Talk:Kiwi Farms

Why isn't Chris mentioned by name?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• The honest answer? There is, realistically, no way to write about the person in question without violating WP:BLP. I do believe they may satisfy WP:GNG, however, Wikipedia does not need an article on every notable subject, nor does every notable subject need a mention. It is easier (on everyone's sanity) to avoid it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting that a fairly strong consensus was built at WP:AN that there is pretty much zero chance of them having an article written. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I said a mention in this article, he is too significant to not mention by name. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Suicide of harassment victims

Original Research --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am aware of the Wikipedia rules about original research, but given the US Bureau of Consular Affairs have now confirmed that no US Citizen died by suicide anywhere near or when the supposed date of suicide of the pseudonymous Near, is it possible to include a note to that effect in the article? Every single article referenced, regardless of being a "notable source", references the same anonymous googledoc and one single individual's twitter account - both of whose claims have been demonstrably debunked (albeit not in a manner that is guaranteed to be published by a noticeable source). We should not harbor falsehoods on here, no matter how distasteful we find the subject of the article --92.1.172.155 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) I think you've answered your own question. Using the US Bureau's database is original research. It would not be original research if they said "We are aware of a claim that a US citizen died by suicide under X circumstances. This is false." But I don't see why the US Bureau would have a complete list of all citizens who died by suicide, nor how you know where Near supposedly died by suicide (which is not necessarily anywhere close to where they lived) etc. All of these factors are something you could possibly convince me of, but the fact that it is not immediately and uncontroversially clear to an independent observer reading the reliable source with no further context makes it original research and unverifiable. — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC) The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false. 51.155.110.141 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in Academias and STEM faculties all over the globe. It doesn't matter if God himself reveals his form to us lowly mortals and directly says to everybody "No, what you wrote is wrong, rectify it!", thw average Wikipedian will always answer with the classic "IT'S REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!" 93.71.195.201 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Isn't that the kind of completely braindead reasoning which could lead pretty much anyone to insert that the Earth is flat in every article and prevent everyone from removing it because enough morons believe in it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic72 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC) If Wikipedia had existed when expert consensus was that the Earth is flat then we would have asserted that position as fact. It's hard to see how you would expect us to transcend the scientific knowledge of the era. For the last 2000–2500 years, expert consensus has been that the Earth is roughly spherical, so that is what we report. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing regarding the death of Near

Ginder's death still has not been validated through an official source, indeed the only "validations" we have are from a USA Today article which claims to have spoken with Ginder's employer and the Kotaku and PC Gamer articles which reference Hector Martin. While arguments have been hade regarding the validity of these claims, there is some phrasing that I suggest could be altered in order to reflect this. Regarding Martin's reports, the article mentions that he "reported on June 28 that he had spoken to police who confirmed that Near had died the previous day", the phrasing, much like the following part about the USA Today article, makes this seem authoritative, while in reality these are both sources which reference people who are either not citing any verifiable information (in the case of Martin) or have not had their claims independently reported in other sources (in the case of Beckett in the USA Today article). According to the principle of WP:V, the information must come from reliable sources, and while arguments for Kotaku and USA Today fitting this criteria have been made, the sources which these publications reference certainly aren't by any measure. The best thing would naturally be if a statement or other information could authoritatively conclude whether or not David Kirk Ginder is dead or not, ideally from the Bureau of Consular Affairs if Ginder was a U.S. citizen when this is supposed to have occurred. Tsumugii (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of USA Today, Kotaku and PC Gamer to do the direct research to verify if it is true or not that Near died. If they did not consult the Bureau of Consular Affairs, then we have no reason to. I don't see what reason we would have to trust the accuracy of some government database over Near's employer. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I read this and I thought, wait, aren't you just turning things around to say that you prefer to use primary sources that seem more authentic to you than to trust reliable, secondary sources that have conducted their own research from primary sources? 0xDeadbeef 15:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how a Twitter post and a Google Doc counts as a reliable primary source fit for any sort of research, only USA Today had any sources which weren't directly linked to social media. Tsumugii (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Tsumugii, Why do we need to traverse the sourcing graph to prove its reliability? If reliable, secondary sources say they are true, the Wikipedia article should also reflect that as truth. We care a lot about the sources we cite in the articles, while trusting the sources with their claims. I personally find it hard to believe that a search in a government database should overturn claims by several reliable secondary sources. 0xDeadbeef 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be mitigated if we can find a reputable source that is reporting on the overseas death records. Good luck with that, though. Riffraff913 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I also find it interesting how someone can suffer "lifelong abuse" from a site nine years old, but maybe that's just me... Winston von Ripplechip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a slightly ambiguous summary of what it says in the Kotaku source. I'll see if I can make it a bit clearer. DanielRigal (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Does that make more sense now? DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that the only source is basically a GDoc and some guy saying "Dude, trust me", followed by Kotaku picking it up and saying "Yeah dude; trust him." Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a problem with Kotaku, not with Wikipedia. Take it up with them if you want to. Unless they retract their article, we consider it reliable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that looking for death records is going to do anybody any good. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reliable source for Near's legal name and my understanding is that Japan does not recognise non-binary genders. Amateur sleuthing through the Japanese records is not going to yield any reliable sources that we can use. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack where the haystack is labelled in Japanese. The risk of incorrectly identifying unconnected people would be very high. Out of basic decency and respect more than anything, I urge people to just drop this line of inquiry. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Offline

