Talk:Bald and Bankrupt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Poorly sourced

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page needs better sources or it should be trimmed down significantly. The entire article is thin on reliable sources and I'm not even sure the subject is notable enough to deserve an article. - Nemov (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. This is the time where I make a useless "somebody needs to do something" post on the talk page because I don't know where to start ripping this article up so that it can be completely rewritten. I know it's a weird comparison but a useful one: WP:MEDRS says "cite sources, not write them", and this page breaks that rule entirely. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So far it has 19 references mostly from different newspapers, how is that poorly sourced? Simbioz (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for examples of a reliable source for Wikipedia this article is a good place to start. Mr. Bald's YouTube channel, while popular, hasn't received much coverage to be considered notable. Much of this article is fluff and poorly sourced. - Nemov (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

2.5 million YouTube subscribers is enormous coverage, not to mention 350 million views. It's easily sufficient for notability concerns. You can probably move on to other issues and not be missed greatly for your diligence on the subject of this man's notability. You can probably let go of your concerns about the writing quality, too. Others will tidy it up in time. Santamoly (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is in much better shape than it was a year ago. Given Bald's channel is dedicated to Eastern Europe you might want to sit this one out. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you like the sound of your own voice, and that it must feel pleasant to jump in with a bold non sequiter from time to time, but Bald's channel seems to be in Bolivia at the moment.Santamoly (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The latest videos on the channel have been in Ukraine which is in Eastern Europe. It probably explains your interest in the article. Happy editing! - Nemov (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harald Baldr

@Danny Left: This page is thinly sources already, but adding Harald Baldr as an associated act is a stretch. Even if the two of them are linked together in YouTube Video their relationship hasn't received significant coverage to make it a notable association. If there are notable source linking the two together please add it. Keep in mine YouTube isn't a notable source.Nemov (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that they have appeared in each others content on YouTube and are friends, Rich also appears in several other Youtuber's content as a guest too. Baldr and Rich have not worked together for a year now, save one short meeting in Kyiv. So no not an associated act. Sovietspoonz (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Spidersnakes: If you have a case for why Harald Baldr should be included in this article you can make it here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Harald Baldr should be added as an associated act. There are sources that mention him with Rich. They have also worked together many times, including recently, and are close friends. Also, Baldr was the person that encouraged him to start making YouTubr videos. Harald Baldr should be added to this page. Spidersnakes (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources (you can learn more about those at WP:NEWSORG) that makes this connection notable please feel free to present them here. However, the source you added the first time failed to meet WP:RELIABLE standards. Thanks. - Nemov (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Alina Adzika

Please do not refer to Alina Adzika as Rich's girlfriend. Whilst she was referred to as his girlfriend and editor in his 2017 book, it is understandable why people keep adding it. However on YouTube and in other media they now refer to each other as "friends"; and neither party will confirm or deny any romantic relationship when asked directly about it. Keep it as "friends" until they wish to go public. Sovietspoonz (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It also doesn't matter what their relationship is because unless it's covered by a reliable source it's not notable. - Nemov (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Nemov, you are correct. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Real name

Currently this man's name is given as "Benjamin Rich". There are several mentions of this in news articles, none of whose writers appear to have spoken to him, but his book The Burning Edge: Travels Through Irradiated Belarus is authored by "Arthur Chichester". There are also several mentions, including on fan pages, of him deliberately never giving his real name. It could be worth noting this ambiguity in the article. Wodgester (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Has there been notable coverage of his name? This article only exists because he is a notable YouTube personality. If his name hasn't received notable coverage it doesn't belong in this article. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is, there is no confirmation that "Benjamin Rich" is even his name. He has referred to himself as Benjamin, so we may assume that is his first name, but outside of the article this page links to, and this page, I don't see any source for the surname "Rich". Saying this disparity "doesn't belong in this article" presupposes we even know what his name is. I don't think there is confirmation of that. As such, if this article is OK to exist, then it should note he has intentionally kept his name secretive. It's why it's not on his channel, it's why he used a pen name. When I first saw this page I wondered if it is correct, does it violate his privacy, because whether or not this is his name, he clearly doesn't want people knowing it. A quote from a fee.org article linked to this page "Ben, who has never revealed his real name" (this published 2 months after the article claiming his name was Rich). If he doesn't want to be called "Ben Rich" and it isn't even his name, why is that the name of this article? This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to address. He's not even known by this name. He's known as "Bald and Bankrupt" or "Bald/Mr. Bald" or just Ben. J1DW (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Fluent Russian speaker

Is it possible that we could move on from the obsession with Mr.Bald's true name to learn how he is quite fluent in the Russian language? For instance, was he born into the language, or did he learn it on the road? Santamoly (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bald stated in a couple videos he was obsessed with the USSR growing up and as a result, he decided to learn Russian. I linked two videos which may be resourceful, but there are others circulating on his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loAxQe14ke0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYCT9wEUuU

Kind regards Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable Incidents

This article has been overrun by poor edits by users who do not understand Wikipedia guidelines. This article is about the Bald and Bankrupt channel on YouTube. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. 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. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

While I respect the opinion of user Nemov and value his contributions as a Wikipedian, I do not think that he is unbiased in this issue. His activities on this page have consisted mainly of trying to censor edits by various other users relating to one specific event in Rich's life (his rape trial), possibly in an attempt to defend his public image. Therefore, I would like to hear the opinions of other, more experienced and unbiased Wikipedians. My case is as follows.

