Jump to content

Talk:Kiwi Farms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why isn't Chris mentioned by name?

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's very clear that the writer went out of his way to not name him. Not mentioning him by name is like calling Zuckerberg "a collage student" on the Wikipedia page for Facebook and intentionally refusing to say his name, Chris is the main reason the site was made, mention him by name or don't make an article on the site. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kiwifarms is noteable and that makes Chris notable and should be named. Mentally ill or not, wanting to have notoriety or not, those are not relevant things to being documented on Wikipedia except maybe in extraordinary and extreme cases. We always see people getting attention in the media we don't think deserve any, like it or not they're relevant to the subject. 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article has been written and re-written so many times, always with some hackneyed attempt to obfuscate the origin of the name, and by extension avoid the whole "CWC"-thing. It really does the article no good, as this isn't just "a mentally ill person", it's a prominent figure in internet culture, who, for several reasons (not just the 2021 arrest) has received a fair amount of mainstream media coverage. In general, I believe this CWC person is notable enough for an article of their own, based on the extremely unique circumstances of their life and their massive cult following. It wouldn't be too out-there, given articles of a similar nature (see Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case as example) do exist on Wikipedia.

I understand that such an article would have to have a close eye on it, to prevent it from going off the rails, and that the topic itself has been sort of banned, since both CWC and their detractors used Wikipedia as a "battle ground" of sorts way back when, but I consider it a disservice to not at least have a brief mention of the namesake of this article, particularly since several of the listed sources provide this very information. A Simple Fool (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed to death. There would need to be consensus in a structured, formal, well-attended discussion (such as a Request for Comment) to change the community's current position. I notice that no comments in this section provide any evidence that there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if these are reliable sources or not, but there are several articles to be found regarding CWC and recent events through a Google search. (1, 2.)
I don't think it's enough to create an entire new article, but I think it's worth a mention in the KiwiFarms article, especially as some sources mention KiwiFarms directly. JungleEntity (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said a mention in this article, he is too significant to not mention by name. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject A Simple Fool (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis is on BLP, not on "easier to avoid". It is not people picking and choosing articles based on comfortableness, the point is that no one has been able to write an article that both meets BLP and establishes the notability. 0xDeadbeef 22:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Why can't we name them? We don't need a whole article, just add "Christine Chandler" or whatever after "webcomic artist." Riffraff913 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Chris Chan is such a complicated figure and bias, uncited sources and rumours are rampant, not least the so-called "troll armies" ready to editwar the article into unreadability, the topic is just too difficult to cover. Chris Chan may be a worldwide sensation, but maybe it's best their presence is confined to legend rather than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VariousStuffs (talkcontribs) 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think his her name should be included. If the website's former name (CWCki Forums) is mentioned in the lead paragraph, I think the acronym's meaning (ie. C******-Chan, formerly C*******-Chan) should be mentioned. It doesn't have to shouldn't be a lot of discussion. But it just really irks me when a wiki article or even a company's "about us" history page repeatedly use an acronym but don't explain what the stinking acronym in their name means. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC); edited 03:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC) ; edited Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM generally applies here; most of her notability, especially in the context of this article, stems from others' actions. That would generally suggest that we should follow WP:BLPNAME and avoid naming her. --Aquillion (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides all the good policy-based reasons, it's my impression that we have an consensus that mentioning CWC's name would be bad for the wiki regardless of other policy. Loki (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion @Loki I suppose so. I can see that there's considerable opposition to naming her, though I think there isn't consensus so much as lack of consensus with many still standing behind their points. But I respect that we ought to err on the side of less possible harm if there is lack of consensus. I still think there's value in at least defining the acronym CWC but I respect the consensus reached by previous editors.
    I'm of the opinion that much of her notoriety is from her own willful actions and that she saw public attention as resulting from her artistic pursuits (though there's also been many unwarranted things done to harass her). I think the line between victim and non-victim is very blurred but WP:AVOIDVICTIM wouldn't apply since her notoriety wasn't solely from a one-off incident but from her portfolio of work as well. She continued to produce content, a significant portion of which was about her own personal life, for public consumption and that content was notable to others. By comparison, if the internet and the rest of the world suddenly forgot about the viral videos of Jessi Slaughter in relation to the accusations against Vanity, I think she (Slaughter) would not have become so visible (barring a separate incident). Whereas with Cxxxx chan, erasing one incident from memory wouldn't diminish her notoriety considering the sizable portfolio of other stuff she had done/created.
    Is there mental illness involved in C*****-chan's complete misunderstanding of and embrace of a significant portion of the attention focused on her? Probably. But I think it's beyond the purview of editors to restrict mention of certain creators to spare them negative attention. In my opinion, it's like if articles chose to not name Tommy Wiseau as the director of his movies. He's notable for the atrocious movies he directed and it would be strange and a double standard if people withheld his name from reviews to solely to spare him public ridicule.
    Anyhow, that's just my thoughts. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC); edited 03:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC); edited Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with others that there's no reason to mention her name here. She's not really mentioned in the article outside of the brief history section, and its inclusion is not really relevant. I also sympathise with the WP:AVOIDVICTIM concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a very strong and long standing consensus that any mention of CWC, whether it's in a standalone BLP about her, or on this page, is a magnet for vandals and harassment. As other editors have stated, there is no way to write content about this individual in a way that cannot violate WP:BLP, particularly in light of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Past discussions on this took place on:
As this has been a perennial discussion, across at least the last 3 years, community consensus is very strong that content on CWC cannot be included in any article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th Oh holy moly, I'm sorry for not seeing this. I searched on the talk page but didn't see or look into the archive. Thank you for taking the time to compile this.
Incidentally, as this topic has come up multiple times, is there any way to prevent any of the auto archiving bots from archiving a particular section? So it's easier for editors not familiar with an article's history to see any important things that were settled in the past. Something like the equivalent of a forum's "Sticky" post at the top of a section. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find any. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a FAQ section to the talk page header with this information in it, but the banners don't appear for many mobile editors. We also could add a summary talk page section at the top of the talk page, tag it with {{do not archive until}}, however as is demonstrated with this section, some editors often "necro" old discussions, and such a section would be a magnet for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th Sorry, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse or necro.
I think the value of having a {{Pinned section}} that says something like "Per extensive discussions, consensus is to not name this individual within the article per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME; please see talk page and archived discussions here, here, here" outweighs the nuisance of having to rollback those edits to archived pages but I'm not the one having to do the rollbacks *shrug. (I also didn't know so many people edited talk pages which were archived smh) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now this has been established, I have sort of the reverse question: What's the encyclopedic value to even mentioning her initials? It's been years since they were called that, and the sum of the encyclopedic value of the initials to the article is "they were founded to harass a particular person and these are her initials". Loki (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loki Do you mean the value of mentioning the old name or defining what the acronym CWC stands for? For the former, it's useful if someone reads an old source that mentions the forum's old name so they know it's referring to Kiwi Farms. For the latter, my natural inclination when I see an acronym is to want to know what it stands for (but I'm also a bit OCD so there's that). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, my question is neither of those. I'm asking, what's the value of even having the acronym itself in the article? Why don't we stop calling it "CWCwiki" or calling her "CWC" and just talk around it like we talk around her full name? Loki (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, not everyone is talking around the name. Jasonkwe has just proposed to permanently inscribe it on this Talk page (which does not seem ideal). Newimpartial (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial That's not what I was suggesting. The point was to have a sticky so that people know to not add the full name of that individual for whom the website was originally named. I did not know that use of that individual's name on the talk page was incorrect per WP:BLP-- I had only meant to be specific so other editors would not make this edit on the article mainspace.
@LokiTheLiar I think that was the first thing I had mentioned, "what's the point in mentioning the old name in the article". My reason was that there's probably some older sources which refer to the site only by the CWCki name and mentioning it provides continuity for readers so they know it's referring to the same thing. I imagine that if someone was doing research on cyberbullying and had seen mention of CWCki elsewhere, there's a chance they might not know it was the former name for Kiwi Farms. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac would you be able to delete edit 1110021882 from 04:03, 13 September 2022‎ from the article mainspace which I made in poor judgment? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I said elsewhere (and a few other places in the past), the mere existence of her name is not the issue, and a commented-out note that eventually be buried in the history does not meet any of the criteria for removal. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkwe I think including the original name of the site is also important as it explains the origin of the current cite name, which is a mispronunciation of the old one mocking someone for their speech impediment. Without knowing the history the site’s name sounds completely innocent. Ganondox (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

URL

Should we really be listing the current URL of a website as dangerous as this, after its primary domain was already taken down? Jenny Death (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we do the same for 8chan, and all that's happened and is happening related to this website, I'd support removing their external link. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We did that for 8chan because of concerns over child pornography. That seems to be nothing at all like what we're dealing with here. Endwise (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely should not be advertising alternative domains or assisting with people finding this site. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But yet we "advertise" The Daily Stormer, Stormfront, VDARE, The Right Stuff etc. proudly in their infoboxes? Neo-Nazi epidemic on Wikipedia! Tweedle (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking whether I think we should remove it from them as well: Yes. We should. -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with excluding the URL. The sheer amount of leaked personal information on the forum (full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses) about vulnerable individuals is terrifying. Add in the frequent use of that information to harass people, actual threats to life via swatting and most recently a bomb threat in Northern Ireland [1], and the rest of the obscene and hateful content on the site, I don't think there's any good reason to publicise whatever URL they're currently using. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As there seems to be a rough consensus not to include the URL, I've WP:BOLDly removed it and mentioned this section in the edit summary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely seems reasonable given the discussion so far. Perhaps we might want to start an RfC on it a bit later though. Endwise (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (from WP:ELNEVER/WP:ELOFFICIAL) that we only don't link to an official link to a website in cases where the material on the website is illegal/violates copyrights, or is serving malware, rather than being obscene and hateful? E.g. Nazi site The Daily Stormer is certainly hateful, and shock site Goregrish.com is certainly obscene, but we do link to both of those. Endwise (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doxxing is, in many jurisdictions outside of the US, illegal. While the forum's servers might be hosted in the US, many of the active users and their targets are international. Swatting likewise is also illegal in many jurisdictions. Both of these things are frequent actions that arise on KiwiFarms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per Sideswipe. That's true regarding 8chan, Endwise, but given the proliferation of doxing and violent threats on this platform I think a similar case can be made here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we DO keep a URL, it should still be the main URL. Let readers see what Cloudflare has to say, until the site updates it's DNS records away from CF. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast! this is a major infobox policy. If you want to leave the url off, we should give it the attention and time it deserves. TeeVeeed (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not representative of the site content the site is currently serving. Domain name doesn't matter (at least not in Infobox). A link to the site serving with their intended contents matter, this is for the credibility of Wikipedia. You must not dictate what readers should see because of Wikipedia censorship policies. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that KF keeps on changing service provider and domains, I think for now it's a bad idea to keep on finding links every time it goes down. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to keep it, doxxing is illegal is some jurisdictions, but so is hate speech is some parts of the world, which sites such as the Daily Stormer are guilty of, but still have their URLs displayed. I'm certainly not very much of a fan of the site's content, but in being consistent, I'd say it should stay. As for whether it should be the blocked main URL or online alternative URL, that should definitely be discussed. Wikicannibal (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the URL as this site has demonstrably incited real-world violence against marginalized people, and shows no sign of stopping this behavior. I propose that we take this to an RfC. (I'd prefer someone else start the RfC however.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds whether or not an RfC is necessary on this point. While it could be helpful, per WP:RFCBEFORE I do not think we've exhausted discussion here yet. However, even with a huge pile of WP:AGF, given the nature of KiwiFarms, I have a (I believe) reasonable fear that such a discussion could a target for off-wiki harassment and canvassing.
That said, if we are to hold an RfC, how would we phrase the question. Would a simple, straightforward Should we include or exclude the URL to KiwiFarms in the infobox and external links section? be sufficient and neutral enough? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is not just Kiwi Farms? Or should it be on an ad hoc basis? Prior to this, only 1 site had the distinction here on WP, so it is easy to keep track of that. But if we are going to allow individual talk page discussions to rule over this, that needs to be clarified or not. Agreed that changing policy like this at this point should undergo a formal process like RfC. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The illegal content of a site must be stated clearly and point out clearly where on the Wikipedia policies it breaks, and a clear consensus conclusions must be reached to remove it. Please no more bold moves, it's good that we have started discussion about this. If it the consensus cannot be reached here please don't change anything to "de-link" the site from Infobox other than updating it with a new domain name to the intended server. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done so above. The forum is notorious for its doxxing, swatting, and harassment of vulnerable individuals, actions that are illegal in many jurisdictions worldwide including the US, so covered under WP:ELNO#EL3. Sources for these actions are already present in the article text, and it obviously would not be responsible or wise for us to link to specific incidents on the forums ourselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a potential outcome of this discussion, but then again you shouldn't deploy based on a prejudication/rough consensus, the discussion is still ongoing and the final conclusion remains unclear. Such obscene contents served online have happened on 4chan too and we still provide a link to it as well as that happens to several other sites mentioned by several users and we have links for them. I'm not expert on what makes things illegal in the US that Wikipedia should take off the link so I'll leave this up to others to decide if an link should stay off. I'm still in the opinion of the link staying for credibility of Wikipedia.
Also I've come across the Wikipedia's blacklist that appears to include Kiwi Farms' older domain name and its variants, has it been agreed upon from elsewhere, like a previous discussion and such? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 23:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we don't waste contributor time when we have a rough consensus. The addition of official external links have always been done under best-practice guidelines; there is no policy that I know of that states we have to provide a link to the subject of the article. On the other hand, WP:BLPEL, a policy, states: External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. I believe WP:BLP should be heavily considered here, due to the activities Kiwi Farms promotes. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this is precisely the type of thing that we need to waste time with.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And furthermore, I don't really want to power-level myself as a sometime visitor to KF here, but no one forces people to commit suicide, and no one forces them to look at KF. Personally, I know that I would have deleted a requested thread if someone was that distressed about it, but no one forces anyone to visit the farms so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted. This is about culture wars, and preventing readers from having information to make their own decisions about their own opinions is not a good look. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted. I'm honestly speechless. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted Wow. That is absolutely abhorrent.
...no one forces them to look at KF Aah yes, because the harassment on Kiwi Farms stays on Kiwi Farms. That people who have threads about them have been swatted, subjected to identity theft, and had personal information like full names, addresses, telephone numbers, employers, email addresses, is clearly immaterial because they didn't have to look at the site... Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The real world actions that you are talking about are scary and should always be reported to admin in my opinion. I have not seen anything like that when and if I view KF. Are they mean? Yes. Personally I feel like it is a stretch saying that KF is responsible for suicides. Telling them not to be mean does not prevent suicide though. What you are calling harassment is sometimes just taking-away the ability to control someone's narrative when that person has a public persona. Like The Butcher of Ardmore for example or other monetary or deviant interests that benefit from controlling the narrative.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is still up for discussion, I am of the opinion that the URL should be reinstated, at least for the main page, for consistency. Fernsong (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 support here. Tweedle (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really shouldn't. Most websites don't actively dox people and commit other crimes, so consistency is not an issue here. PBZE (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is explicitly discouraged and any who do partake in these activities are punished. Fernsong (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little concerning that in this very thread we have editors, some with lots of edits, repeating Kiwi Farms propaganda. PBZE (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally just a glance at their "Terms and Rules" section.
"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct."
I would think that "dox people and commit other crimes" would fall under this. Fernsong (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could say whatever you want in your ToS but if you don't enforce your rules it's always as if you don't have rules. If KiwifFarms had indeed been against doxxing as you claim, a large portion of its users probably would have been suspended or banned and complaining about it on some other site. Hg3300 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping the URL off of Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who's been trying to keep Wikipedia safe. Stix1776 (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of keeping Wikipedia safe. The content of Wikipedia infoboxes show up at the top of Google and other Internet search results, so our decisions have broad impact. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least two editors (maybe more, I'm just aware of two) have active threads dedicated to them there. One had their home address posted. Seems pertinent... --Chillabit (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have a discussion on Wikidata about the same issue. I encourage everyone here to join