The forum is now offline. Somebody should edit that ImStevan (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

While I can confirm it's offline, it's too early to tell what the cause of it being offline is. We don't have any RS on the outage, and it could be for any number of reasons unrelated to the current call for Cloudflare to remove services from the site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You were right, seems it's already back up ImStevan (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Hey all, I've noticed that trying to get them targets fired from their jobs sounds odd. It would be nice if targets was dropped from there. Thanks!

-- Holzklöppel (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, Good call! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request on 29 August 2022

Slightly rephrase the following:

−

[[USA Today]] reported on July 23, 2021, that they had confirmed with Near's former employer that they had died.

+

[[USA Today]] reported on July 23, 2021, that it had confirmed with Near's former employer that they had died.

LightNightLights ^(talk) 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for teaching me about Template:Td. You're so close to 500 edits, and not needing to wait on us slowpokes! Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing "Online-Status"

I think this is a useless thing to have in the infobox, considering how often the site's status fluctuates, making it just needless busywork for editors. If a reader really wants to check if the site is online or not, they can go to the site themselves or check something like DownDetector. I believe we should only put something regarding its online status in the infobox if the site goes permanently offline. Things like huge DDOS attacks that are happening to the site right now should be left to the History section, if it needs to be said at all. JungleEntity (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

+1, nothing to add. -- ferret (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Pointless unless it's a sustained / permanent change. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this per the emerging consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As the website now appears completely offline (except via Tor) I think that qualifies as a sustained / permanent change that we should document IntUnderflow (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare campaign

"a campaign was started to try to convince Cloudflare to stop supporting the site" -- should it be clarified that the objective of the campaign is to enable federal crimes (DDoS-ing) to take the site offline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardark (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Got a reliable source that says as much? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, just common sense. Saying that Cloudflare is "supporting the site" is vague and misleading. They're not supporting the site ideologically or financially, they're just providing the same service that's available to everyone else -- protection against criminal DDoS attacks.

I think it's noteworthy that the "campaign" is an attempt to remove that protection, rather than simply getting the relevant authorities to shut Kiwi Farms down, if there is indeed any evidence that it is a criminal terrorist site as Keffals claims. Aardark (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you've got no reliable sources then you've got nothing and we are not going to action an entirely unsupported request. DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "supporting the site" sounds odd and is inaccurate. Neither of the sources cited say that Cloudfare support them, just that they provide services to them - I've reworded accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