In my opinion, the section relating to Rich's rape trial clearly meets Wikipedia's requirements for Verifiability; the main source being a well known mainstream newspaper, which counts as a reliable source per WP:SOURCE. The article states Rich's full name and the location correlates with his place of residence at that time. Furthermore, Rich himself has written about this event in a series of forum posts under his publicly known username Vorkuta/TheFantasist (See: https://archive.ph/xKzEw ), with all details checking out.

References

Also, WP:BLPCRIME is in my opinion not applicable in this case, since Benjamin Rich meets the requirements for being considered a public figure under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Even if Rich were not a public figure, the proposed edits do not suggest that Rich has indeed committed the aforementioned crime, they simply state the fact that he attended trial in which he was cleared due to lack of evidence. Therefore, WP:BLPCRIME couldn't be applied even if Rich weren't a public figure. Chagcharan (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The addition needs to be supported by "notable third-party sources." That's not an opinion. Those are the guidelines. Your link could any random user on the internet. You need a reliable source to make the connection. You're not a reliable source. A forum isn't a reliable source. Nemov (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The Southern Daily Echo is in my opinion clearly a reliable source. Chagcharan (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say in that article that Ben is the same Ben from Bald and Bankrupt? It's an article from decades ago. You need reliable sources to show that this Benjamin Rich-Swift is the same as the Benjamin Rich who operates the Bald and Bankrupt Youtube channel. - Nemov (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is his bankruptcy order, which clearly states "Benjamin Rich, also known as Benjamin Rich-Swift" Date of birth and address also check out. (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2695641) Chagcharan (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can find support for your addition go for it. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the same thing over and over. Good luck! - Nemov (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Daily Bald

Should his other channel Daily Bald be added to the infobox? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: Done. -- Longhair\^talk 20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NickCT raised a good point about the notability of the YouTuber. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned. I'm not convinced there's enough notable coverage to justify the article's existence so I nominated the article for deletion. Please proceed to the deletion page to discuss. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of Birth

Chagcharan, please quit making unhelpful edits. You recent addition violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. You need to familiarize your self with the guidelines. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. --Nemov (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bald and bankrupt image.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source? Czech Radio interview

• Here's the link. It's an interview by a professional over a legitimate radio station. https://www.radio.cz/special-podcasts/podcast/ep29-bald-and-bankrupt/ Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of rape trial

Resolved

 – There should be multiple sources reporting on the incident. - Nemov (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Should information on Rich's rape trial be included in this article? My reasons for creating this Rfc are explained in the "Notable Incidents" section. Chagcharan (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)— Chagcharan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, he was acquitted. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, If RS has reported on it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• NO - per BLP, if it's that notable, there should be multiple sources reporting on the incident. This is poorly sourced. I also find it incredulous that a brand new user (that just started editing yesterday 4-4-21), suddenly found their way to this article just to add this content from a source that is 20 years old. They also seem to be well versed in policies, Verifiability, WP:SOURCE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and apparently had no issues creating a RfC on their first day of editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closer; There is a coordinated effort on Reddit trying to get this content added to this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Lean Yes It's an important incident but I agree that there could be more sources. The single source seems reputable but more are always better. Tavildara (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)— Tavildara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Lean no - Per User:Isaidnoway; WP:BLP would call for some pretty good sourcing for something like this. I'm having trouble seeing the sources that would back it. This guy only seems quasi-notable to begin with. Frankly, could be an article for AfD. NickCT (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note÷ Isaidnoway appears to be correct. There has been a push the past two weeks to include this content. Tavildara is also a new account. - Nemov (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note Reply to Nemov. I've been editing for a year or so on Wikipedia in other languages, but you're right that I'm rather new. You're free to put less weight on my comment. Tavildara (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

*Note @Isaidnoway and Nemov. While there is a push to get this content included, there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content. I think that neither side is unbiased - including me. And that's the reason for this Rfc - to get some non partisan input. Chagcharan (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content - Coordination among who exactly? I never heard of this guy until I saw the RfC listed at WP:RFC/A. My reasoning for exclusion is based in policy - if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, leave it out - and this is precisely the reason this content keeps getting reverted out of the article, it's not biased editing, it's policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