@GorillaWarfare, Chillabit, Funcrunch, Stix1776, Fernsong, TeeVeeed, Isabelle Belato, Sideswipe9th, Hemiauchenia, 0xDeadbeef, Dumuzid, FormalDude, and NightWolf1223: --Trade (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
For ease of navigating this closure, I've divided it into subsections.
  1. Relevance. Some editors suggested that there isn't much of a dispute to resolve if the webpage is unstable or not accessible at all (see WP:ELNO#16). However, an article from 7 October suggested it was online, and I was able to access the forum from the main webpage, so the point is no longer valid and the question about secondary links need not be answered for now. So, moving on:
  2. Precedents. There were several discussions cited here that, in editors' opinions, could help the closure: the village pump discussion, and those about 8chan, Stormfront, The Right Stuff and VDARE. For the reasons I explain below, I don't find any of these necessary to take into account, and I don't want this closure to create precedent.
  3. General state of discussion. There was a similar number of support and oppose !votes, just a bit more on the oppose side.
The oppose side's main argument is that a website largely dedicated to harassment and doxxing should not appear on WP. Indeed, even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear that Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass. Copyright violations are less of a concern at this stage, though I've taken these into account as well. WP:ELNEVER#2 is largely irrelevant, because, as it was pointed out, the restriction is technical.
The support side generally used two arguments: first, a page about a website should include the website itself, which usually makes sense (cf. WP:NEUS, an essay), and that an official webpage is exempted from WP:ELNO, which is also true. Another argument was WP:NOTCENSORED, but that was less convincing. First, WP:GRATUITOUS suggests that this is not an absolute rule; secondly, NOTCENSORED and harassment are two different things, which some have pointed out. NOTCENSORED certainly does apply in articles about extremist ideologies, something that the village pump discussion came to (same for "immoral" things). But harassment or doxxing need not be extremist, obscene or offensive, and Wikipedia is very strict about these activities, particularly if performed by editors.
The burden for rallying support for inclusion rests with the support side, and WP:PROBLEMLINKS asks to err on the side of caution in case of doubts. The proposal to include did not enjoy consensus (so the burden was already not met at this stage), but also the arguments for retention were weaker. (Wikipedia discourages links to external harassment, even if the link is the main page), so the consensus is that we shouldn't include the link. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we provide an external link to the Kiwi Farms website on this article? If yes, should we use their secondary domain while their primary domain is down? Endwise (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose linking the website in any way. Per WP:ADV: Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link. There is no immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers by including the link on the article. 0xDeadbeef 05:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Deadbeef above. Current Cloudfare issues aside, while I don't think every time such a link was clicked it would result in harassment or associated awfulness, I think it would be more likely than with just about any comparable link. We absolutely need to cover this. We do not need to enable it. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose including any external links to the Kiwi Farms website. This site is dedicated to mocking and harassing marginalized people, and the site's users have repeatedly and demonstrably caused real-world harm. And as I commented in the previous section, Wikipedia infobox contents top the results of Google and other search engines, so our decision here has broad impact. Funcrunch (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. PBZE (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: It is speculated that Joshua Moon is collecting referer headers to track people who visit the site. So linking to it from Wikipedia may be endangering our readers and editors. PBZE (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should not link a site dedicated to the harassment of online comunities. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 13:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose linking, per Sideswipe9th's comment above: The sheer amount of leaked personal information on the forum (full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses) about vulnerable individuals is terrifying. Add in the frequent use of that information to harass people, actual threats to life via swatting and most recently a bomb threat in Northern Ireland [5], and the rest of the obscene and hateful content on the site, I don't think there's any good reason to publicise whatever URL they're currently using. That aside, their recent deplatforming from Cloudflare and then from DDoS-Guard makes clear they will have increasing difficulty staying online (as acknowledged by Moon in a Telegram post), and so it seems likely it will become logistically difficult to keep any URL up-to-date. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: inclusion would violate WP:BLPPRIVACY (doxxed private information), WP:COPYVIOEL (consistent copyright violations and lax enforcement), and WP:ELNO WP:ELNEVER#2 (website currently on the spam blacklist). Pilaz (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In line with what every other commenter has said, I strongly oppose having a link to Kiwi Farms in this article. It not only violates Wikipedia rules, but inclusion of its link will lead to more harassment and threats. Historyday01 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Reasons: 1) An article about a website should include a link to the website. It should include the primary, well-known link, not any recent workaround URLs, because the primary URL is the one that was notable (e.g. this is the one which will be findable in web.archive.org). 2) WP:NOTCENSORED. We remove material based on policy violation, not personal distaste. Removal would be inconsistent with the longstanding practice of including links to distasteful (yet notable) websites. 3) Addressing the reasons for opposition: WP:BLPPRIVACY is not violated merely by including a link to a site. It is not clear to me why the site would violate WP:COPYVIOEL. Links "to an official page of the article's subject" are explicitly exempted from WP:ELNO. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:COPYVIOEL, Kiwi Farms has an infamous section called "Take that off the internet!" which is filled with takedown notices emails, many of which are made on copyright and DMCA grounds, and to which the owner of the Kiwi Farms responds often with dubious counter-claims. To me, that fulfills the If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. line of COPYVIOEL. As for ELNO, I actually meant to link to WP:ELNEVER #2, which prohibits linking to websites on the spam blacklist without exception. Hopefully that sheds some light on my reasoning. Pilaz (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilaz: I don't think that either of those prohibit us from linking to the main page. Sci-Hub is blacklisted and contains copyrighted information but we still link to the main page. WP:COPYLINK says In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. WP:ELNEVER #2 states that it is purely technically prohibited, not inherently prohibited - it just needs to be whitelisted. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, particularly per Pilaz. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Barnards.tar.gz, for me it is 1): consistency with Wikipedia's other pages and 2) while this might seem trivial to a extent, it does have encyclopedic and notable value (albeit miniscule I guess) having the URL to a website in their respective Wikipedia page infobox - Tweedle (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The link to Kiwifarms is relevant to this page, and is consistent with other articles on websites. Many of the responses in opposition seem to be WP:Advocacy against linking to hateful websites, but other websites commonly described as hate websites have their links in their infoboxes, such as The Daily Stormer. Even websites of terrorist organizations, when known, have been linked on Wikipedia. As to which link to use, I am not sure. They still own the .net even if not used, but it would seem to be that the .onion link may become more of a primary link depending on how long the situation lasts. So I would either list both the .net and the .onion or just the .onion. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Barnards.tar.gz and Tweedledumb2 above. Other articles like The Daily Stormer and Parler, both of which are more notorious than Kiwi Farms (and in the case of The Daily Stormer, possibly even more dangerous), have their respective URLs in their infoboxes. There is no reason not to link the .net URL of Kiwi Farms in the infobox, especially when there is already a precedent against removing it. JungleEntity (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose because linking a site that includes doxing/harassment of other editors may be aiding the sort of behavior that violates global WMF policy. I would usually lean in favor of inclusion of basically anything that doesn't host child sex abuse materials (i.e. things that are illegal to even view in pretty much any country) since there are a number of sites nonetheless in the public interest which contain behaviors illegal in some countries that still yet don't implicate the viewer (e.g. anti-government, true contents deemed libel, educational pirated materials, etc.) but I don't think this is something we can ignore. --Chillabit (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my own justification in the subsection above: The sheer amount of leaked personal information on the forum (full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses) about vulnerable individuals is terrifying. Add in the frequent use of that information to harass people, actual threats to life via swatting and most recently a bomb threat in Northern Ireland [5], and the rest of the obscene and hateful content on the site, I don't think there's any good reason to publicise whatever URL they're currently using. I'd also add that, at the time of writing this !vote, the alternate domain is currently offline due to DDoS-Guard removing service from the site earlier this afternoon, and the site is currently only accessible through TOR. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that if the site does maintain a presence online, its domain will be significantly unstable for quite some time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Positively Completely Certainly Definitely 100% Oppose per Sideswipe9th's reason for opposition. I also don't think any far-right URL should be on Wikipedia whether they're offline, going offline, or not. Even if a Nazi site has been offline for ages, people can still find out what the sites were like through archives, I don't think we should help them do that per what Sideswipe9th said. Stephanie921 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Concur with Stephanie921 and Sideswipe9th. That includes removing The Daily Stormer and other such sites' URLs. Jenny Death (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per deadbeef and Stephanie921. Vacant0 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose The idea that "for consistency" is considered by anyone a sufficient argument is absurd. That argument locks the status quo in place forever, "Other pages do it, so we must do it here." We can certainly be inconsistent. We can have no infobox at all! Such is allowed. In the face of valid reasons not to support this site in the least, including the active doxxing and harassment of our editors, "other pages do it" is laughable. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "We can have no infobox at all!" is a rather silly argument, because it has nothing to do with whether or not there can be a link on this article. It would just be put under "external links." The site still exists whether or not it is linked on this article, and it serves the article no good to not link the subject of the article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to misread what I'm saying, that's on you. We are NOT required under any basis of "consistency" to have this link. Not a single policy or guideline requires we keep it. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons already stated. Consistency being one, but also I have yet to see any solid argument that the site explicitly encourages or supports criminal activity. Fernsong (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Echoing Barnards.tar.gz, "An article about a website should include a link to the website." This is what Wikipedia does with other sites that host unpopular speech, including The Daily Stormer. Consistency is very important. We are building an encyclopedia and we should follow consistent standards for inclusion. Consistency helps safeguard against making knee-jerk, emotional decisions which can only degrade the quality of our work. With consistency in mind, I am not sure I understand the argument against. If we were to refuse to include links to any site with odious user-generated content, we would be forced to remove links to notable sites such as Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, et cetera. Or is the argument that they ought to get a pass just because they are more mainstream? By way of example, my understanding is that there was a death threat posted on Kiwi Farms and within about 30 minutes it was deleted and the user who posted it banned. This is fairly consistent with the track record of mainstream companies - for example, Facebook took about thirty minutes to remove the Christchurch shooting livestream. If we're going to develop a policy to refuse to include links to sites, it should be a policy that applies equally to all websites including mainstream ones. In any event, such a policy does not seem to exist - and as I mentioned at the beginning of this message, Wikipedia has historically included links to websites with content that many find to be objectionable.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit aren't inherently hate websites. But Kiwi Farms is. Hate speech is a systemic problem on social media that the companies do not take care of and mainstream companies absolutely do not have track records like u described. And if u think that Kiwi Farms is run the way u described I suggest u re-read the article - especially considering how important the discussion is - because your claim is contradicted by every sentence in it, which are well-sourced. Death threats are a feature of the site, not a bug. Kiwi Farms isn't a normal site with a few rotten apples.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talkcontribs) 0:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not the site is hateful or not is quite frankly completely irrelevant to whether or not it's URL should be listed on an article about itself. Pretending like it's link doesn't exist and not putting it on this article reduces the quality of the information provided by the article, leading to an inferior encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy on what types of speech should be permitted, or what type of behavior is acceptable outside of the encyclopedia, and even if it was, refusing to put an otherwise easily findable link to the article's subject is not a particularly effective method of doing so. The link otherwise violates no Wikipedia policies which apply to links to the subject of an article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the time of writing this reply, the site is only intermittently accessible through Tor, and is completely inaccessible on the surface web. Unless you know the .onion URL, or someone shares it with you, finding the site is surprisingly difficult at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, I am not terribly interested in whether or not a site is a "hate website" (a rather nebulous and ill-defined category as best as I can tell). I do not think it has much to do with running an encyclopedia or, more specifically, whether or not a webpage should have its link on Wikipedia or not. Are you proposing a policy by which any "hate website" is not allowed to be linked from Wikipedia? This would be an extreme divergence from existing policy and I think, ultimately, would reduce the quality and credibility of this encyclopedia. It raises many questions. Who gets to decide what a hate website is? What is the criteria, exactly? It is nebulous enough that I could easily see (and in fact, have seen) people arguing that various mainstream political views (anti-abortion, etc) constitute "hate speech" and as a result those sites should not be linked from Wikipedia. Let's not go down this road. I think Serafart said it best above - by removing links to whatever it is that people find objectionable, all we're really doing is editorializing and "reducing the quality of the information provided by the article, leading to an inferior encyclopedia." Very well put.
Regarding your comments about how mainstream companies are run - I made a very specific reference to the Christchurch shooting, in which Facebook took at least 29 minutes to remove the livestream. Multiple RS (and Facebook itself!) say that the first user report for the livestream didn't even come in for 29 minutes. The point I was making is that websites with user generated content cannot reasonably be held accountable for the actions of every single one of their users, especially if lawbreaking users are dealt with in a swift manner by the moderation teams (which is also what happened on KiwiFarms). It's also worth discussing whether this should matter to Wikipedia at all. We're building an encyclopedia, not making moral judgments - hence the reason why we link to sites like The Daily Stormer and far worse.
Regarding your comments about how Kiwi Farms "is run" - my claim is that the death threat was actioned within thirty minutes (message deleted, poster banned). Are you suggesting this is not the case? There is nothing in the article that contradicts this. You are welcome to put this information into the article if you can find RS saying so, but as far as I can tell such a thing does not seem to exist.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some disagreement over interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I think it's definitely safe to say that Wikipedia is *not censored* on the basis of something being "hate speech", which is a subjective concept anyway. I think there's a legitimate debate to be had about KF directly inciting violence and whether that precludes linking to it. But on the basis of "hate speech" or "defaming marginalized people". Big nope on that one. As biased as I see some of the leanings in editorial policy currently, it's still (hopefully) *Wikipedia*, not *Wokipedia*.Peter G Werner (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose including any link to the website. According to Talk:8chan, "Most editors agree that our moral obligation to not facilitate access to a website notable for containing child pornography overrides any benefit to the project derived from giv[ing] the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." A web URL is arguably less encyclopedic and more instructional information, and if moral obligation is a factor at all, then a site being an active hate and stalking platform should be weighed very heavily against providing instructions to find it. Kiwi Farms has made a great many people's lives less safe for a long time. Autumn on Tape (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: KF is notorious for hosting people's private information (doxxing). Its whole raison d'être is centered around bullying, harassing, and doxxing individuals deemed to be "special." Sure, all of these things can be found on pretty much any social media, but what sets KiwiFarms apart from most of the others is the fact that its primary purpose is for these behaviors. But most importantly of all, a former FBI official compared the website's activity to a potential terrorist threat, seeing the Keffals situation, which is actually part of the reason why the Russian domain got removed. Cloudflare was right; it is a threat.
  • Side question: what's the precedent on Wikipedia for deciding whether to link to defunct websites on their Wikipedia articles, by the way? Do they still get linked? I believe they do, but with a parenthetical note of (defunct), etc. on the side. Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia is not censored. When Wikipedia has an article on a topic then we provide the most relevant available resources. For websites, one of those resources is a link to either the site itself or an archive of it. If a site is down and it is easy to link to a secondary site then we should, but we are not obligated to maintain quickly changing links or verify dubious mirrors. We need to keep the link because Wikipedia is a resource for journalists, researchers, policy makers, and thought leaders, and it is essential that we provide access to those audiences so that they can examine media and make decisions for themselves. I recognize the opposition's concerns that this is a hate-based media channel, and that by increasing public access to the website we inflame negative sentiment. However, I disagree that hiding media is an effective strategy for countering those views, and instead think that making it available avoids censorship, gives the people who enjoy that content an opportunity to reflect on what they are doing along with Wikipedia's other information, and gives critics access if they need it. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: My concerns are about the activities promoted and enacted on the forum, which, as covered in the article, are known to be implicated in at least three deaths; not just the sentiments of its users. A lot of editors voicing support for including a URL seem to miss that point and view this as a matter of disagreeing views that may be defused by providing information. Wikipedia's inclusion or non-inclusion of a URL here could have a real effect if Kiwi Farms moves permanently to a less intrinsically findable onion service. Journalists who report on extremism have other sources for such information, and many of them would agree that deplatforming works. Autumn on Tape (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Autumnontape completely agreed Stephanie921 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@@Autumnontape and Stephanie921: Your claim is believable. Suppose that I accept your claim: "this website is a tool for bringing death and violence into the world". Why do you think that reducing access to the website is a better strategy for countering this than increasing access to the website? I know the situation is complex, but often, misconduct thrives when others hide it from view and protect it. Why do you feel that transparency is not the safe response in this case? I do not see obvious sources in deplatforming that support this strategy. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you equivocate on my premise like that when it's covered as a matter of fact in the article we're currently discussing?
Harassment campaigns by Kiwi Farms users are known to have contributed to the suicides of three individuals. The Kiwi Farms community considers it a goal to drive its targets to suicide, and has celebrated such deaths with a counter on the website. They have used social media reporting systems to mass-report posts by harassment targets in which they've expressed suicidal thoughts or intentions, with the goal of reducing the possibility their targets receive help.
The article is of high quality and very detailed. It's not hiding the site from view or protecting it just because it doesn't help readers to visit it. I feel that transparency is an excellent response to a community like Kiwi Farms that long relied on manipulating their own image in order to reach a wide audience with their libelous claims, but that kind of valuable transparency, capable of reducing their ability to do harm, does not come from the main page of Kiwi Farms itself but from sources that document its history and impact. Autumn on Tape (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Autumnontape: I accept your claim exactly as you state it about the site's murderous history. There is no disagreement on that point.
I question your conclusion that the effective strategy to contain the danger of the website is to restrict access.
Another question - suppose that I agreed that we should omit the URL. How would that look? Would it simply not be in the Wikipedia article, or in the place where the URL goes, would we establish and link an internal documentation page, perhaps WP:CENSORED SITES, where we disclose the list and the discussions that decided each case? Do you want to hide the URL, or do you want to both hide the URL and the explanation why we are hiding the URL?
If you are proposing to openly censor the site then I find that easier to support because the community can regulate how long and to what extent; if you are proposing to secretly censor it then I find that much more problematic. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're asking for a level of transparency that Wikipedia already provides. Talk pages aren't secret. When a decision about an article's content is made that's likely to surprise some editors, a permanent note is often left at the top of the talk page. This is what was done when it was decided not to include a link to 8chan in the article about it.
Moving a note like that into the article itself and creating a centralized list of articles for which such a decision was made would be extraordinary steps to take. Such things aren't done when information is omitted under WP:BLPPRIVACY, for example. That would paint a huge target on the pages in question, and it would do so specifically for people who disagree with the policy and want to pick fights about it. Autumn on Tape (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Autumnontape: Wikipedia's rules of engagement say "no censorship". I recognize that censorship is a powerful weapon and that if we wield it, then we can solve problems with it. I fear your proposed solution because you show no recognition that Wiki editors and readers whom we support have been and will again be the targets of censorship, and when this happens, then they are consistently helpless and defeated.
Some countries have two political parties at odds with each other, and because Wikipedia is global, we are always at odds with multiple countries and parties. Right now we can avoid a lot of politics by saying that we do not censor. Avoiding politics prevents some of the attacks on our editors with the weapons of censorship. I think that is best, because in general, the bad guys are more powerful attacking with censorship than the good guys are defending with it. I do not see this case as comparable to anything Wikipedia already provides like BLPPRIVACY. I am fine with coming up with some new rules, and would support a ban on linking to harassment websites if we defined them. We block spam with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and we block low quality media with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We could revive the failed Wikipedia:Attack sites proposal and start banning attack sites, and I would not call that censorship.
When we call out this one site and block it without due process, that seems like censorship to me. The due process I want is 1) a blanket rationale for blocking that applies to all sites and 2) published documentation for how this site meets that rationale.
I looked up the 8chan link discussion you referenced - Talk:8chan/Archive_2#Inclusion_of_the_link_to_8chan. It seems that the rationale in that case was that promoting 8chan is a violation of United States law. I do not have an opinion about 8chan's administrative process, but in any case, I do not think violation of United States law is the rationale for avoiding a link to Kiwi Farms. "Illegal linking" could be yet another rationale for not linking to a class of sites, but again, I do not think there is any harm in having a published record of due process when we make such judgements. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When we call out this one site and block it without due process, that seems like censorship to me - I did not realise that a month-long highly-attended RFC was not considered "due process" (regardless of which way opinion ends up swinging). Primefac (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Thanks for the comment. To me this one-month discussion seems like a one-off ad hoc process. I am not a lawyer, but if there were a "due process", I imagine that there would be some general rule we could apply to other such cases and make an assessment about whether attacks and harassment happened. I notice that many people have different reasons for supporting and opposing, and I do not see the conversation converging to a simple reusable rationale for blocking that we can apply to other cases. I think there might be such a rationale in here somewhere, maybe no WP:Attack sites, but I am not sure. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to my previous support, I would like to mention this village pump: [[2]], where there was a pretty clear consensus that links to extremist organizations, which many who are against the inclusion of the link say Kiwi Farms is, should be allowed on the wiki, especially on their articles. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 14:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:ELOFFICIAL protects this kind of external link from many otherwise valid reasons to remove, but does not mandate inclusion of official website links. WP:NOTCENSORED would apply if the rationale for exclusion were based on the site's content being offensive or objectionable, but I do not see that mentioned by any Opposers so far. The fact that Cloudflare dropped services for the site due to "imminent threats to human life" is a sign that we should not be linking to the site. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's true that Cloudflare said without evidence that there was an "imminent threat to human life" but should we necessarily take them at their word? Cloudflare is a for-profit company under a tremendous pressure campaign and, as such, are anything but a neutral party here. This is a corporate press release and should be treated as such (i.e., dubious until proven otherwise). Echoing my previous comment, my understanding is that the death threat on Kiwi Farms was deleted within about thirty minutes and the poster banned. This is a very similar timeframe to how long it takes mainstream websites with thousands of employees to remove illegal content, threats, and even livestreams of shootings (e.g. the Christchurch shooting on Facebook). How are we as Wikipedians to have a consistent policy if we give mainstream sites a pass for the exact same sort of results? Basically, I don't think that Cloudflare's statements should be treated as gospel. I'm not convinced there was any credible threat to human life in the first place, and ultimately I don't believe that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should care one way or the other. Let's lower the temperature and be realistic here - linking to a website is not going to kill anyone even if the threat was as dire as Cloudflare's (frankly dubious) claims might indicate.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point as far as it goes, but essentially you're asking us to disfavor Cloudflare's explanation in favor of...Kiwi Farms' own attestations and those of some individuals online? Combined with the NBC news piece where Kiwi Farms is said to be "synonymous" with both doxxing and swatting, I think it's fair for observers to draw inferences. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels to me that the job of evaluating the “imminent threat to human life” claim should fall to the police, not to us. I believe the site to be within the jurisdiction of US authorities, and I am not aware of any attempt to arrest the site operators or use the US legal system to take down the site. The inference I draw is that the site is operating legally, and until the relevant authorities make a ruling we have no reason to think the alleged threat is credible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stochastic terrorism is notoriously difficult to prosecute in the U.S. thanks to First Amendment protections (not saying that's a bad thing). For me, simply arguing that the site is not malum in se does not lead to the conclusion that a link should be included, but reasonable minds may differ on the point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offered the comment not as a reason for inclusion but as a counterpoint to a purported reason for non-inclusion. My reasons for supporting inclusion are stated up-page. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been US lawsuits filed against Kiwi Farms, but as far as I know they've all haven't gotten anywhere or were dropped. I don't think any news sources report on this, but Kiwi Farms has published warrant canaries uploading the legal action taken against them in years past. JungleEntity (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not suggesting we take Kiwi Farms' word for it. I'm suggesting we should be reasonably skeptical of everyone involved in this situation, especially statements from a publicly traded company ("NET") whose main goal, presumably, is to increase its profits and avoid scandals. I'm making very specific claims here - that there was a death threat posted on Kiwi Farms, and that it was taken down in short order. Anyone can see for themselves that it was taken down and the poster in question was banned - we don't need RS for this (well, we do if we were to include it in the article, but not for the purposes of this conversation). The only question, really, is how long it took for it to be taken down. They claim ~30 minutes and I don't see any reason to question that claim, personally. I'd be skeptical of it like everything else, but I haven't seen anyone at all denying this specific claim. So if we want to be consistent - and as an encyclopedia, we do! - then the question becomes "how long should a website take to remove user-generated illegal content." Again, mainstream websites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc have illegal threats and worse on them all the time. If Wikipedia is going to get into the business of refusing to link to any site that temporarily hosts illegal content, then we would need some kind of policy that clarifies what scenarios this should happen in. Is thirty minutes acceptable? An hour? Two? Perhaps it's whether or not the site encourages that kind of content? How do we decide that? I've been to KF and there are disclaimers all over the place saying not to post illegal content and that they are against swatting. Maybe that's just for show - I don't know. But it makes me wonder how we can reasonably make such a determination, or if indeed Wikipedia should be in the business of making such a determination. Personally, I think all of this is more a job for the police. And for what it's worth I would not agree with any of those potential policies, but for consistency's sake I think that is what would be required for any of this to make sense. Best regards!CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully CelebrateMotivation with your focus on a single threat that was purportedly taken down, I feel as though you can't see the forest for the trees.
The issue isn't that Kiwi Farms has had only a handful of one off incidents of doxxing, or threats to life posted, it's that the site regularly has such content posted. While that one comment may have been deleted, though I don't know for sure if it has neither Null nor the forum's moderators are particularly reliable, there are countless other threads dedicated to harassing countless other individuals, which are still live now (at least when the site isn't offline). Another editor has commented elsewhere in this discussion that at least four participants in this discussion presently have threads about them, and one of them has had personal information leaked on that thread. The link to the site isn't objectionable because of a single death threat made against a person, it is objectionable because of the sheer volume of other threats, and regular doxxing that accompany it on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A forest is made up of trees. I am using this particular incident as a gauge for how KF handles these situations. Either the site allows death threats or it does not. This is important because it seems to be the primary justification for this RFC, or at least the most emotionally compelling argument that people are making against inclusion of the link. It is rather perplexing to me that you persist in using words like "purportedly" in reference to this incident. If you wish, you could personally visit the site and see for yourself that the comment isn't there. It was deleted - this is provably factual and anyone can see it. If the site says it doesn't allow death threats, and it deletes death threats within hours or even minutes when they are reported, then the strongest stated justification to remove the link from Wikipedia - which I think was weak to begin with - vanishes entirely. As for a handful of one-off incidents of doxxing or threats to life - I would wager my entire net worth that mainstream sites like Facebook and Reddit have far more users posting this sort of content. As such, the policy should not be special cased away (i.e. a pass given to mainstream sites but not others) solely because some editors find a particular website to be objectionable.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing to use Cloudflare as a source, but yes, I believe them that there existed imminent threat to human life. I am not aware of any reliable source contradicting that point, and if there is one, I'd be glad to know about it. If I'm reading the end of your comment correctly, you are suggesting that you'd advocate for including the link even if the site definitely includes imminent threats to human life. I strongly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say you haven't seen any RS contradicting that point. The problem with that statement is that the burden of proof is on the entity making the claim. Cloudflare is claiming without evidence that there was an "imminent threat to human life." That is a big claim, and big claims require big evidence. I haven't seen any. There are no RS for or against the claim, really - just RS stating that Cloudflare said it happened. Yes, I am advocating for including the link even if the site definitely had death threat(s) on it. It is clear that a death threat was in fact posted on the site, but it's also clear that it was quickly removed (anyone can navigate to the site itself and see that it's gone, so I don't think anyone can really reasonably contradict that it was removed). My point is that death threats are posted on mainstream websites all the time and are subsequently removed, and that's exactly what happened here. As an encyclopedia it doesn't make sense for us to treat Kiwi Farms or any other website as a "special case" just because some or even most editors may find its other content to be especially objectionable. Frankly, even if the site had a death threat on it which was not removed I would still advocate for linking to it. I refuse to believe that a Wikipedia link is going to put anyone's life in danger. Here's my reduction to the absurd: governmental militaries don't just talk about killing people, but actually do kill people all the time - and we still link to their websites. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia. We're collecting the information of the world and presenting it. We are not editorializing or making moral judgments.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you right now that there is an active PSNI investigation into at least one individual in Northern Ireland relating to the threats directed at Keffals from users on Kiwi Farms. However because of how such investigations work here, due to our history with such incidents, the incident involving the imminent threat to life is likely to be under reporting restrictions for a considerable period of time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Support: The website is well-known enough to have an entry here so it is also well-known enough for this page to not be the point of origin for the vast majority of visits to it. Purposefully censoring external linking to the website is a silly display that ultimately benefits nobody and harms those later attempting to document the history of events. All external links should be maintained and indication of whether or not they are active should be periodically reviewed, just like for any other website. Anything of critical importance should be archived as appropriate so that it is not lost. External links and archives are neither hosting nor endorsing content found at Kiwi Farms. People know how to get there. Making that more difficult for a handful of visitors, by comparison, benefits no one. So, again, I give my strongest support to maintaining external links. Xenomancer (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose a clickable link. This is a criminal website in a great many ways, including hosting copyright violations. Having a link which an innocent user might click on and trigger all manner of logging is irresponsible. Having a link which a less innocent user might click on and be seduced by is also irresponsible. I think it is sufficient and acceptable to say what the domain names are without actually linking them. We are not censoring or withholding information if we do that. Anybody, who really wants to, can copy the name into their URL bar but that's such a deliberate action that that's 100% on them if they do. If we are to have a clickable link at all (and we definitely shouldn't) then it should go at the bottom of the article so that nobody clicks it without having seen the article first. (An existing article that does this is goatse.cx, which is about a site which is offensive but not as dangerous as this one.) A clickable link absolutely cannot go in an infobox as if this was a normal website. It isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good idea, but it's worth noting that consistency between articles should try and be maintained. Some sites hosting copyrighted content such as Library Genesis have the URL in the infobox non-clickable, while other's like the more notorious The Pirate Bay have theirs clickable.The Daily Stormer, which most in this talkpage would consider worse than Kiwi Farms, has its link clickable (disregarding the discussion here about The Daily Stormer having a link). This is even muddied further by YouTube's link being clickable, which also hosts copyrighted content. You could argue that in the case of YouTube, hosting things that goes against U.S. law goes against their ToS, but to my knowledge, that is the same for Kiwi Farms. I think this just highlights that we need to work on a policy that makes URLs consistent across articles, and if linking to controversial sites should be allowed on Wikipedia. JungleEntity (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as an WP:IAR hack to prevent real-world harm. I agree that in almost all cases an article about a website should have a link to the website. However, KiwiFarms by itself abundantly justifies the "almost". Regardless of all other Wikipedia policy, and certainly above mere "consistency", it would be nuts to link to a site whose sole purpose is to dox and harass non-public figures, often with the express stated purpose of driving them to suicide. Loki (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on its deliberate facilitation of doxxing of private persons. NBC News' recent piece describes Kiwi Farms as being directly involved in doxxing and swatting; I visited Kiwi Farms a few weeks ago and easily found a thread holding up a private figure for ridicule, with participants helping each other doxx her and her family and others making provocative and actionably libelous claims about her. Such behaviors are not mere advocacy of vile ideas but are a form of ideological terrorism inimical to a free society. I don't think policy forbids linking, but good judgment counsels against it in this case. Rebbing 22:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the FBI literally called it a potential terrorist threat. If it’s on the dark web it’s beyond our metaphorical pay grade as far as I’m concerned. Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the FBI absolutely did not call them a potential terrorist threat. A former assistant director did. Even if they did, there is previous consensus to support linking to terrorist organizations and the such on their articles. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a site promotes violence against civilians I’d strongly support not linking it. Kiwi Farms does. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia acting as an arbiter of morality, as long as there's a working link to the site I think it should be linked.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any link to Kiwi Farms. I'm generally reluctant to support removing any links when the article is on the website fearing there will be pressure to take it too far. For that reason I'm unconvinced and probably will not support removing links to Stormfront, V-DARE, The Right Stuff and I suspect most of the sites people have named (although for those extreme examples I'm not sure I'll oppose it either). I feel that Kiwi Farms is somewhat unique though as Chillabit and others have mentioned and I mentioned on BLP/N [3]. Most of the other sites are general sites, I'm not going to visit them but from descriptions I've seen they advocate incredibly harm ideas and actions but these are often of a general character. For example, they may target people as a group due to their race or ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, national origin, religion etc. This is disgusting but while I'm not personally opposed to trying to prevent people seeing harmful ideas, but it's not really the Wikipedia way to handle things. According to previous discussion Stormfront and maybe the other sites have also been used to organise attacks and murders. Again while very concerning, I'm still not sure it's enough for us to not link to them as it's not likely we'll have in any way reduce that. By comparison a key purpose of Kiwi Farms is to dox, attack, demean, disparage identifiable or identified living individuals based on whatever characteristics their users think is enough to warrant that. Their site was even named after that originally. These individuals are often not notable or barely notable by our standards and are often already vulnerable given the characteristics that makes Kiwi Farms users target them . This is something fundamentally against our BLP policies. For clarity I agree anyone who's really interested in Kiwi Farms isn't going to not visit because we don't link, I'm sure they'll find the site anyway. But there are likely to be a small number of people who are just curious, who'll visit when they see the link but won't when they don't. Most of these will just be disgusted and navigate away, but a small number may have some sort or morbid curiosity and stick around. I don't think it even matters though since IMO we shouldn't contribute to even one more person seeing that content who wouldn't otherwise. From what I've read before, while people seeing the content is often a small factor, it's often still a factor in the harm people suffer. So while a tiny contribution sure, it's IMO a worthwhile one to make a contribution to less suffering by those living persons targeted by the site via less eyeballs seeing the disgusting content targeting them. Noting again I'm not going to visit the other sites to check, while I assume they may occasionally do similar things, it doesn't seem to me one of their key purposes and so I assume is a lot less common. I suspect even when they do target individuals, it's more commonly fairly notable ones. I'd note that Kiwi Farms has been linked to suicides which also seems to support the differences between what these sites generally do. Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR version of the above, I oppose linking to Kiwi Farms since a key purpose and so much of their content seems to be material that directly harms specifically targeted often non notable or barely notable living people who may already be vulnerable, so I feel it's in accordance with BLP. This doesn't seem to be the case for other sites people keep citing where the material may be incredibly harmful, but in a more general sense rather than directed at specific individuals and especially not non notable or barely notable ones. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GorillaWarfare, Pilaz, and Firefangledfeathers. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment Many users seem to be arguing that from a moral perspective it should not be included or "promoted", and not from a wikipedia policy standpoint. Ananinunenon (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but if ever there were a case for ignoring rules, preventing harm would strike me as a pretty compelling one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On a whim I checked the first 5 references and 3 of them provide a link. I haven't checked them all so am unsure whether that's representative of what all the reliable sources have chosen to do, but I suggest that the Wikipedia approach should (as with all content) follow the reliable sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In contrast, every recent source I've looked at does not provide a link. I found a few sources that mention one of the newer urls, and even those did not link them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would those three happen to be from before this year and all the recent developments? If anything, I see a pattern with recent articles avoiding linking to them. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 16:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If those three are from this year, especially in the last month or two, it could be that the authors found there was no suitable URL to link in the article, as the site has gone down intermittently. JungleEntity (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as someone with WP:NPOV like, seriously, what happened to NPOV? I see everyone is running around wikipedia policies to apply, then carry on to scream how awful this website is. Not every policy has equal effectiveness of application.
The domain name of this site is a perfectly valid input for website oriented infobox template, and so per my previous comment the url should be a link to an intended server. You cannot beat correct technical information. Skewing or removing it runs a breach of WP:NOTCENSORED, it is required that information of a site to be correct and up to date regardless of how awful the website can become. If it's any comfort to the opposers, a new domain name would come up none in search result and archive web, and readers should know well ahead when clicking that link; article gives plenty of space to read. It's just a cute little detail in the infobox that's nothing more than a domain name. I'd be willing to oppose putting a link anywhere else beyond that.
I can understand 8chan just isn't getting one, by definitions at WP:ELNO #3, such a link gives you and the readers the possibilities of a "direct possession" to an illegal material like child porn, whereas kiwifarm is just an "incident" or "reference" to illegal stuff, like many other questionable sites. This should go the same for piracy sites for a possibility of a "direct possession" to pirated materials but for some reason we're giving them links.
But that's just my definition of illegal to access contents described at ELNO #3. The "reference" to an illegal stuff can only be handled other than just a taking the domain name off from article that will have no effects doing so anyway. It's no use what we as editors can do but to break WP:NOTCENSORED, censoring ourselves is no better.
As always, WP:NPOV. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be the first to say WP:NPOV is somewhat confusingly named, but how does representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic really inform us one way or the other as to whether to include a link? Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link must be correct but not "required to be present" asked by Ferret. But honestly the domain name is too bareboned to look at. Whether it's good to include or not is down to WP:NOTCENSORED if not for other good policies that's not too far fetched for this url. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't stated any policy that requires an external link to be present. NPOV doesn't require it. NOTCENSORED doesn't require it. EL itself doesn't require it, simply presents recommendations. Nothing REQUIRES us to have a URL. On the other hand... NOTCENSORED does say to exclude things that violate our policies, including BLP and NPOV, or the law of the United States. WP:DOXXING and WP:OWH (as well as the fuller WP:Harassment it is part of) is a policy. This site is known to dox actual active Wikipedia volunteers. That's really the end of it, in my view. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't said that link is required, just saying the link must be correct and up to date. I didn't know there'd be harassment on wikipedia volunteers in this site, but that doesn't change my standpoint.
Unless you could find a link for that then that policy would apply, the domain name is too bareboned to make it worthwhile. A website (any website e.g. Reddit) is bound to have questionable information buried deep that would break wikipedia policies. This website is full of things, and I think it should be about "direct possession" vs "reference" that I mentioned and I wish we would have a discussion about that. I guess that whatever outcome this discuss might be updating WP:ELNO would be appreciated because people reaching out all possible policies against this website means there's something wrong. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"like, seriously, what happened to NPOV?" Well, it's taken a back seat to a culture of safetyism and the flat-out POV-pushing of self-proclaimed "allies of marginalized groups". Not all of us who contribute to WP think that's a good thing. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on numerous grounds. It clearly violates WP:ELNEVER in that, as part of its doxxing, it contains large amounts of copyrighted material used without the permission of the copyright holder, with no reasonable fair-use exception; it has refused to take these down when contacted, and insufficient benefit exists to readers to justify ignoring this clearly-defined policy. Likewise, while this article is not itself a BLP, the last sentence of WP:ELBLP, separate from the requirements for the rest, says Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP, emphasis mine; it is difficult to imagine a source less compliant with the spirit of BLP than one that exists for the purpose of harassing specific named individuals. Finally, I'll note that per WP:ELBURDEN, even without this the burden is ultimately on the people who wish to include it to justify inclusion, and the arguments for inclusion are weak (essentially just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS coupled with WP:NOTCENSORED - the latter being meaningless not only because there clearly are policy violations, but because it only allows and does not require inclusion.) Additionally, note that the reason Cloudflare dropped them is because they concluded that the increasingly-specific threats the site was hosting were illegal in nature ([4][5][6].) --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the copyright issue, WP:COPYLINK says that In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site (cf. pages on copyright-violating sites like Library Genesis, which provide the site URL in the infobox but don't link to pirated works therein), so just including the domain here doesn't seem to violate the copyright rules. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just flagging that WP:ELBLP applies only to articles that are BLPs. This is not a BLP. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 15:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per the arguments provided by Barnards.tar.gz. Wikipedia should generally be consistent across its articles. This is not a policy/guideline, and in some cases, there are valid reasons that consistency is not possible because the situation is unique for a specific article. In this case, the uniqueness stems from what appears to be a personal dislike of the website; this reasoning because of dislike (hosts copyrighted material/doxes people/etc.) and a desire that readers not go to the site would violate Wikipedia's no WP:advocacy policy through omission of standard information. Any appearance of advocacy by Wikipedia of a cause should be avoided, since this damages the public's trust in the impartiality of the encyclopedia.--Guest2625 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose we should not link to it. Those who oppose above have put it better than I could.
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Linking to troll sites is not part of an encyclopedic mission. WP:EL is the guideline and linking to known-attack sites is not among the reasons a link should be provided. Apparently some other websites provide the links but Wikipedia is never required to copy what other websites do. Aquillion provided further policy-based reasons for non-inclusion, including that we do not link to copyright-infringing sites. The copyright situation is conclusive, regardless of what people might think about the site. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently neutral on kiwifarms, ardently oppose using as basis for removing links on other scummy websites - So kiwifarms are assholes of the lowest order. So the question is instead more "how does our singular cause of providing knowledge to everyone" stack against either deplatforming or providing protection in cases of physical threats to users. The first is completely unacceptable - that a site is distinctly unpleasant and calls for worse, doesn't mean we should remove the link. Obviously we should remove links where the US courts have indicated such. KF is apparently holding a small bubble where they are basically enabling threats to specific individuals as their raison d'etre (rather than as a set of specific threads but not a website's purpose, as might be the case on, say, 4chan). As such I place some value on the protective side, (hence the neutral), but not the broader precedential value as indicated by @Hemiauchenia and Funcrunch: et al Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm really torn here. On one hand, I can see the encyclopedic value since it can help show the history of how they were dropped or otherwise had to go to different providers over time. On the other, there's a lot of potential for real world harm here. The site not only contains personal information but also private photos and videos. Some are sexual, some are not. I believe that there may also be photos of individuals self harming, but I'm admittedly not certain of that. Some of the images are ones purchased through places like OnlyFans or Patreon, which poses a copyright issue. Others were obtained through methods ranging from social media posts to tricking them into giving up the images to illicit means. In many cases the images were never intended to be publicly shared. These images aren't rife through the site, but they are common enough to where this should be considered. I think that if it is included it should at least not be clickable, although GW is correct in that the URL is likely to be dynamic and not really be stable enough to keep up with unless someone wanted to specifically keep on top of that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. Facts, not feelings, people. Kiwi Farms is just the latest pitstop on the superhighway traveled by impotent man-children for decades, from SomethingAwful to 4chan to 8chan to KotakuInAction. Linking to them as we do for any other article based on a company or website or web forum or whateveer does not promote or validate the content found there, it is just a simple piece of information. Blacklisting or prohibiting links like this should be reserved for the utmost of extreme conditions, such as malware or actionable illegal content being hosted there. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    8chan isn’t a good example since it was URL banned for hosting child porn. Dronebogus (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a very unique situation, which absolutely does not apply to Kiwi Farms. The only real example of a situation where we have decided not to link to a website was in a case where the content potentially violated United States law by distributing child pornography, which Kiwi Farms does not. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, part of the reason Cloudflare dropped Kiwi Farms is because they believe that there was likely actionably illegal content on it, describing "immanant threats to human life." ([7][8][9]). Would you consider updating your position in light of that? What would you consider sufficient evidence that a site hosts actionably illegal content, if not? --Aquillion (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: For reasons of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV, with the reasons for opposing the linking seeming to me to have everything to do with the poltical bias of various editors. But given the long-established nature of bias in Wikipedia editing, an editorial policy in opposition to linking will carry the day. But it feels worthwhile to express dissent against it nevertheless. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be the first to admit that I am biased against driving people to suicide, though that has never seemed particularly political to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I would respond that belief in moral panic-driven nonsense concepts like “stochastic terrorism” is maybe not a valid reason to make exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED and NPOV.Peter G Werner (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are all entitled to our own values. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the complaint that doxxing takes place on KF, if it was the case that we were talking about linking directly to a thread containing dropped doxx, I'd agree about not linking it. But the idea that means not linking to the site at all? Disagree, and it's rendering a POV about the site rather than allowing readers to get information for themselves, both from within the article and cited sources and from examining the site directly and coming to their own conclusions. And, yes, my view on how to treat this issue comes from a strong strain of anti-paternalism that's been out of fashion for the last few years, but maybe it's an approach worth reconsidering. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I oppose this RFC having anything but the most narrow possible precedential value. Kiwifarms is IMO a special case where linking to it would cause such obvious real-world harm we just can't, even though it's ordinarily policy to. Loki (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the current attacks against Clara Sorrenti, then I can see your point. However, I wonder if that justifies a permanent ban on providing the link to the KiwiFarms site, should it come back, or whether the immenent threat status should be revisted. Just a few months ago KF was not considered such a dangerous site that end users should be prevented from accessing it, and in fact, I can think of a few journalists who have admitted to using KF as a source of information in the past. (The latter point is something I should have included in my original argument, actually, it's one of the reasons I think normal, non-malicious users have some business accessing it.) So even if the current mobbing of Sorrenti justifies keeping information about KF's current whereabouts blocked right now, I think that's a decision worth revisiting later. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere question -- given that the article currently lists three suicides associated with the site, and now the Sorrenti business, isn't that enough to draw an inference that such things happen at the site? Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't buy the "driven to suicide" claims as undisputed fact. These were likely unstable people to begin with, and claims that they were driven to it by the actions of one site are entirely speculative. There could be many reasons for there suicide, and sites like The Daily Dot are simply glomming onto the narrative they favor. The fact that Sorrenti is currently the target of a harassment campaign is well-established, and it's one of the few compelling arguments I see for at least temporarily making an exception to the usual WP:NOTCENSORED guideline. But I don't think Bad tendency* alone should be enough to make an exception. *(I realize "bad tendency" is a term that comes from American free speech law and WP is not subject to that. I do think "bad tendency" is a useful concept, however, and worth differentiating from "incitement".) Peter G Werner (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring them unstable is equally speculative and frankly inappropriate. --Pokelova (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the current attacks against Clara Sorrenti. It's the huge number of doxes up on the site. Linking to KiwiFarms is, IMO, equivalent to linking to a revenge porn site. Loki (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Several !votes here describe this as a censorship issue. I do not accept that, as it seems simplistic to me. Framing this as some sort of philosophical obligation is trying to make the page into a cause instead of an encyclopedia article. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it "simplistic"? If there's a "cause" here, it's the safetyism implicit in prohibiting the inclusion of a link. Presuming that the site goes back up and stays at a stable URL, I don't see any reason under existing Wikipedia rules and guidelines, of which WP:NOTCENSORED is very much one, of not stating that information in the infobox or external links. Bottom line is I don't think Wikipedia is under any obligation to participate in the coordinated deplatforming of any internet site. If we're going to, as a rule, disallow linking to sites for "moral" reasons, I think that should be an actual global-level rule that's agreed upon by the Wikipedia community as a whole. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is putting scare quotes around "moral" supposed to make it into a bad thing? It appears to me that you arguing that your interpretation of policies allows us to include the link. I disagree with that interpretation, (as I think this has tipped over into WP:ELNEVER) but let's go with it. If you think this is a slippery-slope issue, or will otherwise set a precedent you disagree with, I find that to be simplistic. For one thing, citing policy to preserve the status quo regardless of context harms our ability as editors to improve the article. Sources do not treat Kiwi Farms like every other website, and we, as editors, can make judgement calls same as always. Almost everything about Wikipedia is decided on a case-by-case basis. Calling this censorship doesn't really explain why it's a special case.
Further, I don't think it's meaningful to say this is part of a coordinated deplatforming. Even if I did accept that, I don't see why that would be a reason to include it. We're don't keep garbage around just because other people agree that removing it is a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The harm caused by the site which some opponents say they want to prevent is (if I understand correctly) harrassment, doxxing, SWATting, etc., committed by the site's users and organized on the site itself; whether that continues depends on whether the site stays accessible in a form its current users can find and access. Thus, WP's inclusion of the URL is unlikely to have any nonnegligible effect, since users of the site will find it as long as it stays up, while WP readers, like the general population, tend not to be interested in obsessively stalking and harrassing minor celebrities and therefore are unlikely to join in even when they find the site. If that issue is not something our choice has a significant effect on, and the copyright concern is not applicable (since, per WP:COPYLINK, In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site, as in e.g. The Pirate Bay), then the main remaining reason for opposition given here is that editors (understandably) dislike the site, which seems to fall under WP:NOTCENSORED: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link, which a link to a site on an article about that site generally is. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - WP:GRATUITOUS describes why WP:NOTCENSORED should not necessarily apply here, and the possibility of real-world harm resulting from a link to the website should be an unimpeachable reason to refrain from doing so. Hatman31 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing gratuitous about a web link to a website in an article about said website. We would clearly not be including the link "simply because it is offensive"; including links is the norm for websites we discuss (including porn websites, piracy websites, etc). Elli (talk | contribs) 11:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't describe linking the site as "gratuitous" either, but the point of the guideline is that the NOTCENSORED policy is not on its own sufficient to determine that material should be included in an article, and there is precedent for excluding links to certain websites (such as 8chan, a much better comparison than piracy or mainstream pornography sites) even from their own articles. Hatman31 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    8chan's link is excluded because they have child pornography which presents a clear legal risk to anyone who might go to the site. Kiwifarms is bad, but it does not have that issue. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Firstly, I'm sorry about how long this comment is. I was on the fence about this so wanted to hear people out before commenting, but to put it bluntly I don't think most of the oppose !votes here really make any sense. Official links are by default noteworthy; this whole article is talking about a website, to not tell readers what the website actually is would leave them significantly uninformed about the topic, and as WP:ELOFFICIAL says, official links give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. The only exceptions set out by ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELNEVER to the principle that official links should by default be included are if 1) the website is serving malware (no one is suggesting this), or 2) WP:COPYLINK exceptions. Note that it is not against policy to link to blacklisted websites, as some participants here have incorrectly claimed, it is only a technical restriction to publishing edits; see e.g. InfoWars or Breitbart News. Regarding copyright, note that policy states In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. All forums/social media sites have copyright violating material on them somewhere; YouTube has terabytes and terabytes of copyright violating content on it for instance. Those arguing that we can't link to Kiwi Farms because there will be copyright violations in some posts on the forum are misunderstanding how policy around copyright on Wikipedia works.
This leaves us really with only one (non-nonsense) rationale: Ignore all rules. Essentially, we shouldn't be promoting a website which is harmful even if this disagrees with Wikipedia's PAGs. I'm sympathetic to that. Others have pointed out this does go against the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I also think editors are significantly overestimating how much linking to the website "promotes" it. If they do manage to get a stable URL running again, this will presumably make it's way back to a Google search result, and as all Wikipedia external links use nofollow, Wikipedia will have no hand in where it appears on Google. More importantly though, this is an extremely general concern. There are hundreds of harmful websites Wikipedia currently links to. If we want to stop linking to harmful websites, we should not make an exception for a single page. There should be a community-wide consensus and a policy or guideline established about it. For instance, this should be handled by trying to revive a guideline/policy like Wikipedia:Attack sites or a change to WP:ELOFFICIAL/WP:ELNEVER, and removing all such websites. I'm not entirely convinced that this would be a net a positive for Wikipedia, but I am convinced that doing this through policy at a community-wide level is far more appropriate than trying to make a single-article exception to what is presumably a problem on hundreds of other pages. So I think what's best for Wikipedia is to (if they ever get a working URL) link to Kiwi Farms for the mean time, and have a discussion about harmful sites in general at e.g. Wikipedia talk:External links. Endwise (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Óppose Kiwifarms doesn't currently have a stable domain and there's no sight on that situation changing. I also don't think it's our job as an encyclopedia to guide (former) users of a hate platform to that platform's current location. We're not an advertising platform after all. I also suggest there should be a particularly strong argument for inclusion, or none at all; given the potential harm caused to real people by essentially providing a link to their private information. The entire website is a BLP violation by its very nature. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Kiwifarms doesn't currently have a stable domain, it appears they have had a stable domain for a while now, back at their old url (kiwifarms.net). Endwise (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable whether being online for a week can be called "stable", but nonetheless, that's a shame. I think the WP:BLP issue is the bigger problem for us in this case anyway. A lot of people seem to be referencing WP:NOTCENSORED here, but I don't think that covers linking to the private information of private individuals who are the targets of a harassment campaign. Licks-rocks (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It clearly has informational value as a primary source, which is why we include official ELs as a matter of course. The arguments against inclusion of a link largely rest on normative, moral judgements which are not relevant, per WP:NOTCENSORED. The other most common argument against inclusion, relating to copyvios, has I think been convincingly rebutted (e.g. by SmartSE above). Colin M (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedia is not censored, as many people have expressed above. My main concern is that although the users of the website have engaged in harmful conduct, or at least are alleged to have done so, the website itself is not per se illegal. I don't agree with the argument that linking to the website is a BLP violation, because Wikipedia does not require that linked sites follow Wikipedia policy. By that logic, Google.com would be the biggest BLP violation of all and should be scrubbed from the wiki. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in regards to BLP violations and Google, Google isn't a big BLP violation because it merely links to other sites that might host BLP violations (in an automatic way too). Basically, don't shoot the middle man! Although I am sure one could make the argument that Kiwi Farms is merely a middle man between the poster posting internet drama and the viewer. In this way, Kiwi Farms is more like YouTube, which is also in a strange state in regards to hosting harmful or copyrighted content. JungleEntity (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a search engine and a website totally dedicated to targeted harassment and doxxing are in any way comparable in this context. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison between Google and Kiwi Farms was merely meant to state that Google is not like Kiwi Farms. Sorry for my complicated wording.
    However, I think the comparison between YouTube and Kiwi Farms still stands. While YouTube isn't dedicated to targeted harassment, it is often used for it. Kiwi Farms is used for this purpose too, regardless if the site is "dedicated" to it or not. I really don't think the original intent of the site's use really matters here, since it's really difficult to definitively say what a site's "intended" use is. With forums like Kiwi Farms, it is exceptionally hard because most have broad categories on all kinds of stuff. Kiwi Farms has what seems to be a fairly active discussion section not focusing on Internet drama / e-celebs. Some forums are dedicated to one thing, but the users use it for something else.
    I'm not trying to dispute that Kiwi Farms is used for harassment, hosting copyrighted materials, or dox, I'm just saying it's hard to pin it down as a BLP violation. JungleEntity (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to stretch the analogy too far. My point is that any website that provides a gateway to user-generated content will inevitably contain material that violates WP:BLP. (Just check the comment section of any news website.) Which is a moot point anyway, since that policy only applies to content on Wikipedia. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 13:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying to both of you at the same time here: the problem is that the site is dedicated to harassment. The owner started it to stalk one specific person and from there they expanded. It has always been first and foremost a platform for stalking and digital harassment. It has had the personal information and slander of private individuals pinned to the main page by site administrators on multiple occasions. I fail to understand how linking directly to the private information/slander of harassment targets is not the epitome of a BLP violation. Licks-rocks (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I fail to understand how linking directly to the private information/slander of harassment targets is not the epitome of a BLP violation."
    As a preliminary matter, WP:BLP applies to the content of biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. This is the very first sentence of the policy. In contrast, it does not apply to linked websites which might contain material that -- if included in a BLP -- would be objectionable.
    Linking to the top-level domain is also not the same as "linking directly" to any objectionable material, but that's really beside the point because WP:BLP doesn't prohibit linking to websites which contain user-generated content that would be objectionable if used within a Wikipedia article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 22:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The top level domain is the objectionable content here. I explained as much in my previous reply. As for WP:BLP, yeah I am familiar, there's a reason it's called BLP, biographies of living persons. The central purpose of WP:BLP is protecting Living Persons from being slandered or otherwise harassed using wikipedia as a medium. As shown in the Cris-chan discussion above, when other non-biographic articles stray into BLP territory that is still a violation of BLP, because you're still sharing Biographic information about Living Persons. Licks-rocks (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give me the section of WP:BLP which states what you're saying it states? May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 16:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally the first sentence. Licks-rocks (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone interprets that to mean that external links which may contain BLP-violating content must not be included in an article. Otherwise, every website that contains user-generated content should have their link removed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 20:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. See, I was assuming you were asking about a point I actually made, for example the one made in the message you were replying to, rather than an imaginary position that you are projecting onto me which I already clarified I don't hold. I think WP:TROUT would be the applicable wiki-policy here. Licks-rocks (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Wikipedia is not censored, if people don't like Kiwi Farms, they don't have to click on the link to the site. It's not our job to decide for people whether or not they can look at the site, and the fact that some editors seem to think that is their business is very disturbing to me. It's also totally standard to include the URL of websites, and the fact that we don't have it for this site is highly abnormal. Joe (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose setting aside the fact that any link we put would have to be regularly updated as they continue to hop from one domain to another, the plainly illegal material hosted on the website coupled with the strong potential for harm that comes from publicizing it make it obvious to me that we should not link to this website. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 01:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they hopping from one domain to another? From what I can tell, it's on the same domain it always has been (the one that ends in .net.) It went up and down for a while but it appears to be reliably up for the past several weeks.
    When you say "plainly illegal material", what material and what law? My understanding is that while Kiwi Farms users have engaged in harmful activities, it's not illegal to talk badly about someone on the internet. At least under US law - maybe other jurisdictions are different. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not counting their presence on Tor which has changed URLs at least once, they've cycled through at least five domains between end of August and end of September. Three of those domains have subsequently been revoked by their respective domain registrars.
    Illegal content includes doxxing (illegal in many countries but not US), harassment (illegal in most countries including USA), stalking (illegal in most countries including USA), terrorist threats (a bomb threat was made on the forums against Keffals when she was in Northern Ireland). Stating that this is just the users at fault and not the forums themselves is a distinction without meaning, as Kiwi Farms enables and encourages such behaviour. Unrelated to Keffals, at least one known verified and somewhat prominent UK Kiwi Farms member was taken into custody and had personal devices seized over issuing "malicious communications (sending of indecent, grossly offensive messages, threats, or information) and harassment" (Daily Dot, Vice, PinkNews) through the site, content which I believe still exists on the forum. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aditionally the owner of the site is one of the users that have engaged in/endorsed said illegal activities. There really isn't a clear boundary between user and owner here Licks-rocks (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The applicable policy is WP:ELNO, which forbids linking to "content that is illegal to access in the United States." The key phrase here is "illegal to access." For example, if someone wrote a death threat and sent it to a news outlet, that's an illegal act. But we can still link to a website that contains a transcript of the threat, because it's not illegal to read it. All of the above accusations, even if true, are still legal to read within the US.
    That being said, I question as to whether these activities are actually illegal but that seems irrelevant given that the policy is not actually whether it's legal but whether it's legal to access. Which makes sense to me, as a policy. Although I do want to make the point that the illegality angle of this is somewhat dubious. For example, the woman you referenced in your post has not actually been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of anything. Frankly, I don't care what the UK considers "indecent communications" and it has no bearing on what I'd put in an article on Wikipedia. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 22:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to note that Wikipedia hosts things that some parties claim to be illegal under U.S. law, like Illegal number and Free Speech Flag. While no one has been charged or arrested for these images (although some have been sued), scholars claim that the legal status of these numbers are dubious. I don't know if anyone else sees this comparison, but I think this is a bit like what we have with Kiwi Farms. Individuals in the U.S. have been sued for content on Kiwi Farms, but no one has been formally charged or arrested. The current legal status of Kiwi Farms is also dubious.
    To clarify, I'm not saying Wikipedia should host dox/personal information from Kiwi Farms, but linking to it doesn't break WP:BLP or WP:ELNO. Besides, as said above, Wikipedia already links to many sites that do explicitly break U.S. copyright law, like The Pirate Bay and Library Genesis. JungleEntity (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The #DropKiwiFarms deplatforming campaign is hot on Twitter right now, so I get the impression that some people are starting with the conclusion that linking to KF violates Wikipedia and then trying to work backwards. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Can we remove the domain names from the RfC question please? Leaving aside for a moment the broader discussion on whether we should or should not link to the site in the article space, presently all KiwiFarm URLs that are not on TOR are down. DDoS-Guard, their drop in replacement for Cloudflare, has just terminated service to the site (no RS on this yet but Kevin Beaumont is a SME), and over on their Telegram Null has put up a post saying that it will be at least a week before any resumption of service can occur. Excluding the specific secondary domain from the question at this time does not change the nature of the question, and arguably gives more freedom for any editors who support adding it to the external links and infobox as it leaves it more open ended during a time period of instability for the site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The consensus developing here is the exact opposite result of the same discussion that was had about the Stormfront URL, see Talk:Stormfront_(website)#URL, which has been linked to the same sort of stuff (and worse) Kiwi Farms has. That RfC was quite heavily contested and in the light of this RfC maybe a new discussion is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. I'd definitely support the removal of the stormfront url from that page for the same reasons I support removal of links to Kiwi Fams on this page.Historyday01 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. That other dangerous websites have their URLs included is not, to me, sufficient reason to keep the Kiwi Farms link. The Stormfront URL discussion was over a year and a half ago, was not listed as an official RfC, and had a non-admin closure. If reopened, I would !vote to remove that URL as well. Funcrunch (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly a little baffled that people on both sides here are focusing on the question of whether or not we should link to "hate sites" or "extremist sites". That's not really what makes Kiwi Farms unique; there are plenty of extremist or hate sites. What makes it unique is that it dedicates threads to compiling sensitive information about individuals it doesn't like, even leaking revenge porn sometimes (as in the case of Keffals, at least according to the text of this very article & an attached source). Further as I mentioned, there are Wikipedia editors who have dedicated threads there, and at least one of those has sensitive personal information leaked on it. I mentioned there were two such active threads, I've now been made aware of two more. I can't make people care about this aspect over any other. But to reduce it to a simple question of whether or not to host "hate sites" strikes me as missing the point... sure, that's something the site is. But that's not what makes it stand out. --Chillabit (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilaz: Please don't baselessly accuse people of canvassing. I pinged them they clearly expressed a strong opinon on the topic. The others did not, or had already voted in this RfC. Pinging two people is not going to sway the outcome of this RfC, so I don't possibly see how this could be votestacking, the only thing that this would really qualify under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:APPNOTE. All had contributed to the topic, and selectively picking "strong opinions" on the topic is by definition canvassing. A couple extra pings go a long way to even the playing field. If in doubt, ping all or none. Cheers. Pilaz (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no fucking idea what canvassing is then. Canvassing would have been if I had selectively notified individuals with a specific leaning, while not notifing others, which I did not deliberately do. If there had been other users who had expressed clear opinions to not include the URL who had not previously posted in the RfC, then I would have notified as them as well. Notifiying two people doesn't count as selective canvassing. Just fucking drop it and move on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this brushed you the wrong way. I do not have omniscient powers to determine if one wishes to canvas or not - at any rate, try to ping all next time you ping some. I'm seeing IPs pinging random people on here, so caution is warranted. And on a semi-public RfC like this, remaining WP:CIVIL goes a long way too. Pilaz (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has not participated in this RfC at all and they did not suggest to include the URL. On a separate note, notifying users "who have expressed strong opinions" is biased as it excludes users who might !vote Oppose but did not express so directly on BLPN. 0xDeadbeef 05:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "revenge porn" angle is interesting. I know that some sources have reported that KiwiFarms posted "revenge porn" of Keffals, but from what I can tell, they shared porn videos that Keffals herself had posted to the internet. Perhaps she'd prefer they weren't discussing it but that's not the definition of revenge porn. I know that's what some sources claim but we're talking about editorial decisions here, not the text of the article, so we shouldn't shut off our critical thinking skills in this case. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m really trying not to have my comments show up twice, but the way this section is structured is a total mess! Peter G Werner (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a good idea to have some sort of policy in place for this to some degree. Or at least some sort of statement/stance. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that we need to figure out what our stance is on linking to active attack sites because clearly, we're mixed on this as a community. If a media outlet decides to report on Wikipedia having links to attack sites then we're going to be under increased scrutiny. Just pointing to WP:NOTCENSORED may not be good enough. Some may say that "not censored" should be applied differently depending on the site, as places like PornHub and OnlyFans are most decidedly not the same as places like KiwiFarms. Trying to apply the same idea of "not censored" could come across as callous and insensitive in those situations, where you could be dealing with someone sharing nudes that were never intended to be shared with the general public. We need to have a stance on sites such as that to prepare for this potential scrutiny. It may not come now or even in the next year, but we're a visible site and it will almost certainly happen. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fear of possible future "scrutiny" shouldn't dictate editorial decisions. Self-censoring to avoid criticism later isn't my jam. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure how much longer the RfC needs to run but I note that events are rendering it increasingly moot as KF is unable to keep a website up for more than a few days at a time on any given URL. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't the recent inability for Kiwi Farms to keep the site up renders this RfC moot at all. Currently the site is experiencing a campaign against them to it down, so it shouldn't be unexpected that the site be down. That doesn't change the fact that Kiwi Farms might come up again with a stable permanent URL. If they ever get a stable URL, we still have to decide if we should link it or not on Wikipedia. I think it's best to leave the RfC open until Kiwi Farms gets back on its footing, or until it's plainly obvious that it never will. JungleEntity (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think some posters are keying into the fact that Wikipedia links to other websites which are demonstrably worse and have been tied to much, much worse conduct. The difference is that KiwiFarms is the hot topic right now. I think that in the rush to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS we should take a breath. This is the kind of decision that really needs a site-wide policy, which I understand has been discussed before but petered out much for the same reasons as the discussion above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 18:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Related discussions: Talk:The Right Stuff (blog)#URL, Talk:VDARE#Link. These websites are similar to Kiwi Farms, have URLs in their infoboxes and were brought up earlier Stephanie921 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edit request: update

