Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Can we mention the Oversharing podcast with Trisha Paytas, and how the allegations that Colleen illegally distributed her OnlyFans content to minors is why Trisha cancelled it? Shuwus (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. I'm going to go ahead and close this myself. This is highly contentious and the result of a controversial topic which is why it is protected in the first place. Please participate in the conversations above to get your change added. Alternatively, wait until the page will revert to semi-protected and resubmit with an X-to-Y format with reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Heart ^(talk) 05:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree in general with Heart's desire for consensus for inclusion, and that it should be rolled into the larger discussion of the edits that need to be made, but disagree with this premature attempted closure of the particular edit request. The information presented has been covered and corroborated in reliable sources, among them Insider https://www.insider.com/trisha-paytas-reacts-to-colleen-ballinger-onlyfans-allegations-2023-7 and HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/colleen-ballinger-youtuber-accused-nude-photos_n_64a34077e4b0c7e9d8e9076f. A single sentence summing up the existence of and cancellation of the podcast as well as Trisha Paytas' reaction to the ongoing allegations (as a major collaborator of Ballinger) would make sense to me, if it can be worded in a way that garners consensus and avoids contentiousness. Criticalus (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Paytas was not a major collaborator of Ballinger's (even Paytas acknowledges this in her reaction video), and they had just started the podcast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps major collaborator is not as accurate as it could be, I do not follow either Ballinger or Paytas closely so I was unaware their podcast was new, I appreciate you pointing that out. Nevertheless it is extremely common for articles which are discussing allegations about individuals to include reactions to those allegations from sources including the accused, the alleged victims, those who are associated with those entities in business or personal life, and sometimes from notable third parties. I would refer to the Reactions subheading of Depp v. Heard as an example (perhaps not the best example, but off the top of my head), there are countless others.

Also, just as an aside, I think you should know your name has been mentioned on Twitter by some individual who has alleged that this article "has been carefully curated and guarded for a decade" by you. I was going to inform you on your talk page when I saw it earlier today as I found the Tweets concerning but I had not gotten around to it yet. I hope they did not come from any editor contributing here, as it would be extremely disrespectful in my view for any editor to be taking a content dispute as license to disparage or dox another editor, especially off-platform. (To protect your privacy I will not link them here, but if you search your name and sort by Recent you should see them).

I have great respect for your countless contributions to the Wiki over the years, and I do not agree with the person who made that statement on Twitter. To quote myself from earlier in this talk page, "I implore all editors to try and put aside their personal feelings and desires to shift how the subject of this article is perceived, and to embark upon the rote and perfunctory task of approaching this neutrally and properly providing the level of context that is merited without going beyond what is necessary." This message is not directed at you, but at all of us as we try to parse together a fair, balanced text about the ongoing situation. We should all be approaching this in good faith and with good intentions.

Earlier you said to me that "I think we have given the most encyclopedic facts, and cited the best sources, and anyone who wants more information can read them. Really, the whole thing is laid out from tip to tail in the Vulture article" which is a valid point, but failing to include pertinent information that is balanced and adds value to the article simply because it can be sourced elsewhere feels like a neglection of NPOV. There is a way we can be mindful of BLP policy and ensuring this article does not become unbalanced without omitting stuff that feels necessary. Do you have a reason you think including even a mention of Paytas's involvement and her reaction (not as seen from her reaction video, but rather from the reliable secondary sources quoting that reaction video) would not be valuable information to the article? Criticalus (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This situation is still developing, and much has been written since that Vulture article, so there are new things to add. Since I began editing WP in 2006, I have created or contributed significantly to thousands of Wikipedia articles, including this one. I have indeed been following and contributing to this article since 2009, and I believe that my contributions to it have been good WP:STEWARDSHIP. I always follow the facts and sources in my editing. In this case, we have an article about a person who has had a notable career since 2009, including a large YouTube following, her own Netflix TV series, a continuous touring career, and has appeared on Broadway, off-Broadway, other TV shows, and a variety of other entertainment. The question for us editors is what is the proper balance of these accusations in the article as a whole, per WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. So, I agree: let's all focus on the content, accuracy and balance. As for Paytas, she did not accuse Ballinger of anything new. She was reacting to things posted by others and basically said that she believed them. I cannot say whether, in the larger picture, and over time, it will be important to name her, or other specific people involved in this who have gotten signficant press attention. I think that, currently, they fall under the category of "others" who followed the original accusations with accusations, stories or reactions of their own. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding may be wrong, but I believe the original accusations regarding Paytas that are discussed in the Insider and HuffPost sources are allegations that nude photos of Paytas were shared in a chat room with her fans, some of whom were underage. These accusations are notably different than the ones currently included: the current allegations on the mainspace discuss her allegedly sending questionable written messages, but nothing that mentions visual imagery. Quoting from HuffPost: "The texts allegedly included nude photos and videos of Trisha Paytas, another YouTuber. One accuser posted screenshots of the alleged messages." To not include this information seems like an omission. I am not suggesting many paragraphs about this, but that there should be one or two sentences. This is just a start, but perhaps something like "After Ballinger released her song in response, further alleged screenshots were released where she purportedly shared indecent photos of fellow YouTuber Trisha Paytas in a group chat with minors. In response, Paytas ended their joint podcast Oversharing and disavowed their relationship, saying "I’m embarrassed to be associated with her.""< cite huffpost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/colleen-ballinger-youtuber-accused-nude-photos_n_64a34077e4b0c7e9d8e9076f > If you'd like to try and edit the text and find something that feels more balanced, I would appreciate your input. Criticalus (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Paytas did not make those accusations. She responded to others' postings that she said alerted her to them. The accusations that she is responding to also involve Ballinger supposedly writing uncomplimentary messages about Paytas to others. The images, she acknowledges, are from Paytas's own for-pay accounts, including her OnlyFans account. I do not know if the photos are all lingerie shots, or if some are nudes. to describe the "purported images" as "indecent" would not be encyclopedic. [add: Can anyone check this in the posts? User:Throast? ] Again, I think we should be guided by WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said Paytas made those accusations, but those accusations are being disseminated in reliable sources and are having an impact on her career. TO chalk them up to "other" follow-up accusations and using that as a basis for their non-inclusion would be akin to if in October 2017, editors chose to omit the concurring allegations about Harvey Weinstein because they were "immaterial." I am quite familiar with WP:RECENT, and its goal is not to say that recent information should not be included in articles, but to prevent the undue bias of recent material. Perhaps there is a better word than indecent that can be used there, but again, to omit this material entirely feels like intentionally tinting the article. Criticalus (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I second Criticalus's belief they should be included. It's the first impact on her professional life, and is significantly different from the allegations currently detailed. Paytas is a colleague, not one of the "former fans" who are the subject in the "other allegations" sentence. The photos, as I understand them, are sexually explicit. Perhaps "shared Paytas's self-published pornographic images"? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the accusations about the photos were made by the same former fans, not by Paytas; the news articles are about her reaction video after learning about these accusations. The heading should probably be changed to "Accusations in 2020 and 2023", and the clause "allegations by other former fans" should change to "allegations by others" since, as you note, some are by persons other than former fans. I suggest that if you want to get everyone to review new language for the article, start a new heading below like "Suggested addition re: Paytas" or similar. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One of them was a fan, but Silvestri was employed by Ballinger at the time she sent him the photos. Could a change in wording be applicable? Despressso (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll be the third to think they should be included.Paige Matheson (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fourth agree on inclusion from me. Despressso (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paige Matheson and Despressso, If you wanted to help get the proposed material into the article, take a look at the section below! I proposed two drafts, but I'm not sure I've got the correct wording, so feedback would be appreciated :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We should also ping User: Zaathras, User:Throast, User:SchroCat and User:Nemov. Are there any other participants who have been active in suggesting editorial revisions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I was just redirecting the editors in this thread as the new topic is a direct split from the above comments. I guess Morbidthoughts has been editing recently? Idk there's also been a few people jumping in and out like Jerome Frank Disciple and Nil Enne. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I was just redirecting the people in this thread as the suggestion is a direct split from the above comments. I guess Morbidthoughts? Idk there's been a few people jumping in and out! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested changes for recent addition