By my comment I did not mean to accuse you of being biased, on the contrary, I sincerely value your input in this matter. I just wanted to point out that there has been an edit war going on in this article over the past months in which people on both sides seemed to be acting based on their personal agenda and not from a neutral standpoint. While I do have my opinion on this matter, I understand that this is a contentious issue and that's why I decided to call this Rfc instead of engaging in endless edit wars. Chagcharan (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Nemov (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The only agenda here is from people who are apparently being directed from Reddit to come and include data that isn't properly sourced. The article has received multiple poor edits that I have reverted because they don't meet standard guidelines. One user was warned after starting an edit war.[[1]] This is the 2nd time I've been accused of being biased by new accounts who are having trouble following guidelines. This policy isn't difficult. If there's multiple third-party sources then this should be included. At this point, I don't think this article even belongs on Wikipedia since it's then on notable references. - Nemov (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, - I've just stumbled upon this discussion, and in my opinion we should include this incident, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming that this incident never existed.Zaxophone (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• No per Isaidnoway. ~ HAL333 20:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - For lacking significant coverage in reliable sources for such an incident. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - Seems outside the youtube topic and contrary to WP:BLPTONE, being a bit sensationalist. If this was a major part on the channel or had made significant and enduring biographical impact it might rate a mention. But if it is indeed an ancient acquittal and has fishy provenance here, then obviously not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this even if there was a secondary source that linked the incident to the YouTuber. Why would an acquittal from twenty years before the YouTube channel became notable be relevant to the article? The incident would need to receive a significant amount of coverage for it to be included here.--Nemov (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I've just noted this discussion and there are reasonable arguments for and against, but I think it should be included. It is clearly a notable part of this man's history, with there being notable sources on record to cite. I note that user Markbassett argues this is 'outside the youtube topic', however this is not an article about the man running the channel, not solely the youtube channel itself. It is both relevant and sourced, and also fits a neutral POV. I also note user Whiteguru argues it should not be included because 'he was acquitted' - well, that is not a reason for it excluded. This is notable information and the fact of his acquittal would obviously be included in the text of the article. Yazman (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yazman - acquittal was nearly twenty years before the article topic Bald and Bankrupt even existed, so it has no relevance to the Youtube channel title and topic of the article. It also had no major or enduring biographical impact to the title personality so lacks BLP value for that topic also. There seems no coverage presented more recent than that so it lacks significant coverage of *multiple* media revisiting the topic required by WP:WELLKNOWN. If the RS and British tabloids just are not seeing a 20-year ago item for this personality as worth covering, then I think this is just nothing to include. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• No There are no reliable sources that covered the event and he was acquitted.Sea Ane (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Resolved

I believe that the failure to address his rape trial (for which there exists a proper secondary source) goes against WP:NPOV. It purposely occludes certain points of view about his character and motivations. In fact, it is not just a certain point of view, it is literally the 'other side of the coin'. Besides, this is still relevant for his activities today: he is known for talking a lot about women in his videos, talking about booking "hotel rooms for two" and such. Also, why is the "Chechen chick" incident included in the article, but not this one? There is an 'incidents' section, so why purposely not put this one there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.80 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. The specific issue of NPOV isn't why that information has been excluded. As heavily discussed on this talk page, the concerns over it's inclusion are 1) relevance 2) decent sources 3) the recent influx of new/sock-puppet/anonymous editors who appear to have been directed here from Reddit. There's an ongoing problem of edits made in bad faith, brigading, and ulterior (un-encyclopedic) motives — the opposite of neutral point-of view! Not to go ad hominem, but for those reasons I recommend signing your comments on this page.

Moreover, such questionable additions are explicitly prohibited when dealing with living persons, as you can read in the header itself. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous" (emphasis added). All of your other points are precisely this sort of insinuation.

A WP:NPOV claim is not the "gotcha" you believe it to be. It's grasping at straws. –OrinZ (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

First, the rule you mentioned requires that the content is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". A local non-tabloid newspaper article is neither of the two. Furthermore, saying X is a "rapist" is libel while saying X "stood trial for rape" is not (since a reliable source exists for the latter, not for the former). Also, I do not see how there being "an influx of people" or the fact that people have "ulterior motives" undermines the fact that this piece of information is properly sourced. Tell me where it says that "ulterior motives" qualifies properly-sourced information for removal? Lastly, I think relevance isn't the real issue here: the rape trial is included on the German version of the article, so why not here, especially given that Rich is an anglophone Youtuber? There are also much less notable incidents than being tried for rape mentioned on here. Do these need to go too?128.6.36.80 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If there were multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident it would be included. It's clear that the new people invading this article don't understand the concept of "multiple reliable third-party sources." If you don't understand WP:BLP that's fine, but this discussion isn't gaining any support from those who do understand it. There was a Rfc requested (by a blocked account) and it was not supported by experienced Wiki editors who are familiar with the guidelines. Right now there's no reliable third-party coverage connecting the trial from two decades ago to the person who is now notable for having a popular YouTube Channel. If you want this included, find coverage that discusses the YouTuber's past. --Nemov (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I now agree with you, thank you 128.6.36.80 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Addition to 'Incident' section of the page.

Benjamin Rich was formerly known as Benjamin Rich-Swift, on 26th May 2001 he was involved in an incident concerning an alleged rape. Although eventually found not guilty, the judge a Mrs Justice Hallett said the men 'should feel ashamed of themselves'.

Bankruptcy notice, Benjamin Rich was declared bankrupt on 23rd January 2017. Deltajuliet2490 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This topic has been discussed before. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. 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. Nemov (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nemov the bankruptcy notice is reliable information. It is from The Gazette which is publicly available information for the UK and pertains to the whole reason why he started up the YouTube channel in the first place. This I feel should be added. Deltajuliet2490 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You're new so I understand there's a lot you don't know about Wikipedia guidelines. You can review WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPPRIMARY if you want to learn more. Just because you want something to be added doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Nemov (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will review these, thank you for sharing. Deltajuliet2490 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

@David Gerard, you added the template in 2021. Is the article to your satifaction now? @OrgoneBox attempted to remove the template, but I have rolled back that change to give you a chance to review or explain the template. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be lovely if whomever placed the template would explain which sources are unreliable. Templates are not meant to remain indefinitely and are worse than unhelpful when just dropped in. Or since @Nemov: reinserted it, perhaps he/she could explain which of the sources are unreliable? OrgoneBox (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the message above? You cited a guideline you didn't follow. I have alerted the user who inserted the template. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Nemov it is YOU who does not understand. The admin who protected this left this edit summary "YouTube is okay as a primary source for that claim by the subject (expressly by him), but it need a _timestamp_ for the pertinent excerpt.". So your continued deletion of that is improper. A time stamp could be easily requested, instead you're reverting everyone in an unproductive manner.OrgoneBox (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You cited a guideline and didn't alert the editor who inserted the template. Now you're changing the subject. The YouTube source is irrelevant to this template discussion, but feel free to create a section about the timestamp. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The guideline says "consider notifying", it does not say "you must notify before removing" and it definitely does not say you can blindly revert me. It is you who are conveniently WP:IDHT, as you've twice removed my insertion of the sentence cited to the subject's vlog. Please explain your actions. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page

Thanks for contributing. Nemov (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue did not appear contentious to me and there was no talk page discussion. It had the appearance of a stale drive-by tagging, which is something I encounter frequently on Wikipedia. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. Now you know. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

YouTube, Daily Express for a start. Hard to estimate reliability of Russia Beyond or EurasiaTimes by Wikipedia criteria. But it looks like a lot of it was cobbled together from whatever passing mentions from someone could find - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

David, if the subject fails notability and you believe the article is puffed up with passing mentions why have you not sent the article to Afd? I don't understand the value of dropping an ugly template on this page and people keeping it there if the real problem is the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Regarding YouTube as a source, I'll quote El C's edit summary when protecting the article: "YouTube is okay as a primary source for that claim by the subject (expressly by him), but it need a _timestamp_ for the pertinent excerpt." The reliability of the other sources can be easily resolved at the RS Noticeboard. OrgoneBox (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Start by deleting the dodgy sources and all claims cited to them. See what's left - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the article has been improved since the template was added. Is there anything specific that should be cut? Nemov (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone is free to delete bad sources, however as noted by El C, "YouTube is okay as a primary source for that claim by the subject (expressly by him)..." Daily Express is rubbish should be removed and the other two you noted should be raised at the RSN. As you say, they may or may not be ok. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. A handful of references were presented above as potentially problematic, however there's been no effort to remove them though the page has been unprotected for a couple days. Can whomever is opposed to the references please remove them so we can get this unhelpful template off the page? EDIT: To get the ball rolling, I have initiated a discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of the refs David mentioned. [2]. Feel free to participate. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the Daily Express reference. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Organized Campaign

There's another organized campaign to make changes to this article on Reddit. For those of you new to Wikipedia, there was an RfC about this topic last year where the consensus was not to include the information. Per the guidelines for biographies of living persons there needs to be multiple reliable sources to justify inclusion of new information. There's no campaign to keep information out. However, there is a campaign to brigade this article with poorly sourced information. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, to right great wrongs, or for promoting fan or anti-fan sites. If there are genuine questions about the inclusion of new information please feel free to ask. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

They can also refer to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE. I agree with the RfC that this doesn't belong in the article. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to brand that as an 'organized campaign' or 'campaign', but rather an outside discussion. Also, that would seem to promote and outside forum (to readers here) and antagonise Wikipedians in that forum (to readers there). I think it is more appropriate, instead, and something you've included in your comment, to clearly reference the current Wikipedia guidelines and what is necessary to make edits. What should be addressed is the discrepancy between English and German versions of this article. Clearly this is controversial and editors using different languages are seemingly applying different standards. Why? Tfburns (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an outside campaign to change this article and to find editors to get it done. That's the reality and it's against Wikipedia guidelines. It happened before during the RfC and the article is protected now because multiple IP changes.

What should be addressed is the discrepancy between English and German versions of this article.

I don't speak German so that would be a question for German editors. Assuming the rules are the same as the English Wiki, it's only there because it hasn't been brought to the attention of experienced editors. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what Nemov said above, the English Wikipedia is not responsible for the German Wikipedia and vice versa. They are separate projects and there are often differences between the various language projects. Those of us here are concerned with what appears on this project. I'll also note that you seem to be the one leading this Reddit campaign. OrgoneBox (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying those points. As mentioned, I don't think it's fair to refer to those outside discussions as a 'campaign', nor to accuse anyone of 'leading' such a campaign. I think it is unhelpful for newcomers, who we must assume are acting in good faith.