The DoS guard server is down. Looks like the farms are gone for good now. Dennis Dartman (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source in Russian newspaper Kommersant (a reliable source per WP:RSP) [10]Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hemiauchenia @User:Dennis Dartman in accordance with this, I have edited the infobox to say they're defunct and changed their pronouns to was/were. Stephanie921 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reverted because Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Give it like a week or maybe a month and then we'll say whether or not the forum can be called defunct. At the moment it's simply too soon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're still on the Tor network. It's not defunct. --Chillabit (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be hasty cos I thought the reliable sources like the one linked above say it's defunct. But now that I think about it, I think it's a good idea to wait a bit - although one week seems like it'll probably be too much time and I don't see why we'd need to wait a month at all. Why do you think so? @User:Hemiauchenia Stephanie921 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because being offline for a few days or weeks isn't necessarily "defunct", there's a good chance that they will come back online, the longer they are offline though the less likely that becomes. If it's still active on Tor then I don't see how we can call it defunct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hemiauchenia good point, ty. And I didn't know they were still active on Tor Stephanie921 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the owner of the website himself say something to the effect of, like, "KiwiFarms is going the way of 8chan, and for the foreseeable future it is pretty much dead"?
But the thing is, he said it on the website, so it's currently only accessible using Tor. Does that meet the requisites for a reliable source, or would this have to be published in some external reputable publication (which, by now, it probably already has)? Dennis Dartman (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Dennis Dartman Yes he did say it was dead but it being on the website is an absolutely unreliable source, since it's biased (coming from them) and far-right. Also, we're currently having a discussion over whether the link to Kiwi should be excised, so this would exacerbate that convo. We should wait till a reputable publication says they're dead Stephanie921 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we already come to a conclusion that KiwiFarms links should be treated as links to other hate speech websites, like 8chan, and not linked here?
If not, I fully support this. Especially after that ex-FBI agent compared KiwiFarms's activity to terrorism.
And yes, of course KiwiFarms is a very unreliable source... but what about direct statements from the people in charge? Wouldn't they still be primary sources? Dennis Dartman (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't come to a consensus, and you can take part in the ongoing RFC here: Talk:Kiwi Farms#URL on the section entitled 'RFC linking to Kiwi Farms'. And, they'd only be reliable if in a reputable other source Stephanie921 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you still believe that "there's a good chance that they will come back online"? Did you say that aware of Null's announcement? Do you believe he's being sincere in his announcement, or is he just talking out of his rear end like so many alt-rightists do (idk, to get Keffals to shut up)? Dennis Dartman (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are back now on the clearnet on the Chinese domain of .top, and again, being on the darkweb does not mean that your site is 'offline'. - Tweedle (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s on the dark web it means they’re officially so radioactive no mainstream provider wants to touch them, probably because of their hate group and borderline terrorist status, ergo we shouldn’t link to them if that’s the case. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now the .top domain has gone down. IDK about Tor. (God bless Keffals and her campaign!) Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Dennis Dartman Keffals pronouns are she/her, so please can u correct ur msg? Stephanie921 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s on tor it’s not down. Dronebogus (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Hemiauchenia, totally misread the source and didn't see the discussion here until just now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all need to stop edit warring about whether Kiwi Farms "is" or "was". Yes, the site's been up and down in various locations the last few days and that may or may not continue, but we can't keep changing the lead every five minutes. Funcrunch (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Count me as a voice in favor of present tense for at least the next week or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about we wait two weeks starting from now to be absolutely sure they're dead - and if they are at that time - we past-tense them? Is everyone okay with that plan? Btw @User:Funcrunch and @User:Firefangledfeathers cheers for tryna mediate, crackin' muckers both of ya Stephanie921 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://domainincite.com/28220-kiwi-farms-domain-lands-at-epik heres a source that says that they have moved to a new domain Pyraminxsolver (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having been following this campaign off-wiki, and the immediate aftermath of having had services removed by Cloudflare, the forum has now gone through three or four domains in as many days. The one linked by Domain Incite appears to be offline at present, redirecting to a standard Nginx error page while returning the HTTP 418 error code due to a misconfiguration. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is back to past tense and it hasn't been two weeks. Have we agreed on a consensus? Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No we haven't agreed on a consensus but we aven't agreed on a two-week waiting period either. I proposed that but no-one's agreed to it Stephanie921 (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we make another RfC just to agree on past or present tense?? (Not entirely kidding...) I'm undecided on the waiting period, which is why I haven't weighed in on that. Funcrunch (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the .top/VanwaTech/Eranet domain has been up and down, and their onion service has still been continuously online (is that correct?), so if the forum is still up and running and people are still posting etc. then I don't see why past tense would make sense. Endwise (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Stephanie921's two week proposal. To be clear, if a stamped of RS come in with "KF down 100%, never coming back we swear" I'm not stuck to the timeline. In the meantime, I intend to revert changes to past tense if I catch them first and link to this talk page section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kiwifarms has been online for the last 2 weeks, and just went down again today. https://archive.ph/aIUSE . I doesn't seem appropriate to refer to the website as dead or gone. Perhaps "flakey" or "intermittently down" would make more sense. I know many of you *wish* it was dead and gone, but that's the case with a lot of things on the internet and dark web. So long as people who want it online have a backup copy and a computer, it's going to exist. Habanero-tan (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far right?

Is this even a useful descriptor? "Far right" has a bunch of implications to the average reader, few of which as far as I can tell from reliable sources really apply to Kiwi Farms, though I'm open to changing my mind. There's no doubt that Kiwi Farms users engange(d)s in extensive harassment against various individuals and its userbase is (was) virulently transphobic and ableist, but they had threads dedicated to mocking far right figures (as mentioned in Le Monde). There's only been a handful of sources out of dozens covering the recent keffals story describing it as "far right", with most others omitting a political descriptor, and simply describing it as a harassment/stalking forum, which I think is clearer. I would be open to something like "Some sources have described Kiwi Farms as far right", but at the moment I think just describing it in WikiVoice as "far right" is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having look at some more sources, Gizmodo says Streamer Clara “Keffals” Sorrenti was targeted by the alt-right portions of Kiwi because of the fact she is transgender (which implies that not all of Kiwi Farms is far right) The Spinoff says While members of the forum have different ideologies (they’re not universally “alt-right”) they are all interested in gossiping and posting personal information of the figures they fixate on.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From MSNBC [11] Probably the best way to describe the site’s users is terminally online people from a wide range of political ideologies, from far right and anti-trans feminist types to edgy lefties obsessed with consuming internet drama.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a useful add-on in the lead. To what I know about the forum, The Spinoff is correct and different sections of the forum do tend towards different ideologies and targets. Null himself is probably far-right for what it's worth, just see the original parent company name I added to the article very recently. If RS describe him as such that would be informative to add, though not necessarily in the lead section.
Null has even suggested in the past only making the parts of the forum harassing right-wing individuals publicly visible in an attempt to get liberals off their back. Nick Fuentes & Tim Gionet are an example of right-wing pundits the forum has had long-running feuds with. That has attracted left-wing and liberal people to use the portion of the site dedicated to harassing those specific figures. Chillabit (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there were some less extremist parts of the Kiki Farm ecosystem is like arguing that some Nazis were slightly less bad than other Nazis, in the end it is largely academic. If the far-right antics of some of its members is what gains the most notoriety and the most coverage in reliable sources, then I'm not going to be too concerned with the broad-brush approach of saying "Kiwi Farms is a far-right forum". Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Zaathras said. And after a quick search, I am seeing it in NBC News, Vice, The Guardian, The Daily Dot, Crikey, and Gizmodo Australia. Strikes me as enough for Wikivoice, but reasonable minds may differ. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the sources you linked do not say that it is far-right. I imagine you just did a google search for "Kiwi farms far-right" and didn't look at any of the sources you got as results? NBC News didn't say that, The Guardian said it only in the subhead (which is unusable; see WP:HEADLINE), Gizmodo Australia doesn't say it (and is probably a bad source anyway), and Crikey is a small, clickbaity, Australian commentary magazine; I doubt they're usable here. Endwise (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News implied it in the phrase trolls from Kiwi Farms and 4chan — with support from other far-right influencers, which struck me as close enough; The Guardian Gizmodo says Other far-right, often hate and conspiracy-filled websites, have faced similar fates in recent years, too — getting booted from mainstream hosting, only to reemerge elsewhere. Most recently, Kiwi Farms, an offshoot of 4chan and hate speech hotbed.... My apologies for thinking you might look at context. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are Kiwi Farms and 4chan "influencers"? I don't think that's what NBC News meant. The second quote (which is from Gizmodo Australia btw) is arguable, but to call something or someone "far-right" in Wikipedia's voice I don't think we should be using sources which one could argue imply they are far-right; we should be using sources which state it. Endwise (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you are perfectly entitled to your views. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other options for description: "The forum is most notable for its far-right activity, though the forum is not universally far-right", or "The forum is most notable for its far-right activity" more briefly. I wouldn't dispute that is what they are best known for, but the article below the lead should be as nuanced as the RS covering it. Chillabit (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, we clearly have RS identifying the site as a fae-righr forum. Do any dispute this? Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, as I understand it, an issue as to whether there are reliable sources that call it far-right. The decision is whether it is WP:DUE to call it a far-right forum in the first sentence, given that the far-right descriptor is present only in recent sources (WP:RECENTISM), and that there are other recent sources that do not call it far-right. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources Hemiauchenia linked above do. But I think the relevant question here should be whether sources generally call them "far-right", not how many sources there are which explicitly dispute it. For some OR context, while most of the userbase and Null himself is far-right, because the forum targets far-right figures like Ethan Ralph and Nick Fuentes, it can attract people who dislike their politics (i.e. people who are to the left of them), some TERF-type people are attracted to the forum because of the anti-trans stuff, and it also has sections for fatphobic harassment, which tends to attract less political fatphobes (e.g. lolcow.farm types). But this is largely besides the point. Endwise (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's clearly sufficient sourcing to say it in the article voice. In addition to the above, [12] says: Joshua Conner Moon operates a neo-Nazi white supremacist hate group and cyberbullying website that targets disabled people, especially people with autism, Jews, Muslims, black people, Hispanics, transgendered, vulnerable people, ... Here is another source describing it as far-right specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be self-published and therefore not reliable. "The Crocels Press Limited" is owned and run by the same person who authored this book. - LilySophie (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while and it seems that enough reliable sources call it far-right here. I've added it back to the article. PBZE (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all left-wing sources though? They could be said to have a conflict of interest in the reporting of it, also an opinionated thing. Only if some right-wing sources also call them far-right should it be added. 185.31.96.17 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Various ideologies"

