User talk:184.145.63.76

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

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

I think if information of his controversies cannot be presented that means he’s not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Look at ContraPoints Wikipedia page for an example — controversies being allowed to be detailed. If his are not that means this page is highly biased and reads like a PR blog post