Ssilvers did a great job at creating a paragraph to include in the article. It was of course acknowledged that further edits would likely be put forward. I agreed it was best to wait for things to calm down before making changes, but I have two major issues and subsequent suggestions for the current text that I believe should be addressed. 1. At the moment, Ballinger’s comments about her content do not have the context to warrant inclusion, and I suggest either deletion or the addition of relevant information. This was also a concern earlier, and a now deleted line was used to justify their presence. Throast put forward a sourced suggestion in an above thread. I personally question if the general charge of inappropriate humour is due in this situation as it mainly refers to Becky, whose claims are not mentioned and are now covered under “former fans”? 2. There are no allegations in the text aside from the vague inference of the word ‘purported’ appearing before ‘screen shots’, meaning “The allegations led to…” doesn’t refer directly to anything in the article, let alone “allegations”? This is confusing. I suggest the addition of a sentence like: In response to Dahl’s video, McIntyre alleged that Ballinger had an inappropriate friendship with him when he was a young teenager.[NBC] In most RSs and in McIntyre's direct statement, the term “groomed” is used without a qualifier, which if included here could reduce the word-count, but I think it's a dicey phrase to use in a BLP. The specific ages are also mentioned in the coverage, and could be added for clarity, although it makes the sentence quite wordy.

Anyways, thanks to everyone for their hard work and discussion! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

McIntyre had made the same allegation in 2020. He was just repeating himself. He posted numerous videos in June, some of them over an hour, and gave many interviews, but they all pretty much cover what he alleged in 2020 (see the previous paragraph). The problem with some of the ages is that sources disagree. I think it's clear enough that the allegations are usually referring to people who were under 18, at least at some point in the time period being discussed (most of these people are now over 18), except that Dahl is in her 30s. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact he is repeating himself is not evident in the current wordage. It could possibly be communicated with: "McIntyre's resurfaced allegations..."? I agree with your appraisal regarding the ages. What are your thoughts about removing the language around Ballinger's inappropriate humour? It would be nice to hear from other editors as well! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we could add the words in brackets, if everyone thinks it's important: "The allegations led to [renewed] accusations by [McIntyre and]", but I think it's clear enough, and it's covered in the cited sources, and I think we are beating a dead horse, so to speak. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think your suggested phrasing is very well put. Let's agree to disagree on if it's needed, and I'll wait to hear from others what their thoughts are/possible alternatives (and whether the comments on her humour should remain). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• The status quo is fine for now. This could change, but I would wait for awhile and revisit if there's been significant developments. This doesn't really fall into that category at the present time. Nemov (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I get that, but I'm not suggesting a major change with new information. Just advocating for some clarity where I believe it's lacking, which is half a simple wording issue, and half the inclusion of information that's currently out of place in the paragraph (which Ssilver's agreed with in an earlier thread, so I'm not sure what's changed?). There is no contentious content being added or significant developments involved here. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so the only feedback I've gotten on the substance of my concerns is from Ssilvers, and Nemov's suggestion to wait with no comment on the proposed phrasing or issue at hand. I'm going to make the edit I suggested in the sentence regarding "The allegations led to...", and I'll use Ssilvers wording. It's a small stylistic edit that does not add or take-away any contentious information, and I'm not sure it should have brought to the talk page in the first place. When it comes to removing the text on Ballinger's comedy, that is a significant change containing contentious material and I'll absolutely wait for further discussion. It seems like there are not many editors active on the talk page, which is a shame. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is not in the article that Colleen used a ukulele in her apology video? I see in the history it’s been reverted. Why can’t it be written that she used a ukulele in her video? She did use a ukulele in her video. Paige Matheson (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Because of WP:Noteworthy. None of the reliable sources about Ballinger's response video stated that the use of the ukulele, as opposed to any other instrument, was meaningful in any way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the title of the NBC News article this entry sources its summary to includes that information about her ukulele playing in the title of the article. The description of the video in Time is also introduced with "strumming on a ukulele" ([1]). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning it does not confer notability. How is the instrument notable, as against her using a guitar, a backing track or an oom-pah band? Is the ukulele adding notability to the circumstances? Not sure any of the sources say that, do they? SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Goodlucklemonpig, see WP:STATUSQUO. This explains why Zaathras should not have continued to make the edit until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached here. As WP:BRD explains, the best way to proceed is, once your "Bold" edit is "Reverted" by another editor, to go to the talk page and "Discuss" to reach a consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Just to be clear, I followed the protocol set out in BRD, and pinged SchroCat immediately after the revert (for which the edit summary is quite vague) with no response. I find it all quite confusing for reasons outlined in previous comments. Anyways, I'll wait for Schrocat to engage or for a consensus to be reached. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the hiatus - I've been busy on another page and in RL and haven't had time to get back to you on this. Goodlucklemonpig, you've not done anything wrong: you followed BRD and did exactly what you were supposed to. Unfortunately two others have jumped in and edit warred without bothering to come to the talk page to overturn the consensus that is in place. In terms of the content, we're reporting what has been said in Ballinger's video and which has received coverage, which I don't think an issue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for responding. I do think it's important to report what's in Ballinger's video, but it's also important to give context for what is being included. The statement at hand currently has nothing anchoring it within the paragraph. This was an issue earlier, that again, was broadly acknowledged. In that case a sentence was added about the "scrutiny" of her humour, referring broadly to the reporting on Becky. That line is gone, and nothing has been included to do its 'job'. I don't object to the text being included or excised, just that there is some context for why it's included. The details here are about very specific allegations that relate to private communication. As I mentioned above, with this wording it makes more sense to include her direct statements on how she behaved in messages with fans (I'm not proposing anything just using it illustratively). I'm struggling to see why this specifically warrants inclusion.Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a possible change to support the inclusion. I'm cribbing Throast's and Ssilvers phrasing suggestions: "Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre. Soon after, several former fans described interactions with Ballinger they felt were inappropriate, including at her live shows". I broke it into two sentences for readability, but it could be one if others felt that was fine. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadly I see some further moronic edit warring which ignores the consensus on this page. Brilliant. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that some on the page have resorted to WP:EDIT WARring instead of seeking consensus first. I am going to drop my objection to the marketing to kids deletion, though I think it *adds* context to the description of the video rather than lacking it, but I disagree with Goodlucklemonpig's new proposal. I have no opinion on Goodlucklemonpig's newest proposal above, except that "Soon afterwards" is better grammar than "Soon after", and "at her live shows" should be "on stage at her live shows"?-- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for engaging! I'm a bit confused about what your conclusion was here, perhaps a typo? I only made one proposal, and I'm unsure if you disagree or have no opinion? Happy to change the phrasing of the additional sentence if others want to include it. I wrote very little of the proposed wording, literally just copy-pasted two suggestions together and added "Soon after," at the beginning! Happy to implement the "...afterwards" and "on stage" changes. Honestly, happy either way as long as the context is clear! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Before adding anything or making a final decision, SchroCat, Morbidthoughts, Zaathras, Nemov, do any of you have any thoughts on Ssilver's comment and my response above? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, her subscriber count has declined to 22,600,000 (rounded up from 22,560,000). Perhaps it's time to change the infobox, as 300,000 is a significant decline? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think subscriber count should even go in the infobox, as I don't think it's a helpful number, since many of the subscribers to her channels are the same people. In addition, subscriber counts are a moving target. But if we must include it, I think it should just say 22 million+. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I support removing it entirely for exactly that reason. It's pretty glaringly imprecise calculation with the three separate channels, which imo, isn't really remedied with the "22+" change. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The page is currently locked down, but we can do this after it is unlocked, if no one (or no consensus) objects. Given the contentiousness on this page, I would suggest that you make a new heading below for each new proposal that you are suggesting, asking everyone for opinions on each, and starting each section off with a clearly-stated suggestion for what, exactly, you currently propose that we should do to regarding each. However, I suggest that you wait a couple of days, since the pace of these discussions, and edit warring on the page has been blistering. Talk pages are not supposed to require that participants enter the discussion every day -- usually a week is considered about the right amount of time for a proposal to remain open before action is taken to give all participants a chance to weigh in, among their real-life activities. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought we are supposed to discuss the article, not editors? I don’t think it’s nice to refer to users that edit as moronic. Paige Matheson (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No one referred to users as moronic. Schrocat said that edit warring is moronic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat was blocked in ANI for this behavior, so admins think otherwise. Despressso (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You would be wise to withdraw this comment since it's irrelevant to the discussion. If you have a personal issue take it to editor's TALK. Nemov (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Addition re: Paytas

