialist"

Given he is relatively insignificant I doubt there is much coverage of this controversy from notable sources FloodedYeti (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles flip-flop between assigning political alignments and using "self-described", so if you can find a reliable source that doesn't call him a socialist/leftist or brings that into question, that would be a reasonable compromise. After all, NPOV does take precedent if the self-ascription is controversial enough, but innocent until potentially guilty with a reliable source. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Supporting democratic worker ownership of the means of production makes you a socialist and therefore not a liberal. Being against allowing the republicans to commit genocide and against russia doing imperialism in an illegal invasion of other countries does not make you not a socialist; but rather more of one. Enough Malarkey, Anarcho-Bidenism/Anarcho-NATOism is the future. As also already mentioned, this is not a forum, but a talkpage for improving the article. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This must be the most petitio principii ridden comment I have seen in a while. No wonder it fits nicely with a tendency of taking blatant chauvinists' and imperialists' claims about themselves for granted. So now we have RFE being called freedom loving radio - because they say so, various imperialist interventions being called humanitarian - because their sponsors say so and an ignorant, racist mediocrity being called a socialist - because he says so. By the sorcery of just assuming someone's statement to be truthful, I guess NSDAP should also be considered socialist. 109.165.141.52 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's handle this logically instead of mudslinging: What exactly makes him NOT a socialist? I'm pretty sure supporting Ukraine has nothing to do with it. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You want everyone to take his claim that he is a socialist - at face value - and then for anyone who disagrees to prove a negative... That's not how logic works.

These kind of things show just how messed up this project (WP) is. (Redacted) 109.165.139.119 (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This is LITERALLY Wikipedia policy. If you can't tell me why he isn't a socialist and defer to ad hominem, then I see no reason why to change it. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop editing my comments and deleting them from history of this page. It won't change the fact that you are shilling for a creep that has some serious sexual harassment allegations against him. I've saved the talk page and will make it available.

You don't need to lecture me about how this dumpster of a project LITERALLY works - I'm perfectly aware of that. That's why I'm not even trying to edit the article page, but contributing to the talk page, where most people with more than half a brain go to see how much doctored the article is.

You can keep archiving inconvenient comments and deleting them, of course, but sooner or later Vaush is going to become unwashable. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd look at the edit history, you would see that I've done nothing of the sort. Now you've insulted Wikipedia and made baseless accusations against ME as well as Vaush. And...what? You think this is helping your case? No logical editor would think this is helping. I still have seen no significant argument as to why he is not a socialist. This was archived by someone else because this is going nowhere. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That "You" from the last paragraph was supposed to include all of you who are trying to hide information, even from the talk page. This was not archived because it is going nowhere, it was completely deleted because it shows this creep in a bad light.

For anyone interested in how the information is being disappeared from this page, talk page, and even history:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231008115130/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaush

https://web.archive.org/web/20231115124116/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaush

Not only is the information about CP, sexual harassment etc. being removed from the article, but any mention of it is completely destroyed from history, with asinine argumentation like "we need reliable sources". Even if you have the proof straight from the horses mouth. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is that you don't actually care whether Vaush is a socialist because you just want him to be called a pedophile. Classy. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I already know he ain't a socialist. The point is that taking for granted the "socialist" self-labeling of a person who supports Western imperialism and liberal parties is irrational. I already said that. (Following that logic, NSDAP should be called socialist)

Everything else is just a cherry on top, caused by the slimy removal of my comments. Which actually motivated me to look deeper into this thing. It's not classy, but hiding the fact is really disturbing. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Come back with a reliable source and I'll care. Stop repeating the same tired points. It's not enough. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Vaush and Ana Kasparian

Vaush has had quite a squabble with Ana Kasparian over trans rights, I think we should get some sources to briefly describe it on this page. StrongALPHA (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't exactly Drama Alert. Their falling-out doesn't mean much, nor would an WP:RS care. SWinxy (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

missing info

vaush has a third channel https://www.youtube.com/@vaushvibes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerzorpaglorp99 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be owned by him. In any event, adding a third channel to the infobox would be too much. SWinxy (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

past fundraisers

should vaush's past fundraisers for Ukraine, planned parenthood, and Palestine be mentioned? I would argue they are very notable accomplishments. Phoub327 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't recall any RS mentioning it. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've found sources on the Palestine Children's Relief Fund article and added them here. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Second channel (The Vaush Pit)

I propose that https://www.youtube.com/@TheVaushPit be added to the infobox as it seems to be a significantly sized channel used to divvy up the volume of content uploaded to the "main channel" as opposed to a minor channel used for occasional extra content or for uploading past livestream vod content as many other creators' secondary channels are. Lord Beesus (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable enough to be added - there aren't many/any sources that discuss it (See WP:YTLINKS). Shapeyness (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I mostly just mean under the YouTube section of the infobox at "channels", "subscribers" and "total views". I would argue that the reason there aren't sources discussing the channel specifically is because of the nature of the channel as merely a way of dividing up the massive amount of content he produces. Generally speaking, nobody writes articles on specific channels run by YouTubers, they just write about the YouTuber themselves. It might also be worth mentioning that the channel has more subscribers than the twitch channel has followers. A twitch account which is now essentially obsolete and remains in the infobox anyway. The Vaush Pit however is a relevant and steadily growing channel that is significant to Vaush's YouTube presence. Lord Beesus (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry just to clarify, I'm not just opposing coverage in the article, but also inclusion in the infobox, due to lack of coverage and WP:YTLINKS where there was a consensus "Secondary channels should not be linked to in the infobox, unless covered by reliable sources". Shapeyness (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing controversial opinion

Vaush expressed his support for making possession of child pornography legal on his own stream. He said: “I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal.”