It seems problematic that, independently and by the sounds of things more than once, multiple (mostly new-ish) editors have sought to discuss this issue or make edits. As one such new-ish editor, I was quite taken aback by my good faith edit/addition on the talk page which was very quickly erased by Nemov. I think doing so is not altogether reasonable. The reason I think that is because it seems this precise issue is likely to be discussed again, and it would be better to instead use the talk page to *guide* newcomers on how to propose edits on this issue and the standards/rules required. As it stands, this discussion serves to somewhat alienate and antagonise (no doubt unintentionally). So, I suggest this discussion be rephrased/reformatted/summarised by an experienced editor (possibly without any mention of the allegations in question) which explains the current protected status and what standards are needed to make edits of the nature some seek (or have/have sought) to. Tfburns (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A big part of the issue as I see it is the connection to a Reddit forum that seems dedicated to doxxing a couple of Youtube personalities. We don't need any more 'truth warriors' here, believe me. And as I said at my talk page WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't enagage with you further at this point. You simply aren't extending good faith or being reasonable. I suggest if you think I've done something bannable to report me to the relevant people, but I won't be drawn into further direct discussion with you. As mentioned on the other talk page, I think the way this has been handled is very poor and doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia's standards, nor does it welcome newcomers (in which I would partly include myself). Tfburns (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As one such new-ish editor, I was quite taken aback by my good faith edit/addition on the talk page which was very quickly erased by Nemov. I think doing so is not altogether reasonable. It would be better to instead use the talk page to *guide* newcomers on how to propose edits on this issue and the standards/rules required.Your "good faith edit" was promoting and outside group with a link to the group. The deletion was explained and I left a note on your TALK giving guidance on next steps. That's how Wikipedia works.

I don't think your tactics are nefarious, but they are against the rules. They're against the rules for good reasons. Your intentions may be great, but it leads to disruptive editing on this article by people who are on moral crusade. I created this discussion because I didn't want to go to an outside group and argue with a bunch of true believers and it should be handled here where the discussion belongs.

You mention assuming good faith, but there's very little of it being given to the editors here who have patiently answered questions and cleaned up the mess from the campaigns to change this article. Anyway, I hope this discussion helps those who genuinely wish to understand Wikipedia policies. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Tfburns isn't new at all. Their first edit to En-Wiki was in 2014, and their fifth edit (the same year) was to create a very well formatted (including properly formatted secondary references) BLP [3]. I'd like to know what their prior account was. OrgoneBox (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a clear attempt at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry. Regardless of the merit of these allegations, Wikipedia takes WP:BLP very seriously. We cannot include these allegations, not because anybody here is trying censor or suppress this information because they wish to protect his reputation, but because none of it is sourced to reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.. Legal documents such as name changes are also not considered BLP complaint, they would have to mentioned by reliable sources before they would be included, also cf. WP:DEADNAME if people were non-notable under a previous name, then it is generally not included. Wikipedia has a responsibility to article subjects not to include poorly sourced material that is potentially libellous, see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for an example of what happens when that is not followed. If you want to get these allegations included, then get them published by mainstream newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As for the rape allegation, we would have to have a reliable published secondary source that makes clear that the "Benjamin Rich-Swift" mentioned in the 2001 case [4] is the same person as the Bald and Bankrupt "Benjamin Rich", which as far as I am aware does not exist. Otherwise it could just be the case it is a different person with the same name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The same name and the same date of birth. Tfburns (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Using several sources to infer a conclusion stated by none of the sources individually would be a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. As I said previously we would need a reliable source that specifically links "Bald and Bankrupt" to the rape case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing otherwise. I am just correcting your sentence 'Otherwise it could just be the case it is a different person with the same name.' to 'Otherwise it could just be the case it is a different person with the same name *and date of birth*.' (omitting the 'and date of birth' part makes suggestions/discussions of this edit seem less genuine/credible than they might be. Tfburns (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."

From: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry Tfburns (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Meh. Having re-read the reddit post you made again, it doesn't seem that biased or attempting to advocate that other people join in, but the crowd you were posting to definitely have an axe to grind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Nemov" and this article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I wanted to start a here discussion about User:Nemov, a frequent contributor to this article, specifically his long-term editing pattern:

• For starters, he initiated a Rfc last year to delete the article, which you can see here. This does not make sense, since he put and continues putting a great deal of effort in maintaining the article.

• Second of all, he staunchly opposes and reverts any addition referring to the particular "incident". In last year's discussion on it, he claimed that it lacked multiple secondary sources. However since then, additional multiple local newspaper sources in addition to the website have been found covering the incident. I cited them properly and verified all the points of WP:BLP and "righting great wrongs", but he was quick to multi-revert, and ask an admin (who circumstantially describes themselves in their talk page as "conservative") to lock the page.

• Speaking about the incident in particular, it is definitely relevant as this YouTuber is manifestly part (as he states in his videos), associates/makes videos with YouTubers (ie. JohnnyFD, TallTravels) of the Pickup artist scene.

• He deletes talk page posts that cast the "incident" situation in a bad light.

• Finally, he is very quick to claim an external campaign to modify this article, even when edits are properly sourced by WP:BLP standards ( "righting great wrongs" applies for not properly sourced material)

All in all, those points lead me to surmise that Nemov has some connection/stake to the subject of this article, or at the very least is a tendentious editor. Discuss below. 128.6.36.199 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I wont comment on the bullet points above since the previous section and the RfC have already covered that subject well. However, if you wish to lodge a complaint against my edits you can go over to WP:ANI and post it there. Best of luck with that. Nemov (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The RfC and the above has not addressed the local newspaper sources (link: [[5]]), which bring the number of reliable sources to two or more. 128.6.36.199 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, this comes across as both ignorant of WP policies (understandable) and as a personal attack (much more serious). Furthermore I don't think you are persuading anyone. Thparkth (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, would it be possible to specify which WP policy? More generally, it would be great of you gave examples too to have more balanced discussion. I am backing up with examples and phrasing things neutrally, so I do not think I am assuming bad faith right away and doing an unsubstantiated personal attack. Going back to the topic, his edit history literally follows Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing point by point. I can lay out each point for you if you wish, but from your past response, I can see you are not willing to have an honest conversation with an "IP editor". 128.6.36.199 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight but you may want to review WP:SEALION and WP:IDHT. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• The first policy you are ignoring is the requirement that you do not engage in personal attacks. The second policy is WP:VERIFY which says that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you. I think also you have not yet completely understood WP:BLP or how intensely seriously the Wikipedia community takes it.

To be more precise, if you want to include some information that could be severely reputation -damaging on a BLP page, you need to 1. have STRONG sources (which I'm not sure is the case), 2. have strong sources that precisely and specifically show that the person the incident relates to is the same one that the article is about (WP:BURDEN). It is this second concern which is the main problem right now.

If you can get past that problem, you are now in a situation where the information COULD be added to the article, but that doesn't mean that it MUST be. Now you get to take part in the normal cut-and-thrust of editorial discussion. There is an existing consensus against inclusion, so you have to change that consensus. Explain why the information is important in the overall context of the article. Explain how it is fair to the article subject. Explain how including the content improves the article from the reader's point of view. If you have a good argument for why the information should be included, people will be persuaded.

Finally, with iron-tight verifiability, and having gained consensus for including it, you get to add it to the article. But you have to write it in a neutral way ("Bob was charged with murder" on its own is not neutral if Bob was found not guilty and you deliberately miss that part out). You did not write in a neutral way.

My own opinion is that the sources you have are pretty weak but they pass the bar for basic verifiability that this thing happened to some person; but there is one huge detail missing: none of them make any specific connection to the subject of this article, the Youtube channel "Bald and Bankrupt", or its owner. We don't know for sure that it's the same person, and in fact the name isn't even the same. This is a BLP so "very likely the same person" really is not good enough.

Furthermore my opinion is that the story isn't very important with regards to the article topic, and can't be written about in a way that's fair to the subject. It would be different if the person had been found guilty, of course, but being NOT guilty of something 20 years ago just... isn't anything. Even mentioning the charges would insinuate that "there is no smoke without fire" in a way that is harmful to the subject, and so I don't think that the value of the information is high enough to justify including it, even if we were sure that it's the same person. All of this is 100% in line with the WP:BLP requirement to "write responsibly and cautiously".

Thparkth (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox image

I deleted the infobox image (which is an idealized drawing of the subject, inside a red star on a black background), for a couple-few reasons. An editor, @Primefac:, has reverted this and restored the image, so let's talk. I'm not sure that we can't use the image, but I'm pretty sure. If I'm wrong I'm willing to be educated.

There are basically two reasons I don't think the we should -- or can -- use the image.

Claim of copyright issues

Executive Summary: this copyrighted image can't be used under any of our fair-use or other exemptions.

---

So, according to my understanding, free use pictures of living persons are not allowed (except for some exceptional cases). The rule is at Wikipedia:Non-free content, specifically at WP:GETTY

The editor's edit summary for the restore was "low-quality non-free images are acceptable regardless of use", which... isn't so. Assuming the editor meant "...in this case", then indeed non-free images are used in many cases, under fair use.

It is true that logos are permitted fair use. However, I think most people have assumed -- and I think the rules indicated -- that only organizations have logos, that individual persons can't have logos. If we look at WP:LOGOS, the lede ends with

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Emphasis added. So, the article is clearly about an individual person, as it opens with

Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author.

It doesn't say "Bald and Bankrupt is the name of a company which produces YouTube videos" or "...a collective of vloggers" or anything like that.

Since Benjamin Rich is an individual person, and the article is about that individual person, I believe a photograph of Benjamin Rich is what want here. If that is true -- and I mean, it is, right? -- we should fairly easily be able to obtain a free photo.

There are various guideline rules about all this, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. I hate to be a nag about this, but the Foundation takes this pretty seriously.

So but another couple things:

If we discuss the image, we can use it. If we can say "Bald and Bankrupt's logo (shown here) has attracted much attention for its unusual use of phlogistated septum" or whatever. Not sure we can do that without stretching too far.

And another thing, {{Infobox YouTube personality}} has a field for "logo" (as well as a separate field for "image", which I suppose would usually be a portrait). This implies that individuals ("personalities") can have logos, which can be used. How that was decided I don't know, but I mean it can't override our copyright policies. If YouTube is different from everything else (could be I guess), we need to add that to Wikipedia:Image use policy and perhaps elsewhere, and we would need a big RfC for that.

Claim that image is misleading and violates WP:NPOV

Executive Summary: the image gives a false description of what the person looks like.