This line doesn't reflect the content of its sources or mainstream coverage of the subject: Users hold various ideologies; Katelyn Burns, who had been targeted by the site, described its audience as "terminally online people from a wide range of political ideologies, from far right and anti-trans feminist types to edgy lefties obsessed with consuming internet drama".

The full quote from Burns is: "Of particular interest to many of the site’s users have been trans people, who they have labeled “troons,” a derogatory portmanteau of “tranny” and “goon.” Probably the best way to describe the site’s users is terminally online people from a wide range of political ideologies, from far right and anti-trans feminist types to edgy lefties obsessed with consuming internet drama."

And the other source mentions: "Since its beginnings more than a decade ago, Kiwi Farms has become a community focused on harassing and doxxing online individuals perceived as deviant, especially transgender people and people with mental illnesses."

The sentence portrays Kiwi Farms' user base as diverse or inclusive when mainstream sources do not describe it that way: https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/05/cloudflare_emergency_decision/ "Cloudflare stops services to 'revolting' far right hate site" Rjjiii (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"having a range of ideological viewpoints" doesn't mean or imply "inclusive". Transphobia isn't necessarily a "far-right" postion. It wouldn't be accurate to describe "gender critical" feminists as far right, given that they have little else in common with people who that label is usually applied to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "varying ideologies" bit in favour of just the Burns quote. Hope that resolves the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. My view is that if there is no cohesive political ideology (I believe this is your view) that motivates the site, then the wiki article should either not discuss ideology or should discuss the beliefs of notable stalkers or groups on the site separately. For a bizarre example, it makes sense for the Columbine Massacre page to discuss specific video games related to that massacre, but it would be bizarre for other massacre articles to explain the perpetrators played a variety of video games. And thanks for putting work into an active and political part of the wiki.Rjjiii (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the entire site is largely motivated by hatred against trans and neurodivergent people. The fact that some of them are openly racist while others claim to be feminist doesn't change the fact that the site's overall impact is ideologically unified. You see this in the real world too, with anti-trans feminists allying with fascists because at the end of the day, their end goals with regard to trans people are similar, despite their differences. I added into the article the part of the Burns quote that says the site's overall userbase is unified in their hatred of trans people, a fact which should not be erased. PBZE (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Milked for laughs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Milked for laughs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Milked for laughs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we sued to explain the term "lolcow" using that term here? Irrespective of the redirect, should we bring that back? DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think we need to mention and explain the term "lowcow", It doesn't really inform the reader on the kinds of people that Kiwi Farms targets, which is already adequately covered imo. Maybe we could mention Kiwi Farms self description that it is a forum to discuss eccentrics, althought of course minimal weight should be put on that given how reliable sources describe it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sonichu comic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonichu comic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Sonichu comic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "Harassment" text