Sources:

1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
2. article on thepostmillennial.com
3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias197 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
6. article on eviemagazine.com
7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com

The video also features many of the controversial opinions and testimonies that he shared. Matthias197 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:USERG, use of unofficial social media accounts is not allowed, as anyone can post anything they want and dub or manipulate audio. Please find a reliable source for your claim. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources contains community consensus on sources. QuietCicada chirp 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you should remove 99% of the Wikipedia's biographies of internet personalities. That means, that anyone can say anything on the internet without any responsibility whatsoever, because it could have been user-generated content. These are clips from his own streams. That also means that every source that links to a video, could possibly be a user-generated content, thus fake.

I am reactivating the request. Matthias197 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As I said above, if no one is writing articles about this issue, it is not an issue we include in the article. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I provided missing reliable sources that support the change. There have been many articles written on this issue, so we should address it in the Wikipedia article.

Missing sources added, and request reactivated. Matthias197 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Of these sources 4 are user-generated, and the other 2 are obscure and have never been discussed on wikipedia. They certainly don't look reliable to me - I can't even load the homepage of national cyber security without getting a database error.

If this hasn't been covered by reliable sources then it isn't notable enough to be included. Jamedeus (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but in my opinion, the first source is the most reliable. The arguments are supported by many independent sources. It is a reliable source. It is also a wiki powered by MediaWiki. Matthias197 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the policies we keep linking before reopening your request. Other wikis are not reliable sources, not even this one is. Jamedeus (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I read the policy, but I have never seen a source that follows this policy.

I have a feeling that you are all just protecting some degenerate and weaponizing some policy against me and other people that demand that change to be made. Other wikis should be considered a reliable resource considering the fact that they are also supported by many sources.

If we were to follow these bullshit policies meticulously, then I don't even know what source fits the definition of reliable source. Because everything is user-generated. Is any source reliable? Matthias197 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You're getting close to personal attacks now which don't go over well on Wikipedia. I've never even heard of this guy before, I'm just responding to edit requests that pop up on the list. I would have no problem adding this if you were linking to sources from this list. Plenty of sources are reliable, you can learn why here. Jamedeus (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the reliable resources are not writing about this issue, because Google censors any mention of CSAM. Sources should be analyzed on an individual basis, not just because the platform is seen as unreliable. This is not real journalism. This is not a personal attack.

This is protecting an individual that is clearly in the wrong. He has always been surrounded by controversies, and this Wikipedia page mentions exactly 0 of them. Matthias197 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The internet is vast, you may like Wikitubia better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: As multiple editors have pointed out, these are not reliable sources for a biography of a living person. RationalWiki, KYM, /r/VaushV are all user-generated. Post Millennial is unreliable (WP:POSTMIL). Evie Magazine may end up being OK, but I'd suggest going to WP:RSN to ask. The "National Cyber Security" and the random WordPress sites both have no signs of reliability. Reliability is required for BLPs. Your follow-up comments suggest this request is not done in good faith. SWinxy (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Context matters. Every source might be considered user-generated, that does not mean that we should remove every single source from the entire English Wikipedia. Matthias197 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies regarding sourcing. Until you understand that, and our policies, this will not go anywhere. Without a reliable source your request will be denied. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Evie looks like a semi-erotic magazine that wants people to think they're buying Elle. Could be good for some WP:ABOUTSELF anyway, but that it should be given some WP:PROPORTION is not that obvious. Still, it's not unthinkable to add something based on that source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a variant on Cosmo... Primefac (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that the Evie article does include a recanting (of sorts) from Vaush, also implying that it might not be an ongoing issue. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that, no, Evie is a terrible source. I commented on RSN, but TL;DR they published an article today by the same author that goes against the widespread scientific consensus on the difference between gender and sex. Sent shivers down my spine. SWinxy (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You not liking a certain article that they have written is irrelevant to if the source is good or not.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with others, Reddit threads and similar post are not reliable sources. Only the Post Millennial and Evie Magazine articles would be valid if any.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing Controversies

This article is suspiciously devoid of any of the numerous controversies Ian has been involved in. He's a political steamer, like every other he has controversies.