More ambiguous than inaccurate but it was definitely good to clarify it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare doesn't just protect websites from DDoS, they also act as a proxy that speeds up network traffic. The campaign is for Cloudflare to stop providing service to Kiwi Farm, not "stop protecting the website against DDoS attacks so we can DDoS them". If you understand wiki-speak, this is against the NPOV and OR policies. 0xDeadbeef 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting that from? That's not what sources I can find say: e.g. Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare provides DDoS protection services to numerous websites, including Kiwi Farms, effectively keeping them online.[1], and One of Cloudflare’s most popular services is anti-DDoS protection, which routes attempts to knock a web site offline by flooding it with traffic through its unique worldwide network. Without that service, it’s unlikely Kiwi Farms would be able to stay online.[2] Endwise (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Cloudflare is, at its core, a content delivery network (CDN) which quickly serves users websites that they request through their web browsers. It also defends sites against attackers.[3] Secure and accelerate your apps, APIs, and websites in minutes by pointing your DNS to Cloudflare. Instantly turn on performance and security services, including: CDN, WAF, DDOS protection, bot management, API security, web analytics, image optimization, stream delivery, load balancing, SSL, and DNS.[4] I have used cloudflare for my websites, and it should be obvious that their DDoS protection is achieved by acting as a reverse proxy for your network traffic. If you do a nslookup for kiwi farms or other websites behind cloudflare, you will get cloudflare's IP. 0xDeadbeef 08:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is obvious to people who are not familiar with how these services work but you are correct. In fact, a few days ago, I saw somebody falsely claiming that Cloudflare had nothing to do with KF and so, out of curiosity, I looked up their IPs and, of course, it was exactly as you say. Maybe there is some confusion as (iirc) their DDoS protection is not the same as their full CDN service but even mere DDoS protection clearly involves proxying the content. I'm not sure if it involves caching, although I'd be surprised if it didn't to some degree. If nothing else CF was hosting a custom error page for KF which, at one point, had a transphobic "joke" about suicide on it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. this and this would be an authoritative source on how Cloudflare works. 0xDeadbeef 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some musings (although not from any news outlets) that Cloudflare is only providing CDN for Kiwi Farms, and not DDOS protection. Because DDOS protection falls under the broader umbrella of Cloudflare's CDN, would it be worth changing the article from "Kiwi Farms uses DDOS protection services from Cloudflare", to "Kiwi Farms uses CDN services from Cloudflare"? However, If another source specifically states that Kiwi Farms uses Cloudflare's DDOS protection, I think it would be ok to leave the present wording. JungleEntity (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive! 'Anti-trans stalkers at Kiwi Farms are chasing one victim around the world. Their list of targets is growing.' - NBC News; (archive)

"Clara Sorrenti and those supporting her are hoping to open up Kiwi Farms to debilitating virtual attacks by demanding Cloudflare, one of its internet security service vendors, drop the site. Cloudflare has so far refused to budge."

Tweedle (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Even though NBC News is listed at RSP as one of the "generally reliable sources," I will have to disagree that this can be used for suggesting that the whole campaign is for Kiwi Farms to be DDoSed. The two page authors probably worded it as "debilitating virtual attacks" because they do not know what DDoS attacks are. 0xDeadbeef 11:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

OK then we can simply just use exactly how the source describes it as, a 'debilitating virtual attack', no? Regardless anyway I dispute the claim that the author's do not know what a DDoS attack is when at-least one of them, Ben Collins, has used it multiple times on their own Twitter page and on one occasion used it within an article they co-authored (the article). Tweedle (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yeah. I would still disagree that the campaign's intention is to DDoS Kiwi Farms, but rather for Cloudflare to stop offering DDoS protection to Kiwi Farms. I don't know if that distinction makes sense, or maybe it is just about the wording. 0xDeadbeef 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

NBC appears to be implying something that the subject has not said. Are there other sources that say the same? Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge however I have not looked further into it, I am sure they will be more sources in the future will state similar and someone more dedicated then myself would be able to find said sources. An implication regardless though it is still reliable enough to say 'NBC claims... ' Tweedle (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tweedle above. NBC News is considered generally reliable as per RSP. Isabelle claims this may simply be an inference, and I agree as are hoping to doesn't seem like a direct quotation to me. I favor the NBC claims... phrasing. --Holzklöppel (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dropped by Cloudflare

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Project spamming

Look, I don't like Kiwi Farms as much as the next sane person, but the source that BOTH of the "sources" yall are using for the claim that Kiwi helped with the spam of the Trevor Project does not mention Kiwi Farms, only 4chan. It doesn't matter what the secondary source says, the primary source (this tweet) only mentions 4chan. Why don't yall actually read before moving stuff about? Naihreloe (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've taken a look to see what other reliable sources have said about this, and the only others I could find were the Los Angeles Blade, and BuzzFeed News, who also attributed it only to 4chan. As such I now suspect that this is a mistake by NBC, so I'd now support removal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like I've misread the sources and I apologize. Removal seems fine (and has already been done). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Cloudflare just dropped Kiwi farms, and edit request

Cloudflare released a statement in their blog detailing that they are cutting services to kiwi farms and are blocking them. The current website is displayed with a cloudflare blocked message, and I would like to request that the current status of the website be changed to temporarily offline or blocked.