@Bluerules and DanielRigal: Will the two of you stop edit warring and instead use the talk page to discuss this change? Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For anybody coming to this fresh, the change in question is this. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've been trying to persuade Bluerules to bring it here but it doesn't seem to have worked.
As I see it, the version with this coverage is the Status Quo version. It's not a particularly longstanding status quo but the only person trying to remove it is Bluerules and others have reinstated it.
So let's consider the merits of it. Bluerules seems to think that it is duplicative but it... just isn't. It is the only content that states that KF targets trans people. There are examples of it doing so elsewhere but this is the only part that covers it as a general thing. It leads neatly into the examples. Without it, all we have is an article that mentions that several of the victims have been trans almost as if that was a coincidence. While many readers can join those dots they shouldn't need to. We should say what we mean directly. Also, the removal takes out several good references. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very definition of duplicative. "It now hosts threads targeting" / "The site targets". Saying this "is the only content that states KF targets trans people" is not true. The article already says the targets include "LGBT people" in the History section. That's precisely the part covering it as a "general thing" and it exists without the repeated content. I'm not opposed to drawing more focus on the targeting of transgender individuals, but that belongs in the History section and immediately following the sentence about who is targeted. To have this information saying the same thing in both the History and Harassment sections is, again, the definition of duplicative. And if there's an issue about references being removed, I have no issue moving them to the History section. Bluerules (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of writing a talk page section, but other editors have refused to respect WP:STATUSQUO and allow the older revision to stand before the dispute could be resolved. Anyways, the issue boils down to this:
The History section of this article currently states:
"It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people, people considered by Kiwi Farms users to be mentally ill or sexually deviant, feminists, journalists, Internet celebrities, video game or comics hobbyists, and far-right personalities."
On September 16 and September 17, new content was added to the Harassment section, which eventually became:
"The site targets transgender people, people with disabilities, and those its users believe to be non-neurotypical. As well as members of the far-right."
Not only is there a blatant sentence fragment, this is complete repetition. We have already stated who is targeted in the above paragraph.
The other content in dispute, which was added to the History section on Sept. 20 is further repetition. Again, it is already stated who is targeted in the above paragraph. I am open to mentioning the "troon" insult, but that belongs in the upper paragraph, which is dedicated to the individuals targeted. The lower paragraph is about the users and this edit causes the paragraph to lose focus. Bluerules (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no urgency that the page must be the preferred version when resolving a dispute. We can change it back if there is consensus to do so. see also meta:The Wrong Version 0xDeadbeef 04:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "the preferred version"; this is about the older version, which STATUSQUO supports. If my version was the newer one, I would not have reinstated it in a dispute. Bluerules (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The History section mentions TERFs and others that comprise the user base, then (the part you want removed) notes that trans individuals are a particular target. The Harassments section describes what the victims are subject to, and then (the part you want removed) who the victims are. I don't see an issue with either of these additions.
As well as members of the far-right is problematic though, but for more reasons than just being a fragment. It seems to be trying to claim that the Kiwi users target far-right people too? This is ridiculous, as Kiwi IS the far right. That some users may have taken part in an internecine war within Nick Fuentes' white supremacist circles does not make them anti-far-right. Both this and ...and far-right personalities at the end of the 1st sentence in History should be removed. Zaathras (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying here. The fact that Kiwi Farms does target members of the far right is well sourced (Le Monde and SPLC). Kiwi Farms is not stormfront or /pol/, and it is a disservice to falsely present them as something they're not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should their targeting of people like Ethan Ralph and Nick Fuentes be hidden from this article? It's still a significant part of the website; those two individuals have an entire section each. Endwise (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The History section already mentions who is targeted by Kiwi Farms ("It now hosts threads targeting"). We don't need to mention the targets twice in consecutive sections. Like I mentioned above, I'm not opposed to noting the particular focus on transgender individuals, but that part is in the wrong paragraph. It should be in the paragraph about the targets, not the paragraph about the users.
And I concur with the other editors here; it's already cited that far-right personalities are also a target. Likewise, one targeted noted the users are all over the place when it comes to ideologies. Bluerules (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely daft. That there is far-right infighting does not make Kiwi Farms "anti far-right". Y'all are synthesizing things from sources that aren't actually there. Zaathras (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't say that Kiwi Farms is "anti far-right", I'm not sure what that's quoting. Endwise (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including...far-right personalities and the above-mentioned fragment imply that. Zaathras (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So targeting the far-right implies anti-far right, but targeting the LGBTQ doesn't imply anti-LGBTQ? Kiwi Farms is all over the place when it comes to ideologies. This is demonstrated by the sources, with even a transgender target noting that one group is "edgy lefties". Bluerules (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A website can both target far-right people and be far right at the same time. The two are definitely not mutually exclusive. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting the far-right doesn't automatically make a website anti-far right. Bluerules (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the Kiwi Farms lingo makes sense to me, seems notable. Calling the website itself alt-right or far right seems like an error (would one say that Wikipedia is a far right/left site because people on the far right/left use and edit it? I wouldn't) but saying something along the lines of "some of the site's users are far right" is fine. I think that's already covered by the Burns quote. Joe (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an issue about including lingo, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with shifting topics (going from the users to the targets) and mentioning the same information three separate times in the body. Bluerules (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

domain name

It’s https://www.kiwifarms dot net. That should be included in the box, objectively speaking. Goblintear (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RfC above named "RFC on linking to Kiwi Farms". LightNightLights (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
shouldn't we remove the link here too per WP:Problemlinks? Licks-rocks (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually linked. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see! Consider my comment retracted. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After being online a few weeks, it's offline again today. https://archive.ph/aIUSE . I'm curious what wikipedia policy is regarding "flakey" services. Can't just go around changing "is" to "was" and back again every other day... Habanero-tan (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning Chris-chan

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.


Should Chris-chan's full name be incorporated into the "History" section of this article? Philroc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as proposer. As far as I can tell, the main rationale for the exclusion of Chris-chan's name (as seen in several discussions over the years) is that it would violate BLP, specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME. However, BLPNAME only applies to people whose names have "not been widely disseminated or [have] been intentionally concealed". Chris is, to say the least, the complete opposite of this; her full name has been mentioned in several reliable sources concerning both Kiwi Farms (ex. [13], [14], cited NY Mag article) and the "incident" in 2021. As for AVOIDVICTIM, I don't see how merely naming Chris would count as endorsing the troll campaign against her. Philroc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philroc: @Primefac just closed a discussion on this 12 days ago; why are you proposing it again? Funcrunch (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the following list of past discussions, which I had previously included in the prior discussion above:
  • For at least the last three years, it has been well demonstrated that any mention of Chandler is a magnet for both vandalism and harassment. We quite regularly see waves of severe BLP violating vandalism on BLP articles of folks who have similar names to Chandler. The community consensus on this is exceptionally strong, as demonstrated via the discussions on this talk page, AN, and ANI. There is no way to write content about this individual in a way that cannot violate the WP:BLP policy, particularly in light of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Chandler's notability stems exclusively from being a victim of Kiwi Farms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sideswipe9th: Thanks, I made sure to look through those before starting this RfC. Ignoring the ones about Chris having her own article (which is an entirely different matter and inappropriate for now), a lot of them essentially repeat the same assertion (including Chris's name = BLP violation = harassment) with no real explanation of what makes it true. Philroc (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh. There's an aspect of WP:NEEDTOKNOW and WP:DENY at play here, as a great deal of the content that would explain the Chris's name = BLP violation = harassment chain is by necessity revdelled and oversighted due to major BLP violations. With that in mind, I can say that there is at least one edit filter that I'm aware of (there may be more), which tracks the use of Chandler's name being added to articles and talk pages. While there are naturally some false positives, due to good faith contributions in talk page discussions like this one, on the whole that filter tracks significantly more disruption than good faith edits. In particular, BLPs for other individuals whose name is similar to Chandler's, often see waves of disruption where content is changed to refer to Chandler purely for harassment reasons.
      Unfortunately cleaning up after these waves of vandalism can take a not insignificant amount of time and energy from a very small subset of editors (ie, admins and oversighters). Many IPs and newly created vandalism only accounts have to be blocked, and depending on the scale of the attack anywhere from dozens to hundreds of revisions need to be redacted. As such, anything that can amplify or act as a magnet for such further vandalism is heavily discouraged, and as a result the strong community consensus is that we do not mention Chandler's name in any articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sideswipe9th: That's honestly a good point. I looked through the edit history for Chris Chandler (a football player) and I think I understand what you mean. However, this specific article is already indefinitely ECP'd, so I don't foresee any potential disruption if Chris-chan's name is added here. Philroc (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A not insignificant amount of disruptive editors WP:PGAME to autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, solely for the purpose of disrupting in articles with semi or extended confirmed protection, or in some discretionary sanctions areas where there is a blanket 500/30 requirement without the articles actually being tagged as protected. At this stage, it is very much about harm and disruption prevention.
      Honestly even if this RfC did find a consensus for inclusion, I'm not even sure that a local consensus at this page can overturn the more global consensus from the discussions at AN and ANI. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sideswipe9th: If that's possible, then one could say that page protection as a whole is pointless. Philroc (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You could, though I don't think many, particularly admins who action those protections, would agree with that. Regardless that's a tangent not related to this article, so we shouldn't continue that here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sideswipe9th. This would essentially make Wikipedia an arm of the Kiwi Farms harassment campaign, and that would be unconscionable. Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: If that's the case then I suppose that NY Mag, Vice, etc. are all accomplices to the Farms for daring to report on Chris at all. Philroc (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can suppose anything you like! Wikipedia is a wonderful place that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philroc, can you point to any discussion on Wikipedia that shows editors in favor of adding Chris' name to the article? As Sideswipe9th has shown above, there is a long standing consensus, which is not only local, to not have their name in Wikipedia's mainspace for a variety of reasons. Opening an RfC on a suggestion that has clear consensus against among community members, and no previous discussion was done to workshop whether this was a good idea or not, is less than ideal and I suggest the nominator withdraws it. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Isabelle Belato: I'll be brutally honest: if I started a discussion even tangentially related to Chris here, I would've been immediately shut down by the same small clique of editors that always gets to decide what is and isn't suitable for articles like this one, sometimes regardless of policy. I believe that this RfC is an excellent way to gather outside opinions on the CWC issue. Philroc (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you're attempting to do here is sustain a campaign of harassment against this person. There is clear, clear community consensus against using the Wikipedia to victimize this person any further. Drop it. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Philroc I would not call every editor who contributed to the twelve previous discussions on this, across four venues (this talk page, a WikiProject, the administrator's noticeboard, and the urgent administrators noticeboard) a small clique of editors. Not counting blocked editors, and IP editors (because it's hard to identify at a glance if it's the same IP with an unstable address), no less than 43 editors and 17 admins have contributed to the prior discussions on this. The consensus not to mention the name is exceptionally strong, and not a local consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Philroc I strongly advise you to reconsider that "small clique of editors" comment. The present community consensus is about as broad as you're likely to find for such a circumstance. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per strong community consensus as noted above. WP:DROPTHESTICK before someone suggests sanctions. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the RfC. As mentioned above, considerable opposition towards this proposal has been expressed in the past, including the recent past. Wikipedia is not available for lulz or harassment and people who might be unaware of that background will need to accept that it's not possible to satisfy everyone all the time. I will topic ban anyone who continues to wave a stick. I have left this uncollapsed for now to allow for a couple of days of venting, but apart from that, it's over. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Typo in lede

"Kiwi Farms was blocked by Cloudflare due to an 'an imminent and emergency threat to human life'"

Can someone fix the dual "an"s? Jenny Death (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done! Licks-rocks (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the victims of suicide mentioned, but Chris is not?

A troll, trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It makes no sense that they get a mention, even if they have died. If they were targets off harassment from Kiwi Farms for years, then it makes no sense to include them as it can be interpreted as allowing the harassment to be immortalized. They will only be notable, at least in concurring media, as people who commited suicide because of harassment. For some reason, Chris is not mentioned despite being a central target of the site since it was created. So then, it only makes sense the names of the victims should be removed in respect of their harassment, since Chris is not mentioned. Or does Chris need to commit suicide in order to be mentioned? I'm very confused. ByteOr (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read farther up this talkpage? Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, but that's not my question. Why are they mentioned despite being targets of harassment also? They should have their names removed in respect. ByteOr (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are we saying about them that is in any way disrespectful? What are we saying that could possibly disadvantage them?
The difference with the primary target is that she is still alive and anything we say about her could adversely affect her. I deliberately don't follow her problems in any detail (and I am very suspicious of anybody who is too keen to tell me about them) but my impression is that additional attention could well make things worse for her and those around her. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal, User:Acroterion, this is nobody--pay them no mind. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on far-right in lede

Another sock/troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It’s owned by a self-avowed anti-Semite, the user base generally holds reactionary views, and is up under services that provide it to these types of websites. It should be included. Brennieor (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brennieor: Before starting an RfC, I think it would be more useful if you continued the discussion over at #Far right?, where you can present some more sources that support your point. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ByteOr is relevant. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove mentions of "CWCki" or "CWCki Forums"

When people google CWCki, the first thing they see is Christine's name and everything about him. Per WP:PROPORTION, "CWCki" should be removed as Kiwi Farms is only notable under the current name, and was at the far corners of the Internet when it was dedicated to discussing Christine. Letting a very obvious CWC reference stay up violates WP:HNE, and will only let the eternal harassment of Christine live on forever on Wikipedia, which it has continuously failed to prevent, though "CWCki" is all the serial harassers and related groups need for it to be immortalized on this site indefinitely.