This is a revised version of wording proposed by Criticalus under the original edit request for Paytas's inclusion: "After Ballinger's response, further alleged screenshots were released that show Ballinger sharing fellow YouTuber Trisha Paytas's self-published pornographic material with two fans, one being McIntyre who was a minor at the time. In response, Paytas ended their joint podcast Oversharing and disavowed their relationship, saying 'I’m embarrassed to be associated with her.'"[cite HuffPo] I'm not sure how best to incorporate this into the current text, so discussion is necessary about the phrasing and location of the proposed addition. Edit to add: There were comments made about previously mentioned information being added, so the surrounding paragraph will most likely be further edited (see: Criticalus, Zaathras, and Nil Enne's comments under "Full Protection" topic, and the "Black Face" topic). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the article.Paige Matheson (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming very difficult to follow. Again, Wikipedia isn't a breaking news site. There's no need to insert every piece of coverage into the article. Just summarize it after a few weeks so a person 20 years from not can actually understand it. Nemov (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons given in Criticalus's replies to Ssilvers in the above thread. That being said, I do believe the text could benefit overall from summarization. It is currently a detailed play-by-play, with one vague sentence acknowledging the existence "other allegations", that just stops after her response, which is not reflective of the event or the sources. It seems unwise to willingly omit well-sourced information for stylistic reasons. Perhaps there's a more succinct or clear way to format the phrasing? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to insert every piece of coverage into the article, and with taking the twenty-year-view towards which information is included and how it is edited. That said, given the current full protection of the current article, I believe this process of editors working together in the talkspace to achieve NPOV is valuable, and that in a couple weeks' time the result should be a summarized text that can be added to the article long-term.

With regards to this particular piece of information, in addition to my earlier comments in the above thread as to why I believe them to be relevant, I would also note they have been referenced by a number of reliable sources, among them HuffPo, Entertainment Weekly, E! News, and Insider. Given the contentious nature of the allegations, having multiple sources to base inclusion on is quite helpful. Criticalus (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I dislike the use of the phrase "self-published pornographic material," for a few reasons. One, the overall phrase can be read as vague, and second, the word "pornographic" provides implications I don't believe the wiki should be putting on this information. I also think the singling out of "two fans" and especially the inclusion of "one being McIntyre who was a minor at the time" should be reconsidered - we shouldn't identify minors involved so specifically unless it is truly necessary for the context (which in this case I do not believe it is). Criticalus (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm a fan of the phrase either, and the point on the implications of the term "pornographic" is well taken. McIntyre is now 20, and is the person who came forward with 202 allegations, which I felt was necessary context. All that aside, after re-reading the draft and the sources, the proposed wording is inaccurate. The alleged screen shots are messages between Ballinger and one former fan (Johnny Silvestri). McIntyre replied that Ballinger had sent the same images to him when he was a minor, but did not produce any screen shots to support the claim. Back to the drawing board! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"After Ballinger’s response, further alleged screenshots were released that appear to show Ballinger send nude photos from YouTuber Trisha Paytas's Onlyfans to a former fan. McIntyre then claimed Ballinger sent him the same images as a minor. In response, Paytas posted a video ending their joint podcast Oversharing and disavowed their relationship".[HuffPo] Still unsure of how best to phrase this, but there's another try! Definitely open to feedback and I hope we can all keep the focus on the facts as they appear in reliable sources, and work together on how to best represent them. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would change the wording to something more like “… send nude photos of YouTuber Trisha Paytas from paid content websites…” Despressso (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with that! The wording still rings clunky to my ear, but it's an accurate summary of the events as presented in the RSs. Maybe there's a more elegant way to phrase it, but if not, I'm fine with: "After Ballinger’s response, further alleged screenshots were released that appear to show Ballinger send nude photos of YouTuber Trisha Paytas from paid content websites to a former fan. McIntyre then claimed Ballinger sent him the same images as a minor. In response, Paytas posted a video ending her and Ballinger's joint podcast Oversharing, and disavowed their relationship".[HuffPo] Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Despressso saw your comment above about Silvestri as an ex-employee. I guess the wording could be changed to "ex-employee", but in this specific situation I would say the fan part is most operative? Happy either way! Anyways, I should go to bed haha Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think what you wrote sounds fine.Paige Matheson (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Only two people alleged this (the original post about it was on Twitter), and the only one who was a minor at the time the images were supposedly sent is McIntyre, who is the same person who originally accused Ballinger in 2020 of inappropriate contacts with him and who has been continuing his accusations since then; so, yes, his name is essential to these accusations, as is the fact that the photos are from Paytas's own public accounts -- not private photos. Note that, during those three years in which he has very frequently posted videos to YouTube accusing Balllinger of supposed inappropriate behavior, McIntyre did not accuse her of sending him the photos, but suddenly now accuses her of it. Patas's video is here, and she is simply reacting to learning of McIntyre and the other YouTuber's accusations . -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The photos are NOT all from Paytas’s own public account. Most of them are behind paywalls on her private website Trishyland or on Patreon, as noted by herself in the video.

I also don’t know nor appreciate what you are implying by your “note”. It has nothing to do with the topic, and is just scrutinizing the accuser’s behavior, which I don’t believe to be WP policy. Despressso (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I get that for sure, but I do think it's important to specify they're publicly available (by paying for them) so we're not creating confusion as to how Ballinger got nude photos of her colleague! That said, it makes phrasing it in a concise way a bit difficult! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Silvestri was a longtime fan (at least a decade, he says in his videos), who worked for Ballinger as road crew during her bus tour in 2018. HuffPo says that he claims that the photos were sent to him "dating to when Silvestri was 22", so I don't know if it is clear whether or not he would still have been an employee at the time. But it is clear that he is a former fan and YouTuber. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a fan and being an employee are not mutually exclusive. Hailey Bieber was a fan of her husband before they got married, do we describe her as a fan or as his wife? It's very common for people who are employed in the entertainment industry to be fans of people they work for or with. Silvestri was employed by Ballinger, and sources like the NBC News video interview use the term "employee" to describe his role. His being a fan is an ancillary detail. Criticalus (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Silvestri is currently 27, per his videos. Subtracting 5 years gives 2018, so yes, him being an employee is important to include over being just another fan. Despressso (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm edging against inclusion of this for the moment, based on a few bits, including BLP policy. The article itself states that "there is no evidence that Ballinger had violated the law or that she was under criminal investigation", which puts a large question mark against the allegations of someone breaking the law (particularly as McIntyre has made other allegations since 2020 but didn't think this one worthy of putting out there - which is a red flag for me). We're not a news service and a pause before publishing would benefit all, particularly when people were screaming about blackface yesterday and had to wind their collective necks in when it was pointed out it was 'greenface' based on a Wicked skit. Obviously if there is more published, or law enforcement take some action or make a statement, then that changes things, but rushing to publish allegations rarely works well for an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  A pause before publishing is fine, the article is currently protected after all. Though whether the law was broken or there is a criminal investigation is irrelevant to whether it merits inclusion, a disinterested article should not be accusing her of any crimes, and indeed none of the accusations prior have yet involved any criminality. The blackface accusation was always spurious, and from the looks of the thread above, there was never really any support for its inclusion. I also think the focus on McIntyre is misplaced, he has been referenced where necessary but he is not such a notable person or reliable source to keep referring back to. BLP applies in all directions, and per a 20-year view we should be mindful not to tie the names of people who were minors when actions took place inextricably to those situations where it is not explicitly necessary for the context and understanding of the article. Criticalus (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  "whether the law was broken or there is a criminal investigation is irrelevant to whether it merits inclusion": that's the problem. What she is being accused of is a criminal offence in California, which is where she lives. That brings a higher requirement from the sources before we include it or not (per WP:BLPCRIME and related policies), and I (Addendum: and our policies) do not like throwing any notable individual under a bus based on unproven accusations of criminal behaviour before it is shown whether there is any substance to this or not. We're not a news ticker and we don't need to have every example of 'he-said, she-said' put up the day after someone has made a claim. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  "What she is being accused of is a criminal offence in California" It is not for us to say whether it is a criminal offense, it is for a prosecutor to say. To quote HuffPo -- "Revenge porn — the act of posting someone’s intimate photos online without their consent — is illegal in California, where Ballinger is based. There was no immediate confirmation Monday that Ballinger had violated the law or that she was under criminal investigation. -- Here the author of the HuffPo article is noting there is a statute for revenge porn, and that they have no knowledge of whether there is a criminal investigation or whether it is a violation of the law. Thus clarifying there is no assertion she is being accused of a crime, and she is not being accused of a crime. Only if a jury or a prosecutor seeks to bring charges might we say she is being accused of a crime. Random public outcry cannot be the basis for that. I do not like throwing any notable individual under a bus We are not throwing anyone under a bus, our goal should be to dispassionately determine through consensus the relevant facts that meet Wikipedia standards to make a good article, and then the most neutral wording to include them. We need to take our own feelings out of the equation and follow the policy rather than twist it into an outcome we desire. Criticalus (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  "We need to take our own feelings out of the equation and follow the policy rather than twist it into an outcome we desire": thank you for the unfounded aspersions there. You may want to note that I have already said (numerous times on this page) that policy must be followed. I am not twisting anything, nor do I desire any particular outcome, despite your unwarranted claims to the contrary. What I will repeat is that this is an encyclopaedia, not a news feed, and we need to follow BLP policy, not just post unsubstantiated accusations. Pause for the situation to become clear is preferable to rushing in regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not making any claims about you either, I'm just making a general note there, don't take it personally. Criticalus (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  “Which is a red flag to me”. Stop being disruptive and inserting your opinion pieces about accusers. Your theory doesn’t have any relevance to whether or not the article is up to standard. Despressso (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  How about you comment on the article, rather than me? That may be best for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to weigh in on this, but I appeal to everyone here in saying let's focus on the text, both what will be written in the article, and what is already written in reliable sources. As Nil Enne pointed out: "We need to stick with what the sources say, not our personal views or assessments of any allegations." If editors can focus on the limited scope of information available, with no original research referenced by any "side", I believe we can avoid the type of conflicts cropping up like the one above and actually have productive conversations. No one should be commenting about individual editors, but when personal opinions are included in discussion, it shifts the focus off the text and onto the editor. There are evidently some conflicting live tigers on this talk page, and while there is an important distinction between talk pages and articles, letting these tigers loose in collaborative spaces is still dangerous. I hope we can leave them to roam the wild where they belong (twitter, etc.). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but that last sentence may be a bit too much for WP. Despressso (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