---

Altho it's a logo, it basically consists of a drawing of the person. It could be considered a portrait, I guess. Not that that would make it allowable, but the problem is that even it was, the drawing doesn't look like the person very much. It is true that we have used drawings when they are the only free image we have, even a kind of impressionist painting in one case. However, this is different because it's deliberately drawn to make the person look better than he really is, and (presumably) by the person himself or somebody working for him, or a fan. I mean, look at photos yourself of Rich and see what you think. I know what I think. NPOV violation. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

The YouTube channel used this image and since this is an article about that channel I don't object to its inclusion here, but there could be a question about image being fair use and that should be discussed on the file itself. Nemov (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Point 1: yes, we can absolutely use a small-sized/low-quality logo for a YouTube channel, because there is no free version of him or his logo that we can use. Obviously if there was a CC-BY image floating around of him, we'd probably be using that, but we don't, so we use the next best thing (and I would argue a non-free logo makes more sense than something like a non-free screenshot of him).

Point 2: well, that's just silly. "The drawing doesn't look like the person"? Last I checked, it's his logo. If someone decides that a caricature of themselves is good enough to be the main image for their YouTube channel, I'm pretty sure it's not offensive for us to use it on the Wikipedia article about him and his channel. Whether it's done to make him look better or worse is entirely immaterial. While we can certainly replace it with a different image if one exists (see Point 1) it is illogical to remove it simply because you think it makes him "look better". Primefac (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the image. It's a logo associated with the Youtube channel, which is the subject of this article. It's no different than using a corporate logo on an article about a corporation or brand. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, so far I am not convinced. Some of the points I need clarification on, and others I find not compelling.

If "this is an article about that channel", why does it not open with "Bald and Bankrupts is YouTube channel starring Benjamin Rich, who also goes by the personal stage name of Bald of Bankrupt" or something like that, instead of "Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author", as it does. Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.

"Silhouette of Danny DeVito, provided by DeVito". Would this be OK in his article?

As to "If someone decides that a caricature of themselves is good enough to be the main image for their YouTube channel, I'm pretty sure it's not offensive for us to use it", I mean, no. Subjects of articles are not neutral, and are poor sources for any information about themselves beyond basic facts. We don't allow text "John Smith is considered to be extremely handsome" and source that to Smith himself, of course. Same thing with a drawing.

Sometimes we use subject-provided portraits, if they're accurate. Sometimes we use studio glamour shots (not preferred on the merits I think, but preferred because copyright holder released it for public distribution (altho not under a free license, but still)), but at least that's a actual photo of the actual person.

This doesn't even look like the person. It would be WP:BLP violation for me to say he's a lot... more filled out... in person, so I'll leave that to the reader.

Logo or not, it's a bad picture. But as to it being a logo: Is "Bald and Beatiful" an incorporated company? How many employees does it have, how many contract workers? Is Bald and Beautiful more similar to say John Denver, or to ExxonMobile? How does Bald and Beautiful compare to say CarniK Con, a YouTube troupe (which has a logo), or Pomato (company) which also publishes on YouTube but is a production company (and has a logo)? is the line between "YouTube individual person" and "YouTube troupe/company" kind of a slippery slope rather than a clear division?

Do we need to rewrite the article, or what? Are YouTube personalities with channels a kind of in-between thing between an individual and a company? Is a YouTube channel different from a TV broadcast of a concert and so on? How and why? Is this generally accepted here, and who said so? Do other YouTube people have logos? Why does PewDiePie and Etika and etc have a photo instead of a logo? (I'm genuinely asking, I don't watch YouTube channels and I can't keep up with you kids and your internets.)

Or, off of YouTube, do we allow logos for individuals? What examples? We do show that weird symbol that Prince used, under fair use. That's not a corporate logo tho, and is discussed in the text, and a free image performing the same function could never be obtained. Anybody else? Can't think of any right off.

Anyway, copyright aside, the picture's no good. It should be easy to get a photo. Somebody just ask him, he'll probably provide one. Herostratus (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.

Good question, the answer is probably yes. I've updated the lead to say "better known as Mr. Bald which is similar to PewDiePie another famous YouTube personality.

As for the rest I'll leave that up to others. Nemov (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I modified the lede so that the primary mentions are the channel and not Rich. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I also want to add that the image seems fine to me. I'm not really seeing the issue. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Yes, I did say if the article was modified, the copyright aspect of the image would be taken are of. But I wasn't actually recommending that. I didn't recommend that because, altho it solves that problem, it introduces other problems:

• Describing "Bald and Bankrupt" as a channel rather than a person might be inconsistent with our sources.
• Describing "Bald and Bankrupt" as a channel rather than a person might be misleading since all it is him making a YouTube account, then setting up a camera and talking into it and then uploading the video -- right? That's a process and a medium, and and I wouldn't think we should focus on that.
• Describing "Bald and Bankrupt" as a channel rather than a person seems like it might be inconsistent with our similar articles, eg Anthony Fantano opens with "Anthony Fantano is an American music critic and YouTuber who runs the YouTube channel The Needle Drop and its tie-in website..." To be consistent with what you're trying to do here, you'd want to move that article to The Needle Drop (and tweak the writing), or else have two separate articles. (This is possible, we do have articles for both Paul Harvey and The Rest of the Story for instance, but Paul Harvey is a big star who did many things, so I don't know if we should that for Rich and Fantano etc. Maybe. But til we do we want to make sure we don't unnecessarily introduce a consistency problem.)

All this to save that one POV picture? I mean, can't you email this guy and ask him to donate the drawing under a Creative Commons license... POV or no, if it's the only free image we have you could make an argument on that ground. Or a photo if he doesn't want to do that. I mean you'd think he'd be willing to do at least that. I am not on board with the lede change. Herostratus (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a weird hill to die on, especially since your entire arguments are based on (and therefore trying to justify) your opinion that the logo of the channel is somehow breaking NPOV. I don't think anyone here has expressed issue with the NPOV aspect of the logo, which means that you are in the minority on whether it's "acceptable", meaning your proposed fixes are trying to fix a non-issue. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The picture is not "POV". This argument is bizarre and makes no sense to me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Incidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A good proportion of sources and 1/2 of the article details incidents, so I the option is to either have a dedicated incident section, or delete the sourced content. Having his "career" section made up of 70% incidents violates npov more than having a dedicated section for incidents, as he is a controversial youtuber. 128.6.36.192 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Also it was the previous consensus. 128.6.36.192 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

What previous consensus? We don't need a sub-heading dedicated to it, as it isn't NPOV, as it's similar to a WP:Controversy section. It's all part of his notable career- the way to fix any perceived imbalance would be to add more sourced text about other non-incidents, rather than splitting up the article in a way against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for "controversial youtuber". All of the reliable sources I've seen have said nothing about his being "controversial". EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The restructuring of the article, like any other modification to the article, needs to achieve Wikipedia:Consensus since it was contested (reverted). This policy justifies keeping the old version of the article until consensus between editors is achieved. Instead of building consensus, someone went admin shopping to lock the article to me and revert it. Oh well.

Please see this section in particular "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted."

I maintain that it does sound weird to have literally five sentences back to back of him getting arrested, kicked out, falling ill and it does disservice to the tone of the "career" section. A separate section would be better, whatever its name is. Also given that, it is kind of missing the point you asking "why is he a controversial youtuber". 128.6.37.37 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you're the only one who seems to object you'll need a consensus to justify the status quo. It's a channel full of "incidents." The currently article is fine with this under "career." Nemov (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"as he is a controversial youtuber" are your words, not mine. Please answer the question. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, EnPassant, you are clearly demonstrating bad faith over there.

Responding to Nemov: it is known that consensus does not mean "a majority vote" (especially when the majority are friends -- WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), rather receiving input from other editors and giving back input on the talk page. After reverting, I gave the input: "having a career section full of incidents violates NPOV more than a dedicated section for it". Then you/your friends responded with the WP:REHASH statement: "an incident section violates NPOV" (literally repeating the same thing as the edit summary). This makes it clear that you are not trying to build consensus. 128.6.37.80 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't understand what Consensus means here. You began the discussion as an attempt to build consensus (in compliance with WP:BRD), and so far three people (now four, including me) disagree with your proposal. You want to do something that goes against our WP:MOS, and nobody else has agreed with you, so your proposal has thus far not succeeded. Additional pertinent reading may include WP:DROPTHESTICK and Wikipedia:How to lose. False accusations of bad faith are a personal attack, which need to end or you may be blocked from editing. Additionally, when article protection expires, if you continue to edit war, you'll also be blocked. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Replying "Please answer the question." (quoting EnPassant) while I try to build consensus is explicit bad faith/incivility. Going back to the main topic: consensus needs to be achieved to make new additions, not to "revert new additions" supported by a clique of editors (you, Nemov, etc). What you mentioned is pretty irrelevant as I am the only one trying to build consensus here. Now speaking about the actual content: having a POV career section which gives undue weight to incidents IS against the manual of style (instead of putting it apart in a "Public Image" or "Incidents" or whatever-you-might-call-it section), which is what I've been trying to argue, and what you all have failed to address. What you said about WP:DROPTHESTICK only applies if there was a discussion. WP:REHASHing the same points while ignoring my replies is not a consensus-building discussion. 128.6.37.80 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is very tiresome WP:WL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not explaining yourself 128.6.37.80 (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You're just citing irrelevant WP essays at this point (ones usually dished out as WP:PA in particular). Edit warring goes in both directions when there are two people reverting each other. Here's a timeline of what happened again. Joseph2302 makes the edit. I revert it and explain why in the talk page (following B/R/D). By WP:CONSENSUS, an official Wikipedia policy, the edit LOST consensus. He reverts it again (repeating his same edit summary argument in the talk page), going directly against WP:BRD (discuss). I revert it back, saying there's no consensus. His friend Nemov "warns" me, goes admin shopping to get the page locked again, etc.

See the problem here? (at this point I'm just posting for the lurkers browsing the talk page) 128.6.37.80 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Your continual refusal to answer a simple question demonstrates your own bad faith, and characterizing my request for you to explain your comments as bad faith is a false accusation of same, which is the WP:PA here. Please stop playing games. And while you're at it, please log back into your account. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

* Comment Has anyone done a sock check on all these IP accounts with very few edits citing Wikipedia guidelines? It's just odd that this article keeps receiving these inane guideline arguments from accounts with relatively few edits. These accounts are always accusing the editors of bad faith. It's a little suspicious. [Not the place for this question, removed.]Nemov (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Talk pages are for discussing the content not the editors. 128.6.37.80 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also a heavy burden of proof lies on you for making accusations of sockpuppetry or else it's a WP:PA. It violates talk page guidelines regardless and at this point I can say you are just doing this to prevent/divert attention away from the discussion. 128.6.37.80 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.