Per an edit suggestion, I would put more focus on Null and his involvement of the site rather than it being dedicated to a "webcomic artist". Chris is not a "webcomic artist", he is a victim of serial trolling that has caused him to develop actual psychosis. I'm tired of knowing every day that Wikipedia does very little to stop the immortalization of serial harassment. 2804:14C:128:2226:B45E:5FE2:51:5758 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For your first reason, I think that Google is the problem here, not Wikipedia. The 'CWCki' part is there to only show the former name of the Kiwi Farms and also is a part of it's history, and the Wikipedia page put it there for no bad intent. You are probably very familiar with the CWCki, but not everyone doesn't know what the acronym for CWC stands for. WP:NHE is for Wikipedia editors who harass people and not for non-editor who harass people in general, which is the vast majority of people trolling CWC are. Your point about CWC not being a webcomic artist and instead being a victim of serial trolling instead is a bit confused; CWC is a webcomic artist who is a victim of trolling. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep it in we should at least stop explaining that it's someone's initials. Licks-rocks (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is unnecessary and over-the-top. We don't need to pretend that Chris Chan doesn't exist or try to hide any possible evidence of their existence. The forum's former name is clearly relevant to the article, and so is its origin. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My (and other editors') concern isn't to do with relevance and more with the BLP issues. And per multiple RFC's, it's been pretty clearly established that we shouldn't mention this person if it is at all avoidable. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that includes a person's initials. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any BLP issue with including the old name of the forum. Please point to the part of WP:BLP that says otherwise. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pointing to the several different discussions and disputes which are listed in the RFC at the top of this page, all of which clearly explain how this has been a returning BLP issue for the past several years of this page's existence. Not to mention the RFC itself. That should be more than enough. Licks-rocks (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those discussions have had a consensus that including the old name of the forum is a BLP issue. Additionally, the last real discussion on this, where people mainly discussed the merits of inclusion, rather than just citing old discussions and saying "there's already a consensus", was the August 2021 ANI, which had consensus against creating an article on her -- not anything else. Even then, that discussion wasn't really thorough.
The quality of discussions around this issue have been significantly disrupted by a lot of SPAs or IPs who seemingly harbor sympathies to Kiwi Farms and continue to bring it up, which leads to people almost instinctively trying to remove this content and close discussions on it as soon as possible. That leads to an illusion of a much stronger consensus against inclusion than actually exists, and using those consensuses to argue for an even stricter prohibition on naming her than what they actually say is not something we should do. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I thought it was pretty obvious from the other comments in this conversation that the old name of the forum was the new thing that hadn't been brought up before. It's not all that shocking though, it's just the logical follow-through to the pre-existing consensus, which is indeed that the person the forum used to be named after is not E and should not be named per WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME.
The original name of the forum was the name of the person they were harassing because that's what they dedicated the forum to. That should be an additional reason to take pause when referencing that name. We can easily explain the origins of the name of the website without actually using those initials, it's not some major change that'll have a huge impact on the content or legibility of the article either. We can just say "the forum was originally named after the initials of one of the victims, but was later renamed to kiwifarms" and that'd be the end of that. Licks-rocks (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you: if we're gonna commit to never having this person's name appear on Wikipedia, I think that pretty obviously extends to their initials, especially since there's not a lot of encyclopedic value in having them. Loki (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I see no reason to name this person, even if we include the old name of the forum. Saying it was dedicated to harassment should be enough. I find it difficult to maintain as assumption of good faith in these continued discussions, especially when male pronouns are seemingly pointedly used. Dumuzid (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are reliable sources referring to the forum as such and there has never been a consensus that including it is a violation of WP:BLP. I would also like to remind you of WP:AGF. - LilySophie (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no AGF in play when dealing with trolls who come here just to continue the harassment of the person in question. Pay special attention to the closing comment in the related section above, Talk:Kiwi Farms#RfC concerning Chris-chan. Zaathras (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, here we go again. This obsessive, neurotic need to scrub all mentions of CWC from Wikipedia, despite her proven relevance in Internet culture, not to mention coverage from several mainstream news sources never ceases to amuse me. This person is literally the original namesake for the forum, not to mention an incredibly well-known Internet figure. Maybe if there was any consistency to this rule I would be more understanding But there isn't, seeing as several much less known Internet personalities are mentioned by name in this article, with some of them having entire articles of their own. Whatever "rule" or "principle" that makes CWC in particular off-limits is so poorly thought-out it's almost comical. A Simple Fool (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A Simple Fool: Even if you might disagree with WP:BLP, our editorial decisions are all determined by consensus. If that isn't consistent then I don't know what is. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to consensus is circular logic when discussing whether the current consensus is wrong. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless A Simple Fool has after 3 years come up with a new argument in favour of inclusion, there is no point relitigating this. --Pokelova (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They... aren't, though? They're arguing against a further attempt to remove even the slightest mention from them from Wikipedia, which was not brought up in previous discussions, and is even more restrictive than what those discussions established. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The post by A Simple Fool seemed more like a rant ("first they want to remove CWC's name, now they want to remove CWCki") than an argument against removing the CWCki mention specifically. Besides, saying that it isn't consistent does not make sense as removing all mentions would at least be more consistent if all we did was to advocate for consistency. Your comments are self contradictory, as evident in discussing whether the current consensus is wrong vs. arguing against a further attempt to remove even the slightest mention from them from Wikipedia, which was not brought up in previous discussions - so are we discussing whether the current consensus is wrong, or are we discussing to form consensus around an extension to the previous discussions? I personally would not want to discuss whether the consensus was wrong, hence my original comment. I believe that CWC inclusionists' only choice is to open an WP:ARBCOM case, but it would be terrifying to see the case even get accepted. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 19:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just read WP:ARBSCOPE - looks like no. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 19:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comments aren't contradictory here. I was disagreeing with your reply to A Simple Fool in my first comment, and further explaining a different way you have misunderstood the situation in my second comment. Not only is "your argument is wrong because there's a consensus for something" a poor argument to be used when discussing consensus, there is not even a consensus for the position you seem to be arguing for (that we shouldn't include "CWCiki" in this page, because it by extension names Chris Chan).
This is obviously not a discussion intended to re-litigate whether we should discuss Chris Chan in more detail, nor do I think most people, myself included, want to do that at this point. I do think that a discussion should be held in the future to formalize consensus on this subject, once media attention around Kiwi Farms dies down again. That would obviously not be an ArbCom case. The reason another discussion should be held is because the consensus is currently unclear, as evidenced by this discussion, and there isn't a particular discussion that can even be pointed to as establishing a consensus (there's multiple noticeboard threads and other RfCs that people point to, many of which were closed pointing to previous consensus at other threads). The fact that there's so many discussions on this topic, many started in bad-faith and closed in an expedited manner, makes it unclear what the editorial consensus actually is, other than "we shouldn't discuss this person more than necessary or include her name". Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've heard that argument from you before and I'm still not buying the idea that once you clean up the people arguing in bad faith there'll magically be more people arguing for inclusion than there are now. There's too few people arguing for inclusion to get a consensus as it is already. I don't think that will change if you remove a large number of them from the equation. Not to mention the fact that there will never be a time when there are no bad faith actors involved in a discussion about this due to the very nature of the website we are talking about. . Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a total misunderstanding of what I've said. Obviously when a SPA opens up a discussion that's obviously in bad-faith, people will be quick to shut it down. Additionally, said user would probably not make a particularly strong or policy-based argument, and people generally don't want to go to bat for SPAs which are obviously intending on using Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment.
It also seems like you're reading too much into what my position on this whole subject is, which I have not stated anywhere. I'm not arguing that we should mention Chris Chan in any more detail than past discussions have established (nor is that what this talk page section is even about). I simply think that the current status quo, of mentioning the site was originally called "CWCki Forums", is fine. That's not something there is a strong consensus against, and citing the past discussions to argue for that is very flawed reasoning. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to be defending A simple fool's position here, given the first comment from you in the thread, which is why people assume you're talking about relitigating the whole thing here. Nonetheless, I intentionally formulated my argument to leave that part ambiguous because I think it applies to both re-litigating the whole thing and the current discussion started by the IP, regardless of which we're actually talking about, you have to make do with the discussions you get. I do not see the amount of bad faith activity on this page as something that should be ignored in favour of letting calmer heads prevail, as you suggest. Rather, I see it as something we should pay attention to because it indicates that some party has a vested interest in getting as much information about that person into the article as possible. Like I have argued before, that should make us more careful. Not because of some knee-jerk reaction, but because it's the rational thing to do when the stakes are higher than usual. Licks-rocks (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've again misunderstood and misrepresented what I've said. I will not engage further here. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I will never correctly interpret your arguments, so I will mostly focus on A Simple Fool's comment and my response here. But I will have to quote you once. Not only is "your argument is wrong because there's a consensus for something" a poor argument to be used when discussing consensus, there is not even a consensus for the position you seem to be arguing for (that we shouldn't include "CWCiki" in this page, because it by extension names Chris Chan). I wasn't arguing about the discussion as intended by the IP user, but rather focusing on ASF's comment. In my response to the consistency argument, to quote ASF: Maybe if there was any consistency to this rule I would be more understanding But there isn't, seeing as several much less known Internet personalities are mentioned by name in this article, with some of them having entire articles of their own. This seems to be arguing that "since CWC is an Internet figure that is much more known, we should mention CWC by her name and perhaps even have a separate article about her." This is how I interpreted ASF's comment. No matter whether you think this is an incorrect interpretation or not, I responded by saying (perhaps somewhat implicitly, but to me reasonably inferrable from the context) "Because consensus says we should not mention CWC by her name and to not have an article about her, this is consistent." Again, I don't care how you interpreted this response, but the claim that my argument was bad is entirely unfounded. It wasn't even an argument. I was simply defending the fact that CWC is not mentioned by name and does not have a separate article as consistent with other editorial decisions we have made for other figures that are less known.
This is obviously not a discussion intended to re-litigate whether we should discuss Chris Chan in more detail, nor do I think most people, myself included, want to do that at this point. And yet, A Simple Fool's comment seemed much more like a relitigation than an argument about removing "CWCki Forums" from the lead. It is obvious that me, Licks-rocks, and Pokelova all interpreted ASF's comment that way.
I do not want to argue about semantics or who said what, but it seems ironic to me that you don't want to continue this discussion because someone "misunderstood and misrepresented" your argument, while not realizing that you were misunderstanding and misrepresenting my argument as well. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwilling to continue discussing with Licks-rocks in particular for multiple reasons. I'm happy to engage with you, though. Your interpretation of ASF's comment is reasonable (and I appreciate you clarifying your comment) though I wouldn't read it in the same way. My interpretation of their comment is that while they seem unhappy with the current consensus, they weren't trying to relitigate it, but rather were saying that we've already gone further than what they view as reasonable, and going even further than that would be absurd. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Site Down

As of approximately a week ago, the site has been down after its ISP terminated service. How should we go about talking about this and sourcing it in the article? Waterfire (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over until the owner declares defeat; even if access is never restored on the clearnet, my suspicion is that it'll persist on Tor for a very long time. Sourcing is going to be challenging; there's no longer newsworthiness in "it's down again" "it's up again" "it's down again" (when the current state might change on moment's notice before the ink is dry), and thus no published articles since the Buzzfeed article 9 days ago. Take with a pinch of salt, my COI is declared, and I'm well aware original research should not be added to Wikipedia. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The site’s in an indefinite flux in terms of availability. Unless it’s been covered in multiple sources, or the owner gives up, or it stays down for at least several months, it’s not “legally dead” as far as we care. Dronebogus (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, it's back up. Don't count it as over until it's over. Lizthegrey (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should you be commenting on here when you are actively involved in trying to get it taken down? CaptainPrimo (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My conflict of interest is disclosed both on my user page as well as literally two comments up. Lizthegrey (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very confusing in certain areas, and I cannot tell if Wikipedia wants it to be perceived as “good”.

I mean, “facilitates” the harassment sounds very off. They just don’t facilitate it, they encourage the users to stalk and harass the people being discussed. The history section barely talks about Null and how he basically built an empire of harassment, yet claims to be an “internet entrepreneur”.

It specifically targets LGBTQ+ individuals and other people that are deemed vulnerable. Not mentioning it in the lede gives the reader a sense of confusion on what the actual point of the site is: to harass people.

Hopefully people here have some sort of journalistic connection, because the site recently employed a decentralized server network in order to evade getting “deleted”. Wikipedia does not want to document this and they are on the same level as 8kun/8chan in terms of rightful censorship.

At the very least, mention how it was rightfully censored from many mainstream providers of internet infrastructure. If readers want to know how disgusting this site is, then it must be made more neutral and not feed their harassment. Alohaidled (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's goal is to be neutral, not to make it clear that particular websites are bad. I don't get what you view as non-neutral about this article, it seems pretty clear to me. If anything, the article is missing content about most of what happens on Kiwi Farms (the particular harassment incidents listed in this article are probably ~1% of the website's content, but take up most of the article -- not that the rest of the website's content is much better, though). This is a lack based on the available sources, though, so it's not really something we can fix. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the site is to laugh at eccentric people who do embarassing things online. It actively discourages contacting any of the people as one can see if they actually visited the site and didn't get all their news from slanderous sources - so you have a warped view of what the site is about. CaptainPrimo (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now you’re just pushing your own point of view. Dronebogus (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the logo file not public domain?

The “Kiwi” logo is just a mix of very flat shapes. The font can’t be copyrighted to my knowledge. Why is it fair use? Alohaidled (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather complicated mix of flat shapes. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a picture of a Kiwi, not a “mix of shapes”. I don’t see how that is simple geometry. Dronebogus (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple logo is a flat shape of an apple. It consists of flattened polygons and it is public domain under U.S. copyright laws. The Kiwi Farms logo is just three oval-ish shapes conjoined together to look like a kiwi, but it is not original. It’s just a flat shape with a circular eye. Alohaidled (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's... actually a reasonable point. However, it's not a debate that can be had here, as this page is for discussing Kiwi Farms, not its logo. Discussion of the logo licensing should take place elsewhere. Alternately, someone could upload a PD-simple to Commons and see how long it lasts. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The right place to ask would be commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I figured someone would know. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domain name circle back

It’s domain name (kiwifarms dot net) has been up for months at this point, and the campaign to take it down has sputtered out. I think it’s safe to say we can relist it in the info box.

Original reason given not to list it had nothing to do with “responsible platforming” (not our job) but rather that the domain name was constantly changing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Farms#domain_name Goblintear (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Near"?

Came to the page following a link, looking for information about a subject of which I knew nothing to read:

In 2021, after the suicide of Near, a non-binary software developer...

I was going to add a {{who}} but found the article locked. Who?, What?, When?, Why?, Where?, How? There's a bit more info in the Suicides of harassment targets section lower in the page, but detail is scattered all over rather than usefully combined. ChanceryBlack (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the details are in the "Suicides of harassment targets" section below, that is the point. The lead section of an article introduces the subject and important points broadly, then expanded details are found in the body. Zaathras (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, and I know there are wiki-editors who can quote, without needing to look them up, the style guide references, but isn't the idea of the para(s) above the "contents" to be linked/referenced as necessary so that the ignorant enquirer (as I was) gets all the pertinent info. from that text block?
I (now) grok that to folk involved with this subject, the names and personalities are well known, but as a casual user I don't know if this pseudonymous character is important or not. A link, especially to a wiki page which would trigger a pop-up, would have been informative.
There are a lot of "special interest" words and phrases in that multi para text block, and most of them are indeed linked. ChanceryBlack (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KiwiFarms is not "blocked in New Zealand"

After the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shootings, many ISPs in New Zealand (and some in Australia) made the decision on their own accord to block KiwiFarms, 8chan and 4chan(?). It is not illegal to access or provide access to KiwiFarms in New Zealand as far as I am aware of. I have tested it and I can access KiwiFarms from my relatively small, but still reputable ISP, in New Zealand.

If possible could someone with the necessary permissions research this more and adjust the article accordingly. Lia8629 (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" does not mean "all". Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"After the Christchurch mosque shootings, the site was blocked in New Zealand."
This is in the introduction paragraph.
What my point was is that while many NZ ISPs have blocked KiwiFarms, not all have - as the article incorrectly states. Lia8629 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it; it's not what the body of the article said anyway. Also, I'm not sure what Zaathras meant. Endwise (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot about this. When the OP wrote After the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shootings, many ISPs in New Zealand..., I hastily and wrongly assumed that they were quoting text already present in the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: My Immortal Section

In the "My Immortal fanfiction authorship controversy section," change "A Kiwi Farms user claiming to be Christo's brother" to "Christo's brother."

Per https://web.archive.org/web/20171005185457/https://moviepilot.com/p/brother-of-my-immortal-author-casts-serious-doubt-on-her-claims/4383046, the user was verified to be her brother. Also, archives of Rose Christo's tumblr posts show she confirmed the user was her brother. I understand first-party sources are normally undesirable, but they're still permissible for claims that aren't scandalous in nature (and the tumblr was verified to be owned and operated by her, per reliable sources associated with the authorship controversy). --My tightness (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brother's identity is also stated as fact at My_Immortal_(fan_fiction)#2017:_Rose_Christo_co-authorship_claim, so this appears to be a reasonable request. Zaathras (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URL

Considering the website has been regularly up under the same URL since late September, I would say the URL should be added back into the info box. The only rationales not to add it back in from previous discussions seem to be,

1) The website is constantly shifting URLs. This does not seem to be true anymore. I reviewed archive.is records and it seems to have been consistently up under the .net for 2+ months with little downtime.

2) The website is hate speech. This is not a reason for not linking them. Among other things we have links to

-Stormfront

-4chan

-Encyclopedia Dramatica

I fail to see how this website is any more hateful than the explicit white nationalist ones, or 4chan, which has had at least 5 separate instances of mass shooters posting threats there.

3) The website is spam. This does not seem to be true. I can find no proof of Kiwi Farms ever having malware, cryptocurrency, phishing scandals, etc. If anyone can point me to any reason that this particular site should be on the Wikimedia spam blacklist then please do.

None of these reasons are valid imo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Kiwi Farms#RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms for the relevant RfC on the question, where consensus was achieved to omit the link. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the consensus is predicated off things that aren’t true (the domain being unstable and baseless accusations of it being spam/phishing) and the rest is a general it’s too dangerous to link which is absurd given that we link both Stormfront and As-Sahab, the media group of Al-Qaeda, which actively encourages terrorism and Islamic radicalization. We also have links to Pornhub. I see very little academic benefit to the end user from clicking that link, and the ads there often do actually fall under the scam/shady variety.
I would consider Kiwi Farms to be less dangerous than a group that actively plots and executes Islamist terrorist attacks, and has killed well over 2000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack of all time. What’s the benefit of linking to their website? Informational reasons. I fail to see why Kiwi Farms is exempt from this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're just rehashing the arguments of the RfC. Nothing has shifted in such a short time to change that consensus. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What’s shifted is that now the website is stable under 1 domain and has been for several months. The rest of the arguments are the same, but “the website is unstable” seemed to be the driving force of the past discussion, and that is no longer true. If we had a standard policy on not linking to ‘hate sites’ that would be one thing, but I’ve never heard of that and we link to several sites that actively endorse and promote terrorism so that doesn’t seem to play a part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote a wise man: cool story, bro. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see what’s a cool story about it. We link Al-Qaeda. That’s just true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also irrelevant, as different articles have different reasons for inclusion or exclusion. Zaathras (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Whatever you say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about what consensus says. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A correction in the history section

The webcomic artist who was the basis for the creation of the CWCki and CWCki forums was not initially discovered on 4chan but rather Something Awful forums. Discussions on 4chan rather greatly facilitated the attention given towards said webcomic artist to the wide audience we know of today. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a reliable source to that effect, it would help. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source that mentions it more down in the early days section:
https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-arrested-trending-who-is-mom-twitter-history-sonichu-2021-8
But assuming because of the title, the source should not be included because the source, despite being independently verifiable, violates WP:HNE, even though it is reliable, and verifiable. Therefore, non-factual information should probably be kept because at the end of the day, it is harassment to mention it because of the source title. So including factual information is probably not a good idea because the source title is controversial and contains the name of someone who should probably not be mentioned because they have endured enough. Just a thought! Kronintz (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kiwi Farms community considers it a goal to drive its targets to suicide, and has celebrated such deaths with a counter on the website."

Shouldn't there be better source for this than one book that is inaccessible to most people? Since this is a goal of the community I assume there would be more sources. CaptainPrimo (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]