New draft rephrased to summarize the details surrounding the allegations, and add the loss of sponsors (TMZ is cited as one company gave them a direct statement). "After Ballinger's video, further accusations arose alleging that she had shared material from Youtuber and podcast co-host Trisha Paytas’s paid content websites, sending nude images of Paytas to fans and mocking her body.[HuffPo, E!] In response, Paytas publicly ended their relationship and condemned Ballinger’s behaviour.[Jezebel, video] Prior to Paytas's statement, their recently released podcast Oversharing lost two sponsorship deals after the initial 2023 allegations."[NBC, TMZ]. It's unclear if there's consensus to add, but I've made some changes based on the discussion, and hope there will be more progress made. EDIT: Ssilvers pointed out the passive voice issue, so scrap that! But I do propose including the sponsorship information. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Look how the WP:Reliable sources eagerly repeated these accusations. Shortly afterwards it turned out that the accuser was mistaken. This is why WP:RECENT indicates that we should write with "an aim toward a long-term, historical view". In the long run, it is not of encyclopedic interest that Ballinger and Paytas had a very short-lived podcast, the name of the podcast, or whether Paytas disavowed their relationship. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it would not be if it had happened due to benign reasons. In my view, it will remain notable that Ballinger lost a professional relationship, and sponsorship deals, because of the 2023 allegations. If information comes out in the future that reveals anything to the contrary, then the appropriate changes can be made. Paytas put out her response four days ago; it has been widely covered since by RS and according to youtube, the video itself has been viewed close to 3million times. This is not a spurious allegation of black-face, or resurfaced edgy humour, this is about business ties being severed by a colleague and advertisers. It is also about the alleged mistreatment of a colleague, who is a notable figure herself. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ballinger may lose far more important business deals because of these accusations, and she has collaborated with dozens of notable YouTubers, any of whom may break with her because of the accusations that are being repeated in the press. The most interesting accusation here is the criminal accusation that Ballinger sent photos to two people without Paytas's consent; this will be WP:Noteworthy if she is sued or indicted. The other part is too WP:RECENT for us to have a long enough view to judge its noteworthiness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's true that more professional consequences could follow, but if the coverage ended today, and it was 10 years from now, I believe the podcast ending and Paytas's statement would be an integral detail. We simply disagree about that. Things might change, and Ballinger losing larger sponsors or more youtube friendships would change its weight contextually. In response to your other comment-- re: passive voice, noted! I'll try and rephrase in active voice while keeping things succinct. Re: sponsorships-- Again, in my view, it's of note that they were dropped by advertisers because it is a direct result of the allegations. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think that the sponsorships were WP:Noteworthy? How much were Ballinger and Paytas paid for them? Was it a million dollars? $100,000? $10,000? Were they 5-year deals? 1-year deals? 5 podcasts? only one-offs? What is your cut-off for noteworthiness here in terms of value and duration of the income stream from each of these sponsorships? You're proposing to present them as noteworthy without any information about them other than that someone says they were cancelled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The policies in WP:Noteworthy don't apply to the contents of an article? I'm looking at the loss of sponsorships as they relate to the situation being described. In context, I believe it is DUE that Ballinger's business relationships were impacted, regardless of the size of the deals. One of the sponsors put out a statement on the matter, which is why TMZ is cited, that is not the same as someone simply saying they are cancelled. I'm not presenting the surrounding detail because, imo, it would be UNDUE to expound on the specifics-- similar to the reason why the "other allegations" sentence was used. Anyways, if other editors disagree, that's fine. I am just trying to fairly represent the situation using the metrics of what is included. Is the detail that Kodee deleted their video really worth the ink? Proportionally, it's certainly presented less prominently than Becky in reliable sources, but if I understand correctly, it's there to provide context. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree.Paige Matheson (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We should not write in passive voice. For example, if we describe this accusation at all, we should write who posted the accusation and where it was posted, not that they "arose", and that the images were supposedly sent to McIntyre and a former fan/employee. And, again, since the podcast is cancelled, it is not of any consequence that it lost sponsorship deals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ok! Reworded to include his status as an employee, also removed Silvestri's name as he is not referred to as a major player in the paragraph. I added the word "privately" to make clear that Ballinger did not post the images online or share them widely. I left out the statements on the podcast's title or lost sponsors, as there doesn't seem to be a broad consensus to include them (just a brief discussion with Ssilvers and Paige Matheson). "After Ballinger’s video, an ex-employee purported that she had privately shared material from Youtuber Trisha Paytas’s paid content websites. He released alleged screenshots that appear to show Ballinger sending him the nude images, which McIntyre then claimed to have also received when he was a minor.[HuffPo, E!] In response, Paytas publicly condemned the behaviour and ended her personal and professional relationship with Ballinger.[, video]" It's a little long, so suggestions on how to shorten it while retaining clarity would be useful! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I still think this is going to be less and less noteworthy as time goes on, but here is a draft: Please move any further drafts to the bottom of this section, and put them at the left margin. Sticking them in the middle makes it harder for people to find the most recent draft. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like we were both editing at the same time! Anyways, I truly appreciate you helping with the wording even though you disagree with inclusion. Your writing is very well done as always, and I'm in support of including this proposed version. Two nit-picks: Wouldn't it make more sense to phrase it: "Ballinger had purportedly shared nude photos..." rather than "...purportedly nude photos..."? Is it necessary to include that Paytas believed the allegations, as it would be obvious from her reaction? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Purportedly nude": because none of the sources show the photos (and I believe the tweets have been removed), this is to clarify that the press appears to be assuming that the photos are nude rather than lingerie shots, which they may have been. The question of whether she actually shared them is covered by "appearing to show" that Ballinger posted the photos. It is necessary to state that Paytas believed the allegations by Silverstri and McIntyre, to clarify that she did not independently verify that Ballinger sent the images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point, thanks for clarifying. The "purportedly nude" does make sense. It's true that they're not included in RSs, and were censored originally so the nudity can't be 100% verified (as an aside, I did see the tweets and they're very clearly topless photos but that's O.R. so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ). I still think it's unnecessary to specify Paytas believed the allegations, as there's nothing to infer she did or would independently verify the screenshots? It would be unexpected from the current draft if she had! Anyways, that's my only iffy note and if no one else objects, I'm all for inclusion. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to put any of this in, we must be clear that Paytas was responding to the two YouTubers because she believed them. Otherwise we would imply that Paytas independently knew the information to be true, which she did not. Her video says that she is posting based on learning of the allegations of Silvestri and McIntyre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

But that is clear. The sentence specifically starts with "In response,..."? What else would that mean? The added clarification strikes me as redundant and strange. If you feel that's not clear enough, perhaps "In response to the allegations,..."? Hopefully there's someone else who can weigh in on the matter. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Removed "in response" to avoid reduncancy. After this, an ex-employee posted screenshots appearing to show that Ballinger had shared purportedly nude photos with him from YouTuber Trisha Paytas’s paid content accounts. McIntyre then alleged that he had also received such photos, when he was a minor.[HuffPo] Paytas released a video indicating that she believed the allegations, condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.ETOnline, [video] -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good edit. I assume it is positioned to go at the end of the current subsection, after the mention of the ukelele video. Here are suggested minor wording changes.

  After Ballinger's initial response, an ex-employee posted screenshots appearing to show that Ballinger had shared purportedly nude photos of YouTuber Trisha Paytas with him. McIntyre then alleged that he had also received such photos when he was a minor.[HuffPo] Paytas then released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.ETOnline, [video]

• changelog

• 1. Changed After this to After Ballinger's initial response - clarifies what "this" is, leaves room for a second response from Ballinger or her team if it comes.

This is longer, and the previous sentences are all about Ballilnger’s video, so it is crystal clear what “this” refers to. Plus, it implies that Ballinger made additional responses, which is false. I disagree with this change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

'This' is so vague, it could mean 'this video response' or 'this general time period of events' or be interpreted to mean even a different event entirely if the wording or sentence order were to vary at all in the future. We don't want future editors having to check the revision history to find out what "this" originally meant, why not just expand it and say what "this" is? Criticalus (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• 2. Flipped with him and from YouTuber Trisha Paytas for flow, changed from to of, removed paid content accounts (unnecessary detail).

It is at the core of the Paytas story that the photos came from Paytas’s own accounts, rather than that Ballinger had dug up private photos of Paytas to send to people. I disagree with these changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• 3. Added then between Paytas and released to ground it temporally, also removed indicating that she believed the allegations -- this is implied by her condemnation and offers more interpretation than is necessary.

We are telling the story chronologically, so we don’t need to keep saying “then”. As I have stated above, we must make clear that Paytas posted her video based on her ‘’’belief, not knowledge’’’, that the contents of Silvestri’s twitter posts and McIntyre’s allegations are true. So, again, I disagree with these changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If she is condemning Ballinger's actions, that in itself indicates she believes the allegations to be true. I don't understand why this must be specified. We are not the arbiters of Paytas' mind, we cannot claim to know what she believes or what she knows, and to define the difference, that is beyond our role. Criticalus (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I agree here. It seems unnecessary and redundant to include that she "believed the allegations". I also don't think she mentioned anything to that effect in her statement? I may be wrong there, and if so, perhaps it would make sense to reference the wording she uses if it's going to be included. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• 4. Question: should we include more sources at the end of this one to bolster the ETOnline source? Criticalus (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please specify and link to which sources you propose to include. They must be WP:RSs -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is one other piece of information I wanted to suggest referencing as well, which is April Korto Quioh's allegations of workplace misconduct and racism. She details them firsthand here if you'd like to read them. The best source for inclusion probably would be The Daily Beast. I don't think these need to be described in detail, as many workplace incidents are listed, but just that they should be included as separate and different in nature from the accusations from fans. My initial suggested edit would be to take the sentence Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans. from the existing text, and modify it to something like Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including workplace misconduct and racial insensitivity on the set of her Netflix show.[Daily Beast] This would also serve to tee-up the mention of the 'ex-employee' after her initial response. Finally, now that there are multiple ex-employees, and also potentially her ex-husband in the mix, should the section potentially be retitled from 'Accusations of former fans'? [posted by User:Criticalus at 1:14 pm (UTC-4) on 10 July 2023]