Cloudflare blog and tweet:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

https://twitter.com/Cloudflare/status/1566190024864964611

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudflare-drops-kiwifarms/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cloudflare-provided-security-services-kiwi-farms-blocks-website-rcna46219

https://www.rawstory.com/cloudflare-drops-controversial-far-right-website-kiwi-farms-after-public-backlash-site-is-down-report/

Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your requested changes had already been made to this article; see the current revision. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, just didn't refresh the article. Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Neurodivergent, not neurodiverse

At the end of the first paragraph under Harassment, the last sentence contains the phrase "neurodiverse people", and links to the article on Neurodiversity. However, the term should be "neurodivergent". Neurodiversity is just a concept that people's brains, or neurotypes, are variable, and that includes neurotypical people. With that in mind, it should be clear that saying "neurodiverse people" means the same thing as saying "everyone". What is actually meant in this context is "neurodivergent people", those whose are not neurotypical. Unfortunately, the whole article on Neurodiversity is a mess, and neurodivergent just redirects to that article, but at the least, the wording here needs to be changed. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@AndyRatchick I've changed it to neurodivergent with this edit. LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Linking of the term 'lolcows' to Wiktionary

@Philroc (Tagging in order not to edit-war) I'd argue not that we shouldn't link the term lolcow to Wiktionary but that we shouldn't link it at all. The definition is mentioned right after the mention of the term (for reference, the definition is "people that can be 'milked for laughs'"). LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro is non-neutral self-promotion

Kiwi Farms may claim to be "dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities", but that's not what neutral sources say or what they are known for, it's self-promotion. Specifically, it's a slight rephrasing of their own description which is:

Community dedicated to discussing eccentric people

— https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=&q=kiwifarms%20Community%20dedicated%20to%20discussing%20eccentric%20people

What they are known for, and the actual reason for their existence, are their harassment campaigns.

See eg nymag (2016):

Kiwi Farms, a loose community [...] that specializes in harassing people they perceive as being mentally ill or sexually deviant in some way.

— https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html

Vice (2021):

a forum famous for being the center of internet-led targeted harassment campaigns

— https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbmam/notorious-website-kiwi-farms-loses-its-domain-registrar

The Guardian (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a community forum website that frequently targets trans people online.

— https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/04/cloudflare-reverses-decision-and-drops-trans-trolling-website-kiwi-farms

NBC (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a website associated with harassment campaigns against transgender people.

— https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cloudflare-provided-security-services-kiwi-farms-blocks-website-rcna46219

I propose to change the intro from:

American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs").

To:

American Internet forum dedicated to the harassment of trans people and other minorities.

To avoid having "harassment" twice, I also propose to rephrase "trolling, harassment, and stalking" to "trolling and stalking". Zukorrom (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"and other minorities" does not seem to reflect the sourcing, and it's kinda awkward phrasing tbh. Would change to dedicated to the harassment of online figures or dedicated to Internet-based harassment. Equivamp - talk 10:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of the lede is dedicated to describing the website as a source of harassment of their targets, with the word already present three times. I think Equivamp's suggestion is better, but then some of the other sentences should also be change to avoid even more repetition. How about:

Kiwi Farms, formerly known as CWCki Forums (/ˈkwɪki/), is an American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion and harassment of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs"). The targets of threads are subject to organized group trolling and stalking, as well as doxxing and real-life harassment. These actions have tied Kiwi Farms into the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.

We should also work to expand the lede in general. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 11:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there is value in naming the groups targeted by Kiwi Farms, as it's important information for understanding why they are doing it. "and other minorities" is already sourced in the main article ("particularly minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people"). The focus on trans people is sourced by the sources above. I'm also not sure "online figures" is exactly right, nor is the harassment only internet-based.

