Jump to content

Talk:Wilbur Soot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Abuse Allegations

[edit]

He addressed the allegations personally (and was community noted on twitter). This should at least have mention that he was accused of abuse Melofy (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Looking at the page, there seems to have been an edit dispute over a lack of secondary sources covering the topic. I went ahead and found some sources that recount what occurred, however, all, except Dexerto is conveniently considered unreliable. I feel that just because the sources are not considered too reliable that does not mean that we cannot use them, especially when all they are doing is recounting what occurred. Could be a case of WP:IGNORE in my opinion, as I feel this limits the improvement of Wikipedia in this specific case. Not0nshoree (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean could we use the fact that he himself adressed them as we used that before in other articles? and even with like Josh Giddey the first reports weren't the most reliable but since they were posted they included a footnote on it until reliable scources picked up on it. Abuse allegations are serious and should be adressed Melofy (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and since there is no deadline on Wikipedia, there is no rush to report any information which is not published by a reliable source on a Biography of a Living Person article, because BLP articles require a higher burden of proof than regular articles. A list of community-vetted sources can be consulted at WP:RSP and an indicative list of video-game related sources at WP:VG/RS. From a cursory search on Google News, outside of tabloids, no reliable outlet seems to have covered the abuse allegations/controversy: Dexerto is not suitable for BLPs per community consensus (see WP:RSP); Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable (see WP:SPORTSKEEDA); Distractify is generally unreliable (see here); and both ''The Sun UK and US are deprecated (see WP:THESUN).
While we could include Wilbur Soot's own statement as long as it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF, it would have to be included in a manner sufficient to make the reader understand what it is about while complying with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies, which I think is hard to do. If you have any willingness to try to write something just from this statement, then feel free to pitch something here. Pilaz (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As many of his fellow content creators have pointed out in the replies, the "apology" is so vague it really doesn't mean anything, so it seems pointless to include something like "Gold posted an explanation and an apology to an ex-girlfriend on Twitter" in the article. Readers not in the know would probably say "OK, so? People apologise to ex-girlfriends all the time". Users will continue to try to add Shubble's name in there if we have it. We certainly can't say "Gold apologised to ex-girlfriend YouTuber Shubble after she alleged he had abused her" just because everybody knows that's who he was talking about with a lack of secondary sourcing, so I've removed the "update article" tag. If there were secondary sourcing and the article was missing that information, I feel like the tag would be valid. Ss112 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The apology states "A series of allegations have been made over my conduct from an ex-girlfriend" and "The allegations of abuse, particularly in the form of biting, deeply shocked me."
It seems to be relatively clear what his response is regarding.
I think that it is far more egregious to exclude this than to use the apology itself as a source. BromoPhenethylamine (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be relatively clear what his response is regarding. Only to people already immersed in the world of Minecraft YouTube. Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader, who we can't expect to have any particular pre-existing knowledge of Soot's personal life. If readers have to know about allegations by Shubble that we cannot cite in order to understand what the article is saying, that's not helpful and is a sign we should wait for reliable sources to report on this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have zero involvement in the world of Minecraft YouTube and found it pretty easy to follow without knowing who the people involved are. But I see your point regarding the allegations being uncitable due to no reliable secondary source existing. BromoPhenethylamine (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US sun has touched on it, could that be included as a source? 178.22.207.152 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US Sun isn’t considered a reliable source so editors will probably remove it. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 11:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How feasible is the article by the Mirror US as a secondary source for this? There are also articles by a few student-run medias (Quinnipac and US Mass Dartmouth), but I'm unfamiliar with the policies for those kinds of sources in this regard.
Either way it seems that something should be included. On cursory search, he has not been active or producing anything elsewhere online, which to me suggests that this controversy is relevant to other areas of the overall biography and should at minimum be mentioned. RockLizards (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus on Mirror (WP:DAILYMIRROR), but I should note that it's a tabloid newspaper. For student-run medias, see WP:RSSM: They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support using Quinnipac as a secondary source, let's get this added. It's very past due as a well regarded and highly relevant topic that the subject of the article has himself addressed. daylon124 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The piece in Quinnipac is an editorial essay about online personas tied to the controversy. Considering student media is already considered a sub-par choice for sources, I would think that would disqualify its use here. Altruisticmeta (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the piece in the UMassD Torch is written by a staff writer. Still a student, but not quite the op-ed of the Quinnipiac Chronicle. Pilaz (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a quality article either. A brief read through shows biased language everywhere, commentary from the author and a call to action to the reader regarding the controversy. Considering this falls under the bio of a living person standard, the UMass article doesn't resemble a professional source Altruisticmeta (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say, I don’t have a source to add (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing), but it’s been since March of 2024, and the fact there’s no mention of what happened is odd to me. There has to be a reliable source somewhere, right? PixelPalettes (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
little late but here: https://www.the-sun.com/news/11589234/wilbur-soot-shelby-grace-shubble-youtube-return/. also: https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/wilbur-soot-apology-shubble-allegations-362564, The Linear (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that there should be a paragraph dedicated to the "allegations" (read: facts) so that people know to avoid him like Onision 149.115.66.106 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed 82.46.112.140 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

[edit]
66.81.168.160 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur’s birthday is wrong

 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. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

[edit]

Due to the allegations of Wilbur by streamer Shubble not being included in the wiki page, I am requesting to edit in order to include the allegation information within his Wikipedia page.

Shelby's Stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzkS1_Pu6Kw

Wilbur's Response: https://x.com/WilburSoot/status/1762505851699380353 Manwithafriend (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.
Also note that allegations of wrongdoing on a WP:BLP would require more reliable sources, these are both user-generated. If this has been covered by news outlets or other reliable sources it can probably be added. Jamedeus (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want a reliable source: https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/wilbur-soot-apology-shubble-allegations-362564, another one? here: The US SunYouTuber Wilbur Soot blasted for ‘brushing it under the rug’ as he returns to social media 4 months after ‘...Musician and streamer Wilbur Soot has been blasted once again by fans for returning to social media several months after he was accused of abusing an ex-....10 Jun 2024, that reliable enough? ADD THE ALLEGATIONS! The Linear (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations re-talk

[edit]

want a reliable source: https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/wilbur-soot-apology-shubble-allegations-362564, another one? here: The US SunYouTuber Wilbur Soot blasted for ‘brushing it under the rug’ as he returns to social media 4 months after ‘...Musician and streamer Wilbur Soot has been blasted once again by fans for returning to social media several months after he was accused of abusing an ex-....10 Jun 2024, that reliable enough? ADD THE ALLEGATIONS! The Linear (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US Sun is apparently considered an unreliable source for whatever reason? I'll try and add that other source into the article, the Mirror one. Kaivangelion (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kaivangelion The Linear (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with adding something about the allegations, as he's practically fallen out of the public face and almost everybody he previously knew no longer associates with him, but by no means is The Mirror considered a reliable source for contentious topics such as this. Again, let me reiterate that I wouldn't be against adding content about it due to not only his response and the falloff of his public image as a result of the situation, just making a correction here regarding Wikipedia standards on sources. B3251(talk) 01:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so are we doing anything about the new allegations? or are we just going to ignore them like the last time:
Wilbur Soot Grooming Allegations Explained... (Exposed by Rue) The Linear (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that one [and the other one] but unfortunately the editors on this article are strict and only want certain sources? I'll look around Kaivangelion (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sick, cheers. The Linear (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it feels very unfair that we can't add these things, even Soot himself confirmed 2/3 of the allegations, why can't we add his own truths? The Linear (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A truth which caused him to lose 250,000 fans, an incredible loss, the likes that not many youtubers or youtube users have seen. The Linear (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm confused about as well. Plenty of articles use Twitter as a source, mainly for announcements or statements from the subject of the article. I don't get why we can't source it here. Kaivangelion (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaivangelion Please keep in mind that it's not us editors who are being strict regarding this, it's just that coverage about this situation was never picked up by any sources considered to be reliable enough for contentious topics. It's not our decision, it's according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have had my edits reverted by high-ranking editors when I was a new editor for similar reasons. I personally won't stop you if you so choose to add information regarding this because was once familiar with this topic I don't oppose adding it, but technically speaking because none of the sources that have reported on the topic are considered reliable enough for serious topics (only coverage really came from low-quality tabloids). Because of that, another editor who is familiar with Wikipedia guidelines will likely remove it (again, as it has been a few times as far as I'm aware). B3251(talk) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilbur_Soot&oldid=1277276991"