Quioh claims to have been a YouTube writer on the show, but she is not listed as such in the show’s credits. She is a non-notable person, and Apologizetome.com is not a WP:RS. WP:RSP says: Most editors consider ‘’The Daily Beast’’ a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. I disagree with including anything about Quioh’s claims. I don't mind changing "other former fans" to, simply, "others." -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that my last edit somehow messed up Criticalus's last signature. I have put in a manual date/time instead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

She is clearly listed on iMDB as an employe of the show. April Quioh - IMDb I agree she is not notable, thus she should not be mentioned by name, but her allegations are of a very differerent nature than those regarding relationships with fans, and other employees like Silvestri, and seem to have some basis for being referenced. I'll agree that her firsthand statements are not reliable statements, and do not support including them. As to the Daily Beast, the same RS states it can be seen as a reliable source for some things (though it also says that BLP should take extra caution). Criticalus (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb does not indicate anywhere it is not a reliable source. It says it might be a disputed source with regards to such information, but nowhere is it deemed an unreliable source. Also, for what it's worth, I have just checked the Netflix credits, and indeed she is listed under the name April Quioh as "Assistant to Ms. McCreery and Mr. Rein." I will assume the above assertions that she was not listed in the show's credits to be inadvertent errors. Criticalus (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an essay. See WP:IMDB. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, no one is trying to cite iMDB. We are using it in a discussion where it was claimed that Quioh is "not listed...in the show’s credits," and you are turning this into a non-sequitur about whether iMDB is a reliable source or not (which is not relevant) and ignoring a) the claims themselves and whether they merit inclusion and b) the fact that the assertion that she is not listed in the credits is demonstrably false, and making demonstrably false assertions that are easily verifiable as false raises questions. Criticalus (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone was proposing IMDB as an in-text reference, just using it to verify Quioh's employment. Regardless, both observations are original research. As for RS that mention Quioh, ET, Vulture, Rolling Stone, and Yahoo, have all reported on Quioh's claims. I do like Criticalus's proposed change in the above comment, as it manages to summarize these claims (and others) without too much detail. I also think the subtopic heading is perhaps worth changing. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a fair set of comments by Ssilvers which show a lot of problems with the proposed text. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The proposed text is almost identical to Ssilvers' own text with only minor changes, this is an extremely false assertion. What we are disagreeing on are particulars of wording. Criticalus (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will say that the context of the "nude photos" does seem important, but other than that-- the changes are in fact quite minor. Perhaps the nude photos can be clarified with "...sent Paytas's adult content to..." (wording used by NBC)? Otherwise, I believe the proposed edits by Criticalus are useful and improve the readability and accuracy of the text (ref. the addition to the "other allegations" sentence, and the removal of the "indicating she believed" from the Paytas section). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here's another draft with more minor wording changes! Added "OnlyFans creator" which I believe does the work of answering where the nude photos came from in an efficient manner. Rephrased first sentence with "in which" to shorten it, and also replaced "then" with "soon" in the last sentence to avoid repetition. "After Ballinger’s initial response, an ex-employee posted alleged screenshots in which Ballinger appears to send him nude photos of YouTuber and OnlyFans creator Trisha Paytas.[NBC] McIntyre then claimed Ballinger sent him the same images as a minor. Paytas soon released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.[HuffPo]" Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I object to “initial”. “Appeared” instead of “appears” will be clearer. They were not fully nude, they were topless, but the sources are not making that distinction, so we should at least indicate what the sources do say, by writing “purportedly nude". Link OnlyFans. Link Trisha Paytas. We cannot say “claimed”. See MOS:AWW. We can say stated or asserted. I think “when he was a minor” is better, as it is in the past tense. Again, it is essential to indicate that Paytas’s response was because she was shown the twitter messages and allegations by Silverstri and McIntyre and believed them, not because she had person knowledge that Ballinger had sent the photos. In addition to HuffPo, we should also cite her actual video, which is on her authorized YouTube channel.

• Oh, I thought "claimed" would be acceptable per AWW as he is making an unproven and literal "claim", not a statement of accepted fact? Anyways, asserted or stated is fine, same with "purportedly nude". The suggested wikilinks and citing her video sound good to me (didn't add formatting as the focus was on phrasing). Re: "initial" I don't have a strong opinion on how the first sentence starts, but I do agree with Criticalus's reasoning and favour inclusion. I also agree with Criticalus that an explicit statement that she "believed" the allegations doesn't warrant inclusion. Paytas makes no such statement herself, and the text makes it clear she is responding to Silvestri and McIntyre. There's nothing to indicate otherwise, and imo from the suggested text it would be a heck of a leap for a reader to assume she was acting off of outside information. It seems like it's 2/2 for that at the moment, so we'll have to wait for someone to chime in, and if no one does, perhaps ask for a 3O? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think initial should remain for now, cancelling the tour for example does represent some further type of reaction, initial just means it was her first reply, it does not guarantee there was more. I agree on "appeared" instead of "appears" and "when he was a minor." I really don't understand why you insist we need to write that Paytas believed the allegations. If she didn't believe the allegations, why would she condemn Ballinger? The WP:MINDREADER essay was geared towards more internal Wiki stuff, but I also think it applies here. We are not mind readers, we should not be saying what Paytas "thinks" or "believes," that is not the place of the wiki. It's definitely a heck of a leap to assume she had "personal knowledge" besides what was in the videos and messages she was responding to. The only edit I actively dislike on the new one is describing Paytas as an "OnlyFans creator." I get that you are both trying to include the important point that these were not private photos of her but rather from a paywalled account, though, so for now I will not object.

  New edit: "After Ballinger’s initial response, an ex-employee posted alleged screenshots in which Ballinger appeared to send him purportedly nude photos of YouTuber and OnlyFans creator Trisha Paytas.[NBC] McIntyre then claimed Ballinger sent him the same images when he was a minor. Paytas soon released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.[HuffPo]] Criticalus (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  One thing I am realizing, this edit removes the ETOnline source and uses HuffPo and NBC instead. Should we use all three sources here? Criticalus (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  That version seems good to go! If possible I think all three sources should be cited. Thanks for the concession re: OnlyFans :) The only issue now is consensus-- SchroCat stated earlier that they agreed with Ssilvers, although there wasn't much explanation as to what they agreed on or editorial comment on the later drafts. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I added the wikilinks for you. We also need to cite Paytas's video at the end. "Stated" is considered more neutral than "claimed", and I still think that "initial" is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm down for using "stated", and perhaps we can remove "initial" and revisit it if another response is released? That being said, "After Ballinger's response,..." should still be included (vs. "After this.."). I'll be watching for updates, and I assume Ssilvers will be as well, so we'll both know to update the phrasing. I don't have strong opinions about this either way, but for the sake of compromise I think it's fine. P.S. Thanks for adding the wikilinks Ssilvers! For ease of inclusion here's the Paytas video Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I’m good with the most recent draft there. Still think there are an couple other issues to sort and then can proceed to RfC to remove Full Protection.

  1. Quioh allegations reference- we really do need to include some sort of reference to the workplace and racial discrimination allegations. Monklepig put a list of RSs somewhere we can use. I think something as simple as additional phrases I wrote above on this one would suffice.