I'm very open to other phrasings though! Maybe something like "dedicated to the harassment of minorities, particularly trans people", "dedicated to the harassment of trans people", or "dedicated to the harassment of trans people, women, neurodivergent people, and LGBT people"? Zukorrom (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato For my taste, that suggestion is still too close to the self-description. What does "discussion of online figures" even mean? I'd wager that a regular wikipedia reader imagines something quite different when reading that, compared to what is happening at Kiwi Farms.

imho it's also missing who they target (which implicitly explains why they are targeting them, which seems like important information).

I'd also avoid using their derogatory vocabulary (at least in the lead). It doesn't add any value, but denigrates their victims. Zukorrom (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zukorrom: I agree with you on the removal of "lolcows" from the lede, as it adds nothing to the article, but am neutral on the other part, if anything because it would make the sentence a bit awkward. What if we added that in the second sentence, like this: "Their targets, usually transgender or neurodivergent people, are subject to... Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 11:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Zukorrom (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this change. At the very least, the site's focus on harassing trans and neurodivergent people needs to be somewhere in the lede. Jenny Death (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be implicitly saying anything. Is "minorities" supported by the source? Is there a better term that can be used? I think the general audience would only associate that term with people of color when what you are seeming to mean is the mentally ill or developmentally disabled? --Equivamp - talk 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"minorities" is already in the main article, supported by two sources. But Isabelles suggestion seems good to me, and I don't think there are any objections to it. It's definitely a huge improvement over the current phrasing. Zukorrom (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

These recommendations look good to me—the available sourcing has changed a lot in the past few weeks and this lead reflects that well. I think it's probably also worth adding something about Keffals to the lead, given how much of the coverage focuses on her and her campaign to draw attention to the site and pressure Cloudflare into dropping them as a customer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Absolutely should not be advertising alternative domains or assisting with people finding this site. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I disagree this is precisely the type of thing that we need to waste time with.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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) ...so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted. I'm honestly speechless. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC) ...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) 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)

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)

+1 support here. Tweedle (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Except this is explicitly discouraged and any who do partake in these activities are punished. Fernsong (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I'll start up an RfC in a sec, as disagreement still seems to be persisting. Endwise (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms

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)

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)

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)

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)

Strong oppose per above. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Strong oppose per above. PBZE (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose We should not link a site dedicated to the harassment of online comunities. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Oppose per above, particularly per Pilaz. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Strong oppose Per deadbeef and Stephanie921. Vacant0 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Kiwifarms is not defunct, and the site is still active at the onion link. Defunct sites, however, are usually linked, such as: Silk Road (marketplace). Serafart (talk) (contributions) 04:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  There's a 0% chance we're linking the literal dark web over Wikipedia. Dennis Dartman (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Quite literally that was done for the Silk Road, check the previous diff's of it, here is one in 2012 when the site was still online. Tweedle (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  well we already do it for other articles, this should be no different. besides, they are hosting on the clearnet again on a domain they already owned Serafart (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

@User:Autumnontape completely agreed Stephanie921 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment In addition to my previous support, I would like to mention this village pump: [[6]], 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Past tense?

Since KiwiFarms got taken down by Cloudflare and the outcry succeeded, and AFAIK there are no plans for the owner of the website to re-host it, when would it be permissible for all the verbs in this article to be changed to past tense? Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

ETA, I'd put the word "harassment" before "discussion" in the lead part (see above discussion). Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Follow the sources. If they start talking about KF in past tense, we should -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The website is still online on an alternative domain, just that nobody wants to link to it. Wikicannibal (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The server (185.178.208.168) has remained online. The URL DNS records routed through cloudflare were blocked (kiwifarms.[CENSORED]/, kiwifarms.[CENSORED]/, and kiwifarms.[CENSORED]/) as of Sep 4, 2022, but as they propagate to DDoS-GUARD (like the russian domain kiwifarms.[CENSORED]/) they will presumably resolve again. I would never post to that website, and the people who do seem horrible, but Wikipedia is uncensored and those are the facts as of right now. Correction: Wikipedia is censored. Editors receive the following message: "Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following 4 links have triggered a protection filter: kiwifarms.[CENSORED], kiwifarms.[CENSORED], kiwifarms.[CENSORED] and kiwifarms.[CENSORED]". Interesting. A historic precedent on Wikipedia has occurred. Habanero-tan (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a "historic precedent"; there are lots of other sites on the English Wikipedia blacklist. Funcrunch (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I just kicked off another one of those massive free-speech political debates... but I'm sure that the site restrictions on obviously hