Talk:MrBeast/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recently is formal employee started accusing or exposing Mr beast should be include that in this Wiki? Insane miner (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as you have reliable sources! You can see this list of them. TheWikiToby (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

well one source is his former employee

Second is his best friend Kris who did inappropriate chats with a minor which Jimmy Donald son know

Source 1 https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=d9aaLN4CjkkQ1hrC&v=k5xf40KrK3I&feature=youtu.be

Source 2

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2483926/mrbeast-discord-leaks-reveal-former-mrbeast-employee-ava-kris-tysons-alleged-misconduct-with-minors

I can't prove them but u can say this are some serious allegations Insane miner (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Don’t add anything until there is more information and it’s clear what is true and what is false. Ensure you follow Wp:BLP Legendarycool (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

i can't add anything

To edit we should request first

And I have more sources which make this allegations strong

Ofcourse I can't prove them but this is will not stop here that is for sure

This can be a full blown scandal Insane miner (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, ⁣

You are unable to make edits because this page is semi-protected and your account is either not 4 days old or has made less than 10 edits. If you have more reliable sources please share them as I don't believe the sources you've linked would count though. If you are directly making the allegations since you claim you cannot prove them see WP:NOR. Sources like "exposing" youtube videos will most likely not fall under the strict requirements for sourcing on such a matter, especially since the claims in the youtube video could be potentially libelous. Originalcola (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that exposing YouTube videos could possibly be wrong since videos don't hold any contract that creator should definitely should fullfill all the things which are said by anyone

Creator can just say " it's just for entertainment purposes only"

But my second source that is ava Kris conversation with a minor;14 to be exact about inappropriate things like pornography is true and I have some strong citations for that

Citation:-

https://github.com/KrisCaught/leaks/releases

This contains all the discord chats of that particular server

since that contains about 500,000 chats it will be problematic to go through everything so here are few images from that chats which could help us

https://kriscaught.github.io/

It is also observed that Jimmy Donaldson was also in that discord server

This claims are provided by his former moderator of discord Nathan W

I am still a rookie to this Wiki so I could have done some mistakes please correct me Insane miner (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict sourcing standards. That's for sure. However given he's a huge figure online and tons of allegations are coming out, I find it likely this controversy is going to be covered by more "reliable sources" which would make editors more comfortable with mentioning it in this article. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors on Wikipedia generally aren't supposed to make inferences or draw conclusions from multiple different primary sources due to potential bias and should primarily use interpretations from secondary sources which as mentioned by another editor will likely be forthcoming. When dealing with an ongoing event where the facts are not 100% clear just from the primary sources(eg.statements from those involved, the GitHub depository, etc.), it's often better to wait a bit for reliable secondary sources which there likely will be in the coming days. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY.

I hope that helps! Originalcola (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Legendarycool (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

understood

Let's wait for sometime and verify this sources till we get to a conclusion

It is important for reliable sources to come than some waves of allegations without any bases Insane miner (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The video shows clear evidence... Sigi31415 (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sigi31415 Maybe, but we still need established secondary sources. As far as we know, it is a completely random YouTube video from a questionable, unverified source that accuses a a real living person and the biggest YouTuber ever, of being a fraud. TheWikiToby (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue finding further sources and adding a point about a controversy. The examples shown in the video also contain further sources Sigi31415 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok but the full picture isn’t clear or even if it is real so wait until more verifiable evidence is put forward at that moment it is mostly 1 or 2 allegations and everyone pilling up on a large YouTuber that get you views to profit off this in any way possible also no news channels have covered this so wait till at least that.