  2. Renaming the subsection - my suggestion would be ‘Allegations of misconduct’

  3. Including the tour cancellation Criticalus (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, if Ssilvers approves it should I submit a request to include the text? I agree there's more work to be done generally, so perhaps we should start a new subtopic (or several?) for discussion. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Newest draft re: Paytas

• Draft with minor changes and sources: {{tq| "After Ballinger’s response, an ex-employee posted alleged screenshots in which Ballinger appeared to send him purportedly nude photos of YouTuber and OnlyFans creator Trisha Paytas.NBC, ET Online] McIntyre then asserted that Ballinger sent him the same images when he was a minor. Paytas soon released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.[HuffPo, Paytas video}}

We do not need an RfC. If we get a consensus here, we can just ask the admin who protected it, Johnuniq, to drop the full protection. I added "that" to your draft. I agree with the above draft. Heading: "Accusations of inappropriate conduct" would be OK. Tour cancellations OK. I do not agree with anything about the Quioh accusations yet, but if you want to discuss it now, it should have its own section with a clear proposal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you closed the request because there was no consensus? Just wondering why! Is there some kind of vote? It seems like there was consensus to add the Paytas allegations, and the wording was figured out here. I've never worked on an article with full protection, so I'm not sure exactly how this works! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, we can do this if and when there is a consensus. The three of us is not a consensus. Let's give everyone a day to see if anyone objects. I *think* we will have a consensus, but you jumped the gun. If we are going to get Johnuniq to move protection back down, we should show him a strong WP:CONSENSUS. No worries. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I misread that as a ~general consensus~ for everything! My mistake :) Makes sense to wait, and I can see how I jumped the gun a bit haha Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of making an "edit request", I think that when we think we have a clear consensus, we should just ping him, note who has agreed and disagreed, tell him that we think a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow everyone to comment, and ask him how we should proceed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

One, non-admins can not answer edit requests of articles under full protection per WP:EDITXY. Second, edit requests can summon other admins if you use the --edit fully-protected-- template. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we are good to go. The wording of the current draft is appropriate and balanced in my view. The new heading of 'Accusations of inappropriate conduct' seems fair. We have had no disagreements on whether to add the cancellation of the tour, and so adding a simple sentence to the end of the current draft like "Subsequently, Ballinger cancelled the remainder of her 2023 tour." or something to that effect will suffice whenever that is added. The disagreements on whether to add the Quioh stuff, and if so, how to add it, can remain ongoing, and I'm hopeful we can continue to discuss on those issues in the talkspace without any further edit warring, and leaving them out of the article for now. Criticalus (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think the "After Ballinger’s response" paragraph at the top of this subsection is probably OK to go up as it stands. I'm slightly nervous about having the heading "Accusations of inappropriate conduct", but as I can't think of a better version, I suppose this is ok too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm open to a different header but also can't think of a better or more accurate version. Criticalus (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The remainder of Ballinger's 2023 tour has been cancelled

• This was reported in HuffPo on July 10th. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Variety article on July 11. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• CBS on July 10. -- Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• NBC on July 11. -- Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Guardian on July 10 -- Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This certainly merits inclusion as well. Probably in two places, under live comedy act subsection of Miranda Sings, and also in the end of the current 'Accusations' subsection as a specific response. Also, just throwing this out there, I have a feeling you might dislike this suggestion but I am just saying it prematurely now so it has time to marinate. If this continues to this degree, there may become need for a sentence in the lead to introduce it. Not yet, but the way it's developing it seems that we may get there. Criticalus (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. What that Lead sentence will say may depend upon any further developments, but it seems highly likely that the reactions to the accusations have destroyed Ballinger's career as it existed just over a month ago. Note that Ballinger has not posted on any of her YouTube channels or other social media for more than a month, except for the response video. This was the main part of her career -- she had been posting almost daily until June 2, 2023. Her 120th podcast episode with her husband (Relax! with Colleen and Erik) was their last, also on June 2, 2023. That is why the 3-episode Paytas podcast is not noteworthy in the larger picture. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Throwing my support behind inclusion re: the cancelled tour. Not sure exactly how it will be phrased, but off the bat, I think it's a good call. I also think Ssilvers is right with their appraisal of the situation, so I'm in agreement with both of you that something should be added to the lead. I do think it's probably a good call to wait until everything is settled (hindsight 20/20 etc.). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Proposed language: "In July, Ballinger cancelled the remainder of her 2023 live shows".[citing Variety and NBC].

I think a line like this is probably needed as part of the response or impact of the accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please include this information in the article.[2][3]2601:447:4100:1BE0:C09C:C97:1A37:1671 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Quioh

Though if you want to solve the Quioh stuff before we ping Johnuniq, my question would be why do you object to referencing it? There are numerous examples that have come out claiming workplace misconduct and racial insensitivity, and I am not suggesting that we spare the ink to detail these incidents, but just to reference their existence and offer a citation to a reliable source that readers can peruse further if they desire. There is no wish to malign the subject of the article or to defend the subject of the article, but these are public assertions that have been made and discussed in major publications, and to ignore even referencing them feels like we are willfully ignoring their inclusion. To reiterate, the change I have suggested feels very minor, which is to modify the current sentence Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans. into Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including workplace misconduct and racial insensitivity on the set of her Netflix show.[cite VultureRolling Stone. Again, it's verifiable information, cited from multiple reliable sources, that is materially different from the other information included in the paragraph, so why are we omitting it? I would advocate for continued semi-protection, though, to prevent unregistered users from igniting any further edit wars. Criticalus (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine he will continue the semi-protection if we ask him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to split this off into a new heading or whatever feel free Criticalus (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

[I added a new heading for Quioh]. I am not ready to discuss Quioh and I am not comfortabe with your proposal. I will sleep on it. To gain a clear consensus on each thing (until the article is open for editing), please do not combine proposals. Each one, once it seems finalized, should be out in the open under a heading with a request for any further comments for a long enough period of time to give people a chance to comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have problems with the phrasing "including workplace misconduct and racial insensitivity on the set of her Netflix show". "Workplace misconduct" is too broad a term to be used and, in any case, is redundant with the complaint about the Netflix show. Instead of saying "her Netflix show", we can say Haters Back Off, which has already been described above in the article. So the addition can just be "...including racial insensitivity on the set of Haters Back Off, which I think a little more concise and accurate. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, I believe the "workplace misconduct" is referring to one of the accusers, Silvestri, who's the ex-employee involved in the Paytas summary. His claims are covered in multiple RSs (albeit not as prominently as Becky or McIntyre), and could be described "workplace misconduct" (HuffPo Rolling Stone The Independent Vulture). Perhaps there is a better phrase, but I see no real problem with Criticalus's proposed changes. I do agree with you that it would make sense to use the title of the show. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  They "could be" described as many things, but none of those sources use the phrase "workplace misconduct". I'm not saying we don't cover things, but "workplace misconduct" is too broad a term to be used, particularly as the sources don't use it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• These changes make sense, I would agree with @SchroCat. Thus the current proposed change re: Quioh is to amend the sentence Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans. into Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including racial insensitivity on the set of Haters Back Off. [cite Vulture, Rolling Stone] Criticalus (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems OK to me, except that I would not cite Rolling Stone. The Vulture (New York Magazine) article is clearer and more accurate. BTW, re: "workplace misconduct", see https://www.whistlelink.com/blog/misconduct-types-in-the-workplace/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I realized afterwards that 'workplace misconduct' was probably a sticky phrase, also from what Silvestri's said on record it sounds like any clear cut claims of workplace misconduct relate to DeSoto, not Ballinger directly. Anyways, phrasing wise, I'm good with that! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Song copyrighted with title 'Toxic Gossip Train'

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.