Notably absent is the recent revalation that he apparently keeps files depicting acts of beastiality when he accidentally broadcast the contents of one of his computer's folders on stream. 2605:59C8:2052:6F00:D08:5D2A:3129:C3A3 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

100% a controversy section is way overdue 2804:14D:7E85:4AC4:69DA:5E5C:D23C:D5FA (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Any controversies need to be supported by reliable sources, given due weight for a WP:BLP. It's not that his controversies have been suspiciously omitted, it's that they haven't made news. SWinxy (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sky blue, they are literally just fqctual. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

“I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal.” Can’t we just use his own videos as the source? 2804:7F0:A085:D6A8:1070:F2D0:4D38:DA8D (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if it was Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder… 177.41.193.135 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine that reliable sources will cover L0LIGATE, if they haven't already. But it's best to avoid a WP:CSECTION, so I'd recommend adding a summary of that scandal to #Personal life. El_C 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lib twitter will do it's darndest to keep these off the page despite Vaush's myriad statements concerning these topics. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:B4F2:4445:DFBC:C11E (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing controversies

Vaush has many missing controversies, all of which have been pointed out numerous times in this thread. How about instead of complaining of a ‘lack of sources’ the Wikipedia editors actually start doing some editing and researching? That way you can at least pretend you aren’t trying to keep this page clean from (Redacted) rumours for some bizarre reason. 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of those who want to add the sources to find the sources. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

Has obsession with having sex with horses. Calls everyone Nazis. 146.168.42.180 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy

This article makes no mention of what is arguably Vaush's most important controversy: He has sexually harassed people online in the past and had to rebrand and change names to avoid the fallout. Given there is a section dedicated to his controversies, this should be at the top. Anything else is dishonesty. This 100% happened and Vaush has acknowledged wrongdoing, there is record of this. 2601:CF:80:5220:6DDF:6FCB:83ED:6EDE (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources of this if we are even to discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWv33d5jyKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_1nOZoYyRs

This is just the two videos I saw when searching "Vaush sexual harassment" on YouTube.

The first is him acknowledging the scandal, the second is another user's investigation. There are many of these videos. 24.98.136.4 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Please see WP:BLPRS SKAG123 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The instance, where there were reciprical sextings which never went onto being irl stuff is in no way in line with sexual harassment. He was angry following a break up, that is normal. Not to mention that vaush constantly repeats the actkons were bad personally but not sexual assault which id agree with (https://x.com/VaushV/status/1489660079691341825?s=20)

Going through every one who does say he did commit sexual harrasment, theres a common element. None of them show chat logs, none of them accurately describe or know what happened, and many, such as bad empanada, are known for frequently spreading misinformation about people (and acknowledging they actively lie about people they dont like by tefering to them as pedophiles as in the case of badempanada). This query deserves no real attention and I'd hazard to say the original poster has little to no knowledge of the real events that occured. Varjagen (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Tweets even by the person, are not reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS for acceptable sources. SKAG123 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE

these are all HIS OWN videos, this is enough proof, unlock the article 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The dude's on the left, therefore WP:BLP actually applies to him.

You clearly don't know how things work here. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not empowered to edit a Wikipedia page... But here is a legitimate written source of many of his scandals

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/popular-youtuber-vaush-history-apologizing-pedophilia-child-pornography-immoral

If someone who is empowered wants to use it it does not cover the more recent controversy.

I think Wikipedia might need to seriously rethink why written media is required when there is a huge shift from people leaving written media where there's very little jobs and profit and going to podcasting or video creation.

Strange to me that we can't have some trusted verifiable methods using video or podcast sourcing since those are growth areas and written news is basically dying.

There's not even a local newspaper around my house anymore, and the local dailies have been gutted. Political outlets like the young Turks stop doing news gathering because it wasn't profitable. These streamers are influential but if we're going to rely on mediums that are not really used by anyone under the age of 25 then the articles were getting are going to reflect that bias.

This is a great example of an article that is missing basically all of the relevant controversies missing. This particular person is way more famous for his controversies than he is anything else he has done. 2601:18E:4101:9110:618F:4125:4FFA:3DB4 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if Evie Magazine is a reliable source (which I'm not sure that it is), per WP:BLP: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Also, Wikipedia doesn't require that sources be written media, it only requires that they be independent reliable sources. Written media just happens to be the most readily available and convenient (and often the highest quality). YouTubers and Streamers are not reliable sources in general, they can say whatever they want without any accountability, without policies on fact-checking or issuing corrections etc. Shapeyness (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Vaush'

The current IPA pronunciation listed is /vɔːʃ/. What is up for contention is the vowel. The vowel in the current IPA transcription is a long open-mid back rounded vowel, /ɔː/, which is the non-rhotic "or" sound, or "law" in RP. I disagree with this vowel being the IPA transcription, and shall explain.

Here is the IPA vowel chart with audio to listen to how the vowels sound (note, there are differences within accents);

IPA: Vowels

	Front	Central	Back
Close	i y	ɨ ʉ	ɯ u
Near-close	ɪ ʏ		ʊ
Close-mid	e ø	ɘ ɵ	ɤ o
Mid	e̞ ø̞	ə	ɤ̞ o̞
Open-mid	ɛ œ	ɜ ɞ	ʌ ɔ
Near-open	æ	ɐ
Open	a ɶ	ä	ɑ ɒ

---

• IPA help
• audio help
• full chart
• template

Legend: unrounded • rounded

First, the vowel in 'Vaush' is definitely a rounded vowel, so there's not really a dispute there. It is also a long vowel, which should be noted when evaluating the vowel.

There a few (non-joke) options for the vowel which I shall list, then evaluate each in turn.

option 1: /ɔː/, the current transcription, non-rhotic "or" sound, or "law" in RP. Ipa transliteration is "vorsh".

option 2: /ɒː/, as in "thought" but long (with the low back merger, without the merger "thought" is /ɔː/)

option 3: /ɒ̃ː/, as in "en passant" (but long), in RP

Option 1 (current IPA transcription): first, the pronunciation of "vorsh" is used as a joking spelling of a mispronunciation within the community; this is the pronunciation used by creators such as, Carl Benjamin, and is noticably different from the pronunciation used by Vaush himself and the pronunciation in the article. If you say "vaush" in the correct way, you can feel with your tongue that the vowel is an open vowel, rather than an open-mid vowel.

Option 2 vs Option 3: The distinction between these is nasalization. You can tell that the vowel isn't nasal, because if you do it then hold your nose the vowel sound remains the same.

So I think it should be /vɒːʃ/.

I'm I was making this an RfC, so; here are the RfC options. Feel free to add more if the IPA transcription you support isn't listed.

option 1: /ɔː/

option 2: /ɒː/

option 3: /ɒ̃ː/

A Socialist Trans Girl 04:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC tag - there has been little in the way of previous discussion, and we don't need all and sundry giving opinions when likely the folks watching this page will be able to make a well-informed opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How about including both? I haven't listened to the examples you cited, but if both are common pronounciations, both should stay.

The IPA is definitely necessary since I first thought the name was pronounced /vɐoʃ/. and I don't think the vowel is nasalized, at least for my ears. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

IPA symbols enclosed in slashes, and even some in square brackets, don't mean the corresponding sounds on the IPA chart. Read Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad; phonemic versus phonetic and Phoneme.

As explained in Help:IPA/English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, the type of notation {{IPAc-en}} outputs is diaphonemic, and /ɔː/ means "whatever is the vowel in thought". That means the same as the vowel in lot if you have the cot–caught merger. But as long as those without the merger pronounce it with the vowel in thought (be it [ɒ], [ɔ], [o], or whatever, and however long), /ɔː/ is the right one to use in the diaphonemic system. (And that includes if whoever is our source has the merger. If someone with an RP-like accent introduces themself as [ˈɹɒbət], nobody who has a GA-like accent is going to call them [ˈɹɒbət]—they'll just call them [ˈɹɑbɚt]. So we transcribe any Robert as /ˈrɒbərt/, whatever their accent.) Nardog (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog I think there's a distinction to be made between your example with 'Robert' and this instance; 'Vaush' isn't a generic name, It's a specific name of the content creator, not necessarily using established english phonetic structure. Additionally, it's quite important to note that the name 'Vaush' is not of english origin, but is instead derived from a corruption of German. Because of these things, I believe that the pronunciation made up/decided by Vaush himself is the one which should be used; that being the long open back rounded vowel, rather than 'whatever is the vowel in thought in your respective accent'. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

[ɒː] is the vowel in thought in Vaush's accent. But "vɒːʃ" doesn't help others pronounce it in their own accents. Every language has a finite number of groups of sounds that can occur, and most people aren't going to be able to accurately produce [vɒːʃ] on command. Nor do people try to imitate the exact qualities of sounds when repeating a word they just heard; they just map them onto the available sounds in their own accents. That's why the vast majority of dictionaries out there and the tens of thousands of articles using {{IPAc-en}} use phonemic transcription. I don't see why this article should be an exception. Nardog (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog Well I don't think that "ɔː" helps to pronounce it correctly. It should also be noted that "ɔː" looks like a frown face.

The closest transcription using sounds found in accents like RP would be like the "o" sound in "not", rather than "law". So I think the most accurate would be to have the general IPA transcription of ɒː, then say "the vowel is like "o" in "hot" in RP, or the "ough" in "thought" with the cot-caught merger. Then that'll be the most helpful with helping readers to pronounce it. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to raise the dead or anything, but I would like to point out that the pronunciation in the article is definitely a short vowel, and, to me, sounds like [vɔʃ]. –Konanen (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Vowel length is not contrastive in English except for a few combinations in some accents, and besides it's obviously impossible to tell from just one syllable. Nardog (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is not contrastive, then it should not be part of the /phonemic/ transcription. –Konanen (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, the discussion isn't dead.

Could you please elaborate on your position? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Is a recent edit on this page up to Wikipedia's sourcing standards?

Hey other editors. The most recent edit by @Chefs-kiss — Perma Link here — appears to only employ two livestream clips and a Tweet in its reference as evidence of Kochinski's endorsement of a politcal candidate. Given Kochinski's involvement in other campaigns is sourced to outside news organizations and the conversations that have been had in above Talk threads, I think we need different sources for this claim. What do other editors think? -- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean the videos literally state it and the tweet provides from the org itself. While they are not a newsource the issue of the endorsement is not controversial nor subjective. He is literally collabong with them. I believe he will campaign with them in NY? The first yt vid is him discussing it, the second yt vid is supporting the fact he did a livestream for donations and the tweet is to provide an external source that is mot Vaush, albiet its from the org. Chefs-kiss (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the relevance can be questioned but given that his previous endorsements were mentioned I deemed it somewhat relevant. Chefs-kiss (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This page is due for a major overhaul

Hello, other editors. I saw this page is semi-protected so I won't edit it, but I have some important points to raise nonetheless.

As other users have pointed out, Vaush has been subject to numerous controversies, including very recently.

Many editors have shot down including these controversies here on the grounds their sources violate WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. As far as I understand this prohibits Tweets, YouTube Videos, and Livestream clips — especially those that are self-published.

I'm not here to challenge Wikipedia's sourcing rules. I'm only here to say that these rules should be applied consistently, as several references present in this article violate those rules.

My main problem is that this article employs YouTube videos and Tweets to boltser Kochinski's perspective, giving this article an unfair pro-Kockinski bent and promoting his content. It's frankly hypocritical that this page will not employ these same kinds of sources when covering the subject's numerous controversies.

Below are the bad references I found at the time of publishing this and the problems they have. These references should be substituted, and if that can't be done, the information held up by said references should be removed.

1: I recommend replacing it with the Social Blade or another similar site instead of linking it to his YouTube Channel.

4: This is just a one-sentence write up from an organization the article's subject was involved with. Why is this here? Of what value is this? It links to nowhere else. Just delete it.

6: I understand this is pretty benign info, and is most likely okay under Wikipedia's rules, but it's still a Tweet and comes off as promotional.

7: If YouTube videos are unreliable sources, then this YouTube video shouldn't be relied on to establish the facts of his early life. It also falls under the premise of being self-published.

11: This is another self-published YouTube video, with a pretty hyperbolic headline. This shouldn't be used as a source, even for info as benign as ethnic heritage. There has to be a better source for this.

24: Why is a Tweet the only source for how much money was raised for charity? Unlike birthdays or ethnicity, this is not very benign info.

30 & 34: Both of these are YouTube videos of Kochinski spinning controversies he was involved in. If YouTube videos are not reliable sources for controversies/online drama, then these should be removed. Similar videos from this creator have shot down by other editors as sources for drama.

If it is decided these above videos should be kept, then other YouTube videos be used as sources for other drama, no?

37 & 42: These are also YouTube videos where the subject is interviewed, so they might also be problematic and violate Wikipedia's rules around sourcing, but I'm not sure.

-- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The version being discussed is this one in case any changes are made (link)

• 1: tbh I would propably remove this altogether per WP:YTLINKS
• 4: I agree this should be removed, clearly not an independent source
• 6: This one is fine (see WP:ABOUTSELF)
• 7 & 11: Also covered by ABOUTSELF but I wouldn't necessarily care too much if these bits were removed, especially 11
• 24: agree this tweet should be removed, the other source works fine here anyway and we don't need an exact amount of money raised
• 30 & 34: arguably ABOUTSELF for his own opinions - it doesn't follow that if this is allowed, any random drama video on YouTube is ok to use
• 37: he is being interviewed by a prominent journalist here, there's no rule against using interviews
• 42: ok per ABOUTSELF, I'm neutral on whether we should keep this

Just my thoughts on these, I also won't make any changes in case others disagree. Shapeyness (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

In regards to your response I have no objections or disagreements with your points on references 1, 4, 6, 24, 37, and 42. In regards to refs 7 & 11, I neither agree nor disagree, so my mind isn't changed on them. I suspect we'll talk more about those later. I'll be back on refs 30 & 34 in a little while. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I’m back to elaborate on my issues with references 30 & 34. I don’t think I was clear enough on what I saw wrong with them. In my view, these references are the most egregious here. First, let me establish what is already known.

For the last 6+ months, users argued for adding sections on Kochinski’s recent scandals. As of writing this, these scandals have not broken out into journalism, only reaching various drama and politically-oriented YouTube channels and social media accounts. Incoming users have argued employing these sources, including videos from Kochinski’s YouTube channel where he talks about his scandals/statements, as potential sources in this article. More experienced Wikipedians have shot down these on the premise they violate Wikipedia sourcing rules.

This includes you who said: “YouTubers and Streamers are not reliable sources in general, they can say whatever they want without any accountability, without policies on fact-checking or issuing corrections etc.” -You, May 10, 2024, in “Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy”.

This gets me to my point. References 30 & 34 are videos of Kochinski going over scandals he has been entwined in. Both sources are directly quoted in this article. If these are ok in this article, then other videos from him about his scandals should also be ok to use as sources and quote here. Ergo, if using videos from him about his scandals are ok, at least some other videos going over the scandals should be ok too.

However, keeping these sources on their own makes this article look hypocritical. Wikipedia looks willing to allow Kochinski to respond when he’s dealing with earlier/less impactful scandals and thus biasing this article in his favor.

Do you understand my point? -- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I get the point you're making, but there are a number of issues at play here.

Firstly, WP:SELFPUB says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". The only exception is ABOUTSELF. There is a substantive difference between using Kochinski as a source of information about himself, and using other random YouTubers as sources in a biography of a living person. This is entirely consistent with saying YouTubers are not reliable sources in general.

Secondly, using Kochinski as a source of information about himself can be ok in certain circumstances, but should not be overused. In particular, we don't want to give undue weight to unencyclopedic topics, or to allow Kochinski's views to dictate the way we write the article. Sources 30 & 34 are only being used to expand on subjects already covered by independent reliable sources. I don't think we should go beyond this even if we could use Kochinski as a reliable source about some of his other opinions not already included in the article.

Furthermore, many of the things that others have pushed to include on this page are pretty major accusations. Therefore, the need for third-party sources is explicitly required by WP:BLP: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Shapeyness (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Then, I don't see why this Wikipedia page needs references 30 & 34 or what the information they supposedly provide. Given that the events were covered by independent reliable sources, including the videos and quoting them seems unnecessary. Kochinski's videos are not independent of himself, and the opinions expressed in them are not basic life facts like his date of birth, instead his perspectives on his drama/scandals. They should not be treated as reliable or trustworthy. For these reasons, they should be removed. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at reference 34, it is used to support that he later renounced his statements. Why would this not be an appropriate use of the reference? For what it's worth I don't think the quote is strictly necessary, but indicating that he later recanted is useful to have in the article, and reference 34 provides the evidence for that. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's been a lot of changes to this page since this comment was added, so just to be clear I'm referring to the same sources just different reference numbers — 25 & 29. I'm linking to the latest version here for future editors to look at — Link.

Given that media organizations didn't cover his recantments, are they even eligable for inclusion? I only ask, because previous conversations on this page have indicated that using videos is not ok for events that did not recieve outside coverage. Are the recantments themselves worth mentioning because they refer to the controversies covered by said media organizations?

-- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your last question, yes. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess my only other idea is that these video references should be displayed like Reference 33, where there are bullet points to each individual timestamp below, instead of just linking to the whole video. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

25: This is something I noticed after posting this, but this reference has the incorrect publisher listed. It has "Vox" instead of "Kotaku." As far as I know this media org isn't owned by Vox. Even if it was, I'd imagine it'd still be listed. Someone who can needs to get on that asap. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed that one and removed the tweet (24 above). Shapeyness (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF covers most of these, but you raise some good points that have improved the article.

• Ref 1 is populated by Template:Infobox YouTube personality; sub counts are fine to cite YouTube.
• FFF and VPR should probably be removed; an un-bylined blurb is something to avoid in the lead, and VPR is WP:RSSM and doesn't appear to support the claim. I'd rather we remove "who debates and discusses politics online from a libertarian socialist perspective" entirely.
• The birthdate tweet is completely fine, per ABOUTSELF, and same for the video mentioning himself growing up in Beverly Hills.
• We don't normally include ethnic heritage, so I think this should also be removed for being largely contextless and irrelevant. But that it has a hyperbolic title or self published isn't a problem.
• The fundraiser total was closer to $300k than $200k, but ABOUTSELF draws a line on self-serving claims, which this falls under. Round it down to $200k because Kotaku says it, as done by Shapyness. (Kotaku is published by Vox Media; no idea how it was mistakenly attributed to Vox.)
• No opinion on the Political views section. More secondary sources are needed in any case.

I'll make the two changes (libsoc & ethnicity). SWinxy (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no real objections to this. I'm just curious why the Social Blade isn't used. I'm not particurally interested in adding it here atm, given its been explained why the YouTube is linked to here. Just curious if there's an answer. Though its noninclusion gives me ideas unrelated to here. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to using a 3rd party analytics site like social blade rather than the account as a primary source. Social blade doesn't provide "thought and reflection" on the primary information as discussed at WP:SECONDARY. VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello again editors, so I noticed yet another issue with a reference on this page. This is Reference 35 on the current version most recently edited, link here. The problem isn't the article link, but that the Jezebel Wikipedia link goes to Jezebel instead of Jezebel (website). Someone who can needs to fix. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the subscriber count needs to be updated. It's 454K when it should be 450K. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, do you think LibSoc should also be removed from categories since it was removed from the lede? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there's no need for it to be in the lead for it to warrant the category and it's still in the article body. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing controversy and why did his school change

I recall seeing polytech as his education and why are mentions of loli, horse, and sexual harassment and political controversy not mentioned. 2601:1C2:1B7F:6C30:7061:202D:339F:7B40 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No sources means no content, as it has always been. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need a source to prove that the sky is blue. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, but we need sources for someone's education and any controversies they may have been involved in. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said independent reliable sources. If no one is writing articles about this issue, it is not an issue we include in the article. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Is writing about it because it's not a particularly popular medium these days. It has been covered incredibly thoroughly by creators on YouTube who are just as thorough and not more thorough than someone writing for the daily beast or something

There's even first party evidence from vaush his own channel of him.The New York times is not going to cover the fact that he got caught with Loli. But it's verifiable with our own eyes because he was on the air when he did it, he admitted to it and he apologized for it

He wouldn't even dispute its factual nature, he might dispute what it means or whether or not it was intentional etc... But it's just an undisputed fact that he was on the air streaming and got caught with images of horses and drawn children. 2601:18E:4101:9110:618F:4125:4FFA:3DB4 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

But again that's literally an indisputable fact that he did move schools. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case then you should be able to find a source that corroborates it. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've always wondered why YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, particularly on articles involving YouTubers. It just makes no sense to me. George Mucus (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Very often user-generated and not prone to editorial oversight. Anyone can say anything in a YouTube video without it necessarily being true. It's not much different than referencing a blog post. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

YouTubers are still people; the bar for what can be accepted shouldn't be lowered because of their career choice. SWinxy (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:REDSKY Googleguy007 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple videos and discord messages of VAUSH HIMSELF saying he finds horses sexually attractive, thinks child porn should be legal to possess, and thinks sexual relationships with children are okay. How is this not proof enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCFQuui2iIY 2605:A601:AC1D:F000:B49E:BFDF:5B07:320C (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We need independent (and reliable) sources for verification; if someone says something and no one cares, it is not a controversy, similar to how if a tree falls in a forest (etc). Primefac (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that there are multiple threads about this is, in fact, proof that people care. 2603:6010:3001:9B00:A4E6:CE1D:E5BC:6E05 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Ian has compared child slavery used in every day products to the consumption of CSAM, and has stated both are equally horrible and should be stopped. If you don't have a reliable source stating otherwise then I think everybody should drop the subject EnbyEditor (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Neutrality and Missing Events

Many of the sources of this article come from left-leaning news sites that share Vaush's point of view. The article also calls right-wing content "radicalization".

Many of his controversies aren't mentioned. Vaush has been outed in the past for sexual harassment, advocacy in favour of child pornography, racism, anti-antisemitism, and his possession of lolicon and beastiality. Cimmaron1 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Read every other damn thread on this talk page. Without WP:RS we cannot add content. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am giving you these two articles for you to personally assess the reliability of those sources. Not for Wikipedia to assess, just you personally. —Maximum Walruses (Talk) 16:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you have any reliable sources, then feel free to share them and make an edit EnbyEditor (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

He opened a folder of CSAM and bestiality images on stream, and then proceeded to attempt to explain why he had them for the next week. How is that not proof? Do you intend on replying to Maximum Walruses? 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

He's pretty open about his love for horses, it's literally his twitter profile 86.9.5.164 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Discussion of adding the content first requires finding a (or several) reliable sources covering it. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to the content to the article, please provide reliable sources covering the controversies you just said. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Another possible source for this page. What do y'all think?

So, I found a source that briefly goes over Kochinski's alleged misconduct in Fedruary of this year that I have not seen suggested in the archived or above talk pages ― Link here. Said article's subject is another streamer, Clara Sorenti a.k.a. Keffals, only mentioning Kochinski toward the bottom.

The article was published by The SportsGrail, a website that seems to be based out of India and focuses on sports as well as pop and internet culture. This outlet is used as a reference on other Wikipedia articles, including those relating to e-celebs, and hasn't been contested as of yet.

I did ask about the website in general on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard a few weeks ago, but no one responded before the section was archived. As far as I could tell, I was the first person to ever ask about the publication there.

On those notes, how reliable and/or useful would you guys consider this source to be?

--Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Conveys zero weight. It's a passing mention in an article about a different subject in a publication outside of its discipline with no indication it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Absolutely unusable in a BLP, where our standard for sourcing is "greatest care" and where use of tabloid journalism as a source is prohibited. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Side note - your query at RSN got no replies because you didn't provide context of what information was being proposed to be sourced. An assessment of a source's reliability always requires that context, a fact which is prominently and repeatedly noted at WP:RSN. VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That article is mostly about Keffals and has major issues with understanding what DIY HRT is. While it's common for articles on transgender people and HRT to be unintentionally wrong at best, I don't feel after reading the article that it meets the definition of 'best' in that scenario.

It published the narrative that improving people's lives is grooming if you're transgender without much pushback.

If the main focus of the article has those massive issues then I don't think a passing comment can be trusted at all. EnbyEditor (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Vaush be added into the categories of "American anti-capitalists" and or "American anti-communists."

That is all. NesserWiki (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

American anti-capitalists? Yep. American anti-communists? That would be very strange considering he is one (self-described). A Socialist Trans Girl 09:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source describes Vaush as an anti-communist. Adding the latter would be against WP:CATV. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't fully sure how Vaush classified himself. NesserWiki (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

He openly described himself as a Libertarian which is described on his page, while not all Libertarians are communists (there are non-communist socialists after all), Ian has also describes himself as a Communist EnbyEditor (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave left-wing infighting off Wikipedia. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This Page is an Abomination

This is the biggest example of the failures of wikipedia I've ever seen.