sorry if I’ve got any errors in the reply I’m probably sleep deprived. :) Legendarycool (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources in this question are primary sources, which is problematic in this regard for the reasons stated by TheWikiToby. Even if the evidence is "clear" from the perspective of an editor that would be your interpretation. Originalcola (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, wait till news companies start to cover it. Legendarycool (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I found this on WP:RSPDEADLINE . [1] you can use this. I don't know where to put this Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Extend protect the article due to controversy surrounding MrBeast and Ava Kris Tyson. There is also controversy around his legitimacy. A former employee has even come out to expose MrBeast. He was allegedly caught in a Discord server doing illegal activities. Due to the controversy, this will lead, I suspect a flood of editors that meet the requirement to edit semi-protected articles to try to edit the article. This leads to edit wars and potential vandalism. I suggest that "MrBeast" on Wikipedia be extended protected temporarily or when the controversy dies down. Robloxbob222222222 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There hasn’t really been any issues so far so this sagestion would go against WP:NO-PREEMPT so just wait. Legendarycool (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed JusticeForGuhster9000 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I think combined views and subscriber counts should be added in stats window. Thoughts?
2. Not even sure where to start on the Ava grooming controversy, but the lack of info here is concerning. Can we please work on this? Cheers.

Electricmaster (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. They already are

2. I do think that the current section should be expanded, but I don't think too much detail/info is warranted at this current point. Do you have any suggestions on what to add? Originalcola (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just add it smh like i mean theres lots of news articles. 86.29.220.255 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

honestly, it shouldnt be on the mrbeast page. tyson needs their own page and this whole scandal may warrant its own separate page after thar NotQualified (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

granted, it can be mentioned to the extent donaldson was involved NotQualified (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed JusticeForGuhster9000 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable sources that can establish notability outside their work with MrBeast or controversies WP:BLP1E, I wouldn't be against making a page.

As for what's in the article, I should stress that this is the article about MrBeast, not Ava. We should not go into full detail and be concise wherever possible. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Practically all RS have reported on this. Here's a selection:

AP - CNN - The Independent - Variety - The Hollywood Reporter - WP - People - ABC

At the very least, to preserve WP:NPOV, something like this should be included in the article: "MrBeast acknowledged Wednesday, July 31, 2024 that he used “inappropriate language” in his early days on the Internet, addressing a controversy surrounding allegations of past racist remarks.“When Jimmy was a teenager he acted like many kids and used inappropriate language while trying to be funny,” a spokesperson for the YouTuber said in a statement."

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:702B:4F7E:A5CD:E5F0 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The YT Video describes quite a lot of reasonable extremly shitty and potential illegal activities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5xf40KrK3I It should be added Sigi31415 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSPDEADLINE

Note that we cannot claim Mr beast is doing any illegal activities since he can say "this for entertainment only"

And that former employee guy also didn't show any reliable sources to edit this wiki Insane miner (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Insane miner WP:RSPDEADLINE has nothing to do with that they asked. RSPDEADLINE is referring to the reliability of Deadline Hollywood. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sigi31415 has discussed adding content from this video and another editor linked an article from Deadline Hollywood that assumedly contained the same allegations mentioned in the video which is why WP:RSPDEADLINE was mentioned. Originalcola (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep discussion on an issue to the original discussion thread as opposed to a new one. Originalcola (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

youtube links are not sources, we are not adding he broke the law unless he was found guilty. one mans accusations are not a good enough source for the claim. let the news articles cover it, anything they say (given its reliable) can be covered here NotQualified (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned below, yesterday's AP article mentions this in a couple of paragraphs under the header "Giveaways questioned". AP has been one of the top RS here in WP, so it should be included now that its being reported on by various RS. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:702B:4F7E:A5CD:E5F0 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to MrBeast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to up the subscriber count for Mr Beast as it is higher now. Hudbud2011 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2024 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we include the allegation on this article? While the source in question is from YouTube video of the ex employee of mrbeast, the virality of the video gain so much attention to the point that an employee of mrbeast has publicly "debunked" some of the accuser's claims, and should used the YouTube video as source until more reliable source can be used Dauzlee (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I also think similarly

Even though we cannot write as "scam" or "scandal"

We can use that video as a source for one of his "allegations"

Let's see if we can get more sources

Please check the above talk "Allegations on Mr Beast" Insane miner (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. Electricmaster (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can use this yt video as a source for allegations against mrbeast any more than we can use the coffeezilla yt videos for allegations against techlead. (a similar thing I tried to do and had my edit reverted).