---

It appears that the song has now been copyrighted by Ballinger. Should the article be updated to include the title? "Ballinger later posted a response video, performing an original song titled 'Toxic Gossip Train',... [Buzzfeed, Yahoo via Daily Beast]". Here's a direct link to the song on Ballinger's Apple Music for verification. EDIT: Perhaps this detail helps with the ukulele issue somehow? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not seeing the relevance of this. Maybe it’s a cultural thing (unlike the US, in the UK one doesn’t register for copyright: it’s automatically granted). A search of the USCO filings don’t show she’s filed, and it looks like (OR alert), it’s something Apple have added onto the listing, rather than something Ballinger has done. I can’t see all the records, so it may be something that is confirmed (or not) by records alter, but I’d advise holding off on this until it passes through a couple of news cycles and the reality is a little clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright also automatically attaches in the US. You can get additional rights through *registration*, but I think what Buzzfeed is noticing is that Apple Music and YouTube automatically marked it as copyrighted, since they know the source. BTW, I am a lawyer. I don't see any reason to state the name of the song -- the key fact is that her video response was mostly in the form of a song. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They *thought* they knew the source, but they were wrong, per Andthereitis below. The press is in a big hurry to accuse Ballinger. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'm not a copyright expert, but it looks like Ballinger is distributing and licensing the song through CD Baby Not quite sure what any of this means in regards to the legality of copyright, but anyways, it's all O.R.! I do think it could be worth it to use the 'official' song name in the text, but either way it's not a huge deal. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there might be a case to use the official song title in the text, but also that it isn’t really a big deal. In service of removing the full protection, I think it’s more relevant to solve the other still-contentious issues (mainly: workplace and race allegations, name of subsection, and potential lead sentence) and then create a unified text with consensus to reopen the article. As a matter of copyright, it isn’t really relevant though. Though someone might see her use of copyright protection to monetize videos are about the situation in a negative light, that implication is one that should not be included in a neutral article, but rather left for readers to draw their own conclusions on. Criticalus (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

One copyrights a song in order to monetize it. If this leads to be being sold as a download, people may feel that undercuts the sincerity of the "apology". Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is all pointless, but just to say: per USA law (where Ballinger is) the song is copyrighted automatically from the moment of its inception. Still, yes, monetizing it, whether by streams, downloads, copyright claims on videos, etc. would be a choice. Surely to many people the idea of someone responding to serious claims of misconduct by strumming a ukelele and singing denials might be looked upon unfavorably. But that is not relevant to us as editors or to our approach to the article. It has no bearing on the article. Criticalus (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The single has now been removed from Apple Music and iTunes and the Twitter account Pop Crave removed their previous tweet about the single being available on these services. They have now released this tweet, claiming they have been contacted by Ballinger's legal team that have expressed that the song was not uploaded to Apple Music and iTunes by Ballinger and has since been removed. This implies that it was a third party that managed to upload the song to Ballinger's official accounts without her consent or approval. Although there has been no reliable secondary reporting on this information (so far), the fact that the single has been removed from the aforementioned services seems enough evidence to me that this does not warrant inclusion in the article. This could also mean that Ballinger herself did not copyright claim other YouTube videos, as has been claimed by some articles (Buzzfeed News). The supposed third party could be the one illegally making the copyright claims. Andthereitis (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2023 (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.

Ballinger subscriber count update or removal

According to the formula used by this article, Ballinger's subscriber count has decreased from 22.9 to 22.5mill. I think it's an easy ask to update the count in the infobox, but Ssilvers suggested removing the sum completely, which I support. It's highly likely there is a significant overlap between the three channels and the total is not an accurate representation of the actual number of unique subscribers. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with removal entirely. Criticalus (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the subscriber count from the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. At some point in the future this will all appear in RSs about the numbers she had at her height and how that dropped to X before some next event - and WP then we can include it in the text, but for now, they may as well come out of the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're completely right. In regards to current events, changing the infobox won't communicate how the decrease occurred/if there even was a decrease (unless a reader looked at the article history). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Loss of sponsorships

The loss of sponsorships should be added to the 'Accusations' section. She has lost sponsorships for her podcast from OneSkin (skincare) and Zocdoc (telemedicine).

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/miranda-sings-youtuber-colleen-ballinger-loses-sponsorships-amid-grooming-accusations-2181590/ 2603:3000:60:4100:89DB:747C:B1CC:BA7B (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think these losses of sponsorship merit inclusion. They are very minor partnerships. Criticalus (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Zocdoc has its own article on here. Why is it minor?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3000:60:4100:89db:747c:b1cc:ba7b (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not that the companies are minor, but rather that the sponsorship deals themselves are minor, and their loss is not notable enough to be worth including. Content creators and YouTubers make all sorts of deals for sponsorships on their various videos and other works, and if we were to include each time that happens, we'd have some really unwieldy articles. There's so many facts you could potentially include in a Wikipedia article, it's overwhelming. One test that is often used is the ten-year test, where you say "is this fact going to be important or relevant if you are reading this article in ten years?" So what are those relevant facts?

The fact that she lost business from these allegations is relevant and is already going to be included when we mention the cancellation of the remainder of her 2023 tour, but going into each specific brand deal she lost is beyond the scope of the article. If Zocdoc or OneSkin had for example been a long-term partner of hers, and they had joint product lines that were being cancelled, or some other fallout that was worth including, perhaps it might be worth considering more deeply. But if it's just a video or tour sponsor that is pulling its support, that's not really big enough to include. It's the same reason why while we are mentioning Trisha Paytas and the situation there, we are omitting the existence of their podcast, because from a ten years time perspective, the fact they had a three episode podcast together is not notable enough to be mentioned. Criticalus (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If this ten year time perspective is so important, then I feel like there are things that should be removed from the article. Here is just one example “In 2012, Ballinger was featured as nurse Royal in the web series Dr. Fubalous.”. She was only in 5 episodes. Paige Matheson (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of said web series and can’t weigh in there. I still think the loss of sponsorships is a very ancillary detail, and covering the loss of business with the tour etc. suffices to show her career suffered as a result of these allegations. But if you really want to include some sort of quick phrase like including the loss of brand sponsors, we’d need to find a reliable source WP:RS that says that first. Or if either brand has publicly made a statement we could potentially use that as a basis. But let’s avoid making this a tit-for-tat about decades old information in the article, I’d rather keep the focus on solving the current consensus about these current events so we can submit a proposal to end the full protection and update the article. Criticalus (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a conversation about the sponsors with Ssilvers earlier (under the Paytas addition topic), and I believe OneSkin did give a statement to TMZ, while ZocDoc confirmed the end of the sponsorship: "...skincare company OneSkin tells us they severed ties with Colleen, saying ... 'We were made aware of this previously and have decided to cease the relationship completely. This behavior is appalling and we do not condone or support it in any form.' Another advertiser, healthcare marketplace Zocdoc, says they will no longer run ads on her podcast." I understand both opinions in terms of whether to include the information or not, but I lean towards inclusion, as it seems notable noteworthy in context imo. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ballinger is losing all of her sponsorships. These two must be two of the least important ones. This, and a lot of other things, will be covered by the simple statement that she has stopped posting videos to YouTube and other social media, stopped touring her live shows and discontinued her podcasts. We can make those more important statements as sources arrive that mention each of these things (we already have sources for the cancellation of the tour). Again, everyone, please see WP:Noteworthy. That is the standard for when things are included in articles. "Notable" means something else, having to do with whether an article should be included in Wikipedia at all.-- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There's not any mention of the loss of brand sponsorships currently. This is important career info. The major ones include Zocdoc, Ritual and HelloFresh.

https://www.prweek.com/article/1828377/youtuber-colleen-ballinger-ignores-pr-advice-bizarre-response-grooming-allegations 2603:3000:60:4100:34B9:B039:F4DF:B302 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)