Every time someone tries to add anything relating to Vaush's many, many controversies, they get told by Vaush fans it 'not a reliable source' or that you can't use twitter and youtube. Why do I know these are Vaush fans? Because, meanwhile, NUMEROUS basic facts about Vaush's life and opinion are cited USING twitter and youtube. It's clear several obsessive Vaush fans are monitoring this wikipedia page closely. They don't CARE about 'reliable sources' or wikipedia rules, they simply care about covering up Vaush's controversies.

It's incredibly creepy, gross, and cult-like, and an actual admin of some sort needs to step in to clarify why twitter and youtube seem to be fine for certain aspects of Vaush's life and actions, but not others. Letdown101 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, actual admin here. If there are things you think should be removed (for not having reliable sources) or added (supported by reliable sources) please feel free to suggest them here. Regarding your "but there are primary sources" concern, per WP:PRIMARY they can used in certain circumstances; if you think they are being used improperly, again, please point out specifics and they can be looked at for possible removal. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple uninvolved editors have previously rejected the sourcing for the addition of controversies, here and elsewhere. Wikipedia has processes to allow for the prevention of stonewalling changes by editors frequent to an article. Reliable sources are the overarching dictum here, not the protection of a controversial livestreamer. Our policy on self-published sources is clear, but not immediately obvious to readers. SWinxy (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How is citing, for example, Vaush revealing his p*rn collection live on stream not a reliable source when it happened live on his own stream, while if Vaush says that he grew up in Beverly Hills (source 5), that's allowed to be sourced? The former might be more 'controversial', but they're both taken from basically the same exact source. 64.56.94.74 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A primary source such as a screencap from a Youtube channel does nothing to establish due weight. Growing up in BH is a mundane biographical detail and obviously not a similar situation. VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and Youtube are okay for uncontroversial self-descriptions. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. From that article, Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. The same applies to youtube, as another "Generally Unreliable source".

Does that include Vaush himself apologizing for sexual harassment in a youtube video? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. You do not have any evidence that the editors you are referring to do not care about reliable sources nor wikipedia rules, nor that they are vaush fans.

There being numerous uncontroversial self-descriptions citing twitter or Youtube is not proof that the editors in question are vaush fans, I'm not sure what you mean. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

An audit of sources

I did another overview of the sources on the current Wikipedia page and found some interesting points I thought I should mention. These are all secondary sources.

Reference 12 appears to just be a recounting of Reference 11, and I don't mean that it's two different outlets covering the same thing. Reference 19 is from the same outlet as 12 and appears to be doing the same thing as before, except with Reference 18. I don't think Tubefilter is necessairally unreliable. I just don't think it's particuarally useful.

Reference 22 has some issues. The source is an article by The Focus, which covers a debate between Kochinski and Charlie Kirk. Firstly, I'm unsure as to the reliablity of The Focus, as thier website is scant of information. The article also appears to peel much of its basic information from Wikitubia. I only say that because it matches a past version of Vaush's Wikitubia from the time of the article's publishment. This page uses it twice, first with a claim about Kochinski being an "anti-fascist". This is also mentioned by the Reuters article next to it. The second time the article is used, it appears to be talking about how Kochinski is a "big fan of democracy." That information doesn't appear to come from Wikitubia, however, the article doesn't give a source for that claim. The only potential good use for this source is showing Kochinski's assocation with Kirk, but it's not being employed this way on the page right now.

Reference 26 is an article by Jezebel about the arrest of Andrew Tate. It accusses Kochinski of misogony and joking about sexual harassment. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure these reference numbers are right? These don't look right when I look at that version of the page. Shapeyness (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I used the wrong verison of the page. Will fix right now. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed reference 26, seems like it is not very reliable. For 11/12 and 18/19, don't see any harm in keeping both in each case (reference 12 was actually published before 11 as well btw). Shapeyness (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't believe I didn't notice that with the dates. Like I said, I felt that fact should still be brought up, but yeah, I see no particular harm in keeping both.

On another note, what makes the Jezebel article unreliable? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops sorry I meant reference 22. Shapeyness (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Source for discussion

If poor web design and worse spelling was a crime, they should be arrested, but they do make some of the problematic claims in their own voice, so this + the context video should do? FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a very suspicious source. 'YouTuber' isn't even spelled correctly and gets his last name wrong, despite the reader's comment spelling it right. How does that happen. There's no issue with the first six paragraphs, until it turns into a weird screed for the final three paragraphs. Glancing at other parts of the site makes me think it's some sort of astroturfing thing. No, it shouldn't be added. SWinxy (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if I had to guess, there was a journalist and an editor/executive/some other person working on that, or perhaps someone wanted it pushed out before a deadline. That would explain the spelling mistakes, or it was caused by the age of the journalist, local news can be of mixed quality.

There is decent readership (or least decent clicks) and a somewhat old history, so I don’t think it’s astroturfing (or it’s very stealthy). FortunateSons (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)