I think what has to happen is a real news org has to interview this former employee and get these things on the record--and should reach out to mrbeast to respond. Once all that is done, it should be published and then we have a proper source. 192.147.66.4 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

An impeccably reliable source is required, not a YouTube video from a disgruntled former employee. The policy is WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

To be real specific, WP:BLPSPS bars us from using such a self-published video in a biographical article of a living person such as this one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday's AP article mentions this in a couple of paragraphs under the header "Giveaways questioned". AP has been one of the top RS here in WP, so it should be included now that its being reported on by various RS. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:702B:4F7E:A5CD:E5F0 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

AP could be trusted by editors like us

But AP left us in dilemma

Read entire article to get what I am trying to say

AP didn't 100% confirm the source of former employee controversy

They described it as some "allegations"

Except that we can add Ava Kris controversy Insane miner (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot sources talking about the current drama, so should we create one? WP:RS I found that is usable.

• The New York Times
• Polygon
• The Independent (UK)
• Inquirer.net
• LA Times
• Kotaku
• ABC news

There is a lot actually Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, I don't know where to put the other controversies other than the beast games one. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

controversies should be include in public image section according to WP: CSECTION so don't add a new section Insane miner (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to recent news from different media outlets and wiki trusted secondary sources including primary sources it is confirmed that there as been criticism on Jimmy Donaldson So I am thinking of updating public image part Since we require neutral stand point I request all editors to suggest what should we consider adding in this page Insane miner (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please add:

-Fraudelent actions on YouTube, such as illegal lotteries and scam giveaways

-Past racist remarks

Jimmy Donaldson has addressed the second one and apologized for his many, many previous use of racist language. He has not directly addressed the first one but his lawyers did.

Plenty of RS on both posted on this very same talk page. It keeps being conveniently ignored for some reason.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F824:2595:60B9:A419 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done some changes

I think someone else modified my edit Insane miner (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5xf40KrK3I

https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/30/mrbeast-employee-attacks-whistleblower-called-youtube-star-a-fraud-21324299/

https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/25/former-mrbeast-employee-claims-youtube-star-a-fraud-a-scam-21297426/

recent allegations regarding MrBeast's fraudelent actions on YouTube, such as illegal lotteries and scam giveaways -- I think there is reason enough to add a section about this, seems fair if we're gonna have the Ava Kris Tyson stuff here as well. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:10A8:26D0:2326:478E (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

good to point this out, however, Metro is not a reliable source per WP:METRO. Juwan (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How about any of these?

AP - CNN - The Independent - Variety - The Hollywood Reporter - WP - People - ABC

They are all RS @JnpoJuwan.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:154B:69FC:109D:28E0 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a 'controversy page' or section, I recommend seeing WP:CSECTION as to why articles and BLPs generally don't have "Controversy" or similar sections. In a more general sense, the article is free to edit as long as you have an account that is at least four days old and at least ten edits (see WP:SEMI). If you feel that any information is necessary to add, feel free to do so as long as it's reliably sourced to the relevant section(s). B3251_(talk) 15:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@B3251 more recently (so recently that the news sources haven't seemed to gotten coverage), there has been criticisms about MrBeast, see the YouTube link above. I do not have much experience writing BLPs, so won't get to it without help, but a criticism section would surely be needed, under "Public image" to discuss this and other ongoing events such as the Kris Tyson boycott. Juwan (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just an IP editor. Care to add a few sentences regarding past racist remarks Jimmy used? Lot's of RS reporting on it for the past few days. (see them linked above) 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:154B:69FC:109D:28E0 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think just a sentence will suffice. Legendarycool (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User @Schestos created 2024 MrBeast controversies, which is linked in the see also of the Public image and influence section of this article, if that's of interest. – 2804:F14:8084:CE01:7083:526C:4EE6:56E2 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: The new article was set to be merged into the current article (not yet done) following a deletion discussion. – 2804:F1...D5:33ED (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to MrBeast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correct the table in the "Awards and Nominations" section. The 2022 awards have the Year and Ceremony section swapped/shifted. For the 2022 + 12th Streamy Awards, the Year and Ceremony column values need to be swapped. For the 2022 + 2022 Kids' Choice Awards, the columns need to be shifted to the left. Goosler13 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Goosler13, Thank you for telling this. I changed it. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

look it up on twiter, p'm going to sleep 217.24.171.179 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is nothing mentioned about the recent accusations of Ava Kris Tyson? Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

At the time of your question, there was a paragraph discussing it. Since then that paragraph has received its own heading: MrBeast#Tyson allegations and reactions. abcasada (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Donaldson is one of the most well-liked YouTubers on the platform"

Public consensus has turned very sour towards him, even more so with the new video from DogPack 404 released today. 199.107.198.251 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately he still has 300M+ subscribers. And until something big happens, the big PR control he has is not going to disappear. ItzSwirlz (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Given all the substantiated allegations of 2024, as covered by RS and featured in this article, we need a relevant and recent RS still stating so. Else, its just fluff language and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a separate page for the company BEAST HOLDINGS, LLC. and the person (Jimmy Donaldson) Mrbeast, as the current article has to both talk about an individual as well as a corporate entity and YouTube channel? Legendarycool (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, i do not think that two seperate articles are needed. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No. There is no precedence in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and seems like an attempt to deflect criticism of Donaldson by obscuring them with needless links.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As other editors have note, jist take a lool at the recent article edit history, @Spinixster keeps deleting "dogpack404" from the article even when it is being reported by RS.

The article currently mentions the Youtube videos released by dogpack404 and the subsequent fallout being covered by RS but @Spinixster keeps deleting the author of those videos names with no explanation provided.

Moreover, @Spinixster just edited the article (less than an hour ago) with the stated summary that it was to change a copyrighted image *but still went ahead and deleted dogpack404's name from the article in a surreptitious way*.

Several editors have noticed this, such as @HumanRightsIsCool, and it seems a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest violation. We need uninvolved editors on this highly visited article.

I would ask for @Spinixster to achieve Wikipedia:Consensus here on the TP before further editing.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Saying that I keep removing "dogpack404" is wrong. I have only done it once and once only. I don't understand the need to twist my edits like that. I suggest you look at the diffs before accusing me of such things.

2. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but that does not mean we have to include every single bit of information there is. The information was already tagged as being excessive. See WP:TMI#Balance.

3. I don't care about MrBeast. I don't watch his videos. He doesn't know that I exist. Suggesting that I may have a conflict of interest because I am following guidelines is wild.

You say to follow "consensus", yet you have not established any sort of polling or RFC for a consensus for keeping or removing dogpack404. When there's no consensus, editors will follow what the guidelines say. You can't trash someone over not following a consensus that no one has ever said or established; we aren't mind-readers, and that may violate WP:OWN.

Now, I'll back off of this conversation. Do whatever you want to do, but I hope you don't accuse me of anything further for my mental health's sake. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of content states "Disagreements should be calmly resolved..." and this is not what you have done in the essay above. This is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons so making substantial edits and not describing them in the summary of changes will be seen as either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia:Undue. This is the main issue in your editing. Perhaps it was mistake? If so, acknowledge it and move on.

Glad to hear you are taking a break, as per your statement. Health comes first.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I add dogpack404 back until we agree on the talk page? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I vote yes. Please add. RS already cover it and it is not Wikipedia:Undue.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not cast WP:Aspersion and claim that somebody has a conflict of interest. That's a serious allegation. Please WP:AGF. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Casting aspersions "...without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated...". This means you are wrong @Di (they-them) since this is neither repeated nor without evidence. I would encourage you to also refer to the fact that @Spinixster edited a highly contentious article while describing his edit as something else.

You are right that we should assume good faith and that is proper. But you are plainly mistaken in your previous assertion.

Have a good day.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@CFA why did you remove the word "Dogpack404" we're discussing in talk page can you add it back until we're done HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant here. Please see WP:BLPNAME. Namedrops are not useful in articles. C F A 💬 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You linked me to a section called "Privacy of names". The username "dogpack404" isn't private. And the whole section is about dogpack's videos, how is he not relevant? Are you a fan of MrBeast and you don't want people to hear the allegations, or is there a rule I didn't read. Can you copy and paste a rule that doesn't allow dogpack to be named HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

These type of aspersions are not helpful here. I don't watch MrBeast. I don't care about him. Promotional namedrops do not belong in articles, especially when the person is an otherwise private individual. The WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus for inclusion, which there is clearly not at the moment. C F A 💬 15:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus. The person who created this discussion on the talk page agrees with me. Also when most of the paragraph is about dogpack, name dropping isn't promoting any more than if you leave his name out because the whole section regardless is promoting his videos HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, there is definitely not consensus. The only people who support keeping the namedrop are you and the IP above. There are at least 4 other people that disagree with you. C F A 💬 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You are factually wrong @CFA. Only two editors, you included, have stated one way or another, a preference for deletion. That's your first mistake.

Your second is you referencing privacy of names. As per your link, "...the name of a private individual" and "...in terms of a single event." do nit apply here. This is not a private individual being named here and they have releaser multiple exposes that have been dutifully covered by RS. That's your second mistake.

Finally, you cite Wikipedia:Casting aspersions on the topic of including the username "dogpack404". It makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what you could possibly mean.

This inclusion is supported by RS and it is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Excluding it when you say you dont know anything about the topic is tantamount to Wikipedia:Edit warring. If you feel very strongly about this then I suggest you go find an uninvolved administrator or create a RfC.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There is consensus here. One editor withdrew from discussions making it only 1 single editor, @CFA, publicly opposed to this username inclusion.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask which references include the dogpack name. There are a lot of refs to wade through. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not how consensus works. There is more opposition, in addition to here, at User talk:HumansRightsIsCool#August 2024. Are you a fan of MrBeast and you don't want people to hear the allegations, or is there a rule I didn't read is clearly an aspersion. tantamount to Wikipedia:Edit warring is quite the claim when it has been repeatedly re-added by one editor despite being removed every time. I only removed it once. The ONUS is on you to find consensus for inclusion. You can start an RfC if you want to. I think the problem here is that you are too involved with the topic, not that I am uninvolved. I only found this article because an edit was flagged on Recent Changes, and based on the articles I've read, this seems to be a trivial namedrop only there to promote. C F A 💬 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby I don't want dogpack 's name in the article to promote him. I want it because it's extremely relevant to the paragraph. I don't know any other page that talks about another YouTuber but is afraid to name drop them. I've never seen it before. Also I wasn't making an aspersion, i was just asking if you like MrBeast and hate dog pack, I wasn't trying to attack you, but only to know your motive of the edit. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You pretty clearly casted an aspersion, at least in the way you phrased it.

Are you a fan of MrBeast and you don't want people to hear the allegations, or is there a rule I didn't read?

Using the word or in between two possible answers, one of which accusing someone of a literal Conflict of Interest, makes it seem like you're extremely confident in someone doing foul play despite lacking any amount of evidence. Anyways, please read WP:BLPNAME. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because it's verified doesn't mean it should be included, and the responsibility for justifiable inclusion is on the individual who wants to add it in the first place. Per BLPNAME, the inclusion of someone's name (whether it may be a private name or online username per following the spirit of the rule) shouldn't be included, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. (BLPNAME)

And yes, you are absolutely casting aspersions when you say Are you a fan of MrBeast and you don't want people to hear the allegations? Brother, removing a name following legitimate policies isn't a COI. Plus, the aspersion doesn't even make sense... AGF TheWikiToby (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

im on vacation at a hotel right now. I just realized this whole thing is pointless so bye. I'm going to sleep in this nice bed at this hotel HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Have a good vacation. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to MrBeast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please reorganize the templates per WP:ORDER and remove a duplicate protection template.

Regards, Kurnahusa (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done C F A 💬 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/us/mr-beast-youtube-inappropriate-language.html https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/news-former-mrbeast-employee-dogpack404-served-cease-desist-letter-days-releasing-video-calling-youtuber-fraud https://www.polygon.com/24211562/mrbeast-recent-controversies-ava-kris-tyson-fraud-video-beast-games https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/brad-callas/mrbeast-employee-debunks-fraud-allegations-former-worker https://futurism.com/the-byte/allegations-mrbeast-contest https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/news-participant-won-1-million-defends-mrbeast-former-employee-claims https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/news-former-mrbeast-employee-dogpack404-served-cease-desist-letter-days-releasing-video-calling-youtuber-fraud 71.143.223.97 (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Investigating the source of the signature and taking recent allegations into account. It seems likely that the signature could be fake.

It should probably be removed or replaced with a confirmed signature. 2001:9B1:26FB:6500:F273:4551:70FA:DF97 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DogPack's videos haven't reached journalists that much yet. I would say WP:TOOSOON, we could dispute this once his latest video is reported on by the news. 71.143.223.97 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like he is one. If someone finds anything that suggests he is a member of the crew, please provide that. Master106 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

So assuming that the previous conversation has been closed due to it mainly derailing to talking about aspersion as well as HumansRightsIsCool seemingly deciding to abstain from further comments regarding this, I'd like to open up a new discussion regarding the inclusion of his username within the overall contents of the article as the arguments for his exclusion are quite weak when you take into consideration that "DogPack404" is an username with WP:BLPNAME as the contents of the section aren't exactly applicable towards a handle that has literally been described by the sourced Polygon article as being an anonymous handle. Maybe I just didn't understand it all but if this is the only reason why his name has been excluded from the article, then I'm not exactly convinced. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 08:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Polygon article mentions his handle/username but still primarily focuses on and refers to him as an anonymous source. This seems to be the case in most of the news coverage I could find, which is probably why it was not included initially. I'm not sure why WP:BLPNAME would apply to a username, but to me it's inclusion seems trivial and ultimately doesn't add or remove anything to the article or the allegations and could serve; the important thing is that they are an anonymous MrBeast employee. Originalcola (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Originalcola: I'd agree if it weren't for how ever since the Chris Tyson incident, several former employees or at the very least people involved with Mr. Beast have come forward with their own set of accusations within the same general time frame with the current wording being considerably ambiguous such as the following: On the same day, one of Donaldson's former employees released a YouTube video accusing Donaldson of rigging contests, running illegal lotteries, and deceiving his fans. Sure, DogPack is the biggest figure involved in these allegations, but we shouldn't assume the average reader already knows about information that isn't as trivial as some would like to portray it, especially as again, DogPack is an alias and not his actual legal name. Another point of contention is how similar arguments have been brought up by other YouTubers and employees before and after July 2024 as well as topics such as the Beast Games incident being brought up by other employees of Mr. Beast. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The existence of other allegations or him being the biggest figure involved, whatever the veracity of these claims, do not necessarily constitute an argument for the inclusion of the username Dogpack404. That was what I was commenting on as that was what you mentioned and was the topic of the previous discussion, nothing else. If you want to add other allegations, make sure to follow Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and to give them due weight. Originalcola (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Originalcola: The other allegations are already mentioned in the article itself with sources. Once again, the existing wording is needlessly vague when you consider that existing references use his username and that other highly edited articles on Wikipedia tend to include government names of individuals involved in either bringing light to allegations or in some controversy in relation to public figures so again, I'm failing to see a valid reason over the omission of an anonymous handle that reliable sources already use when it comes to descriptions. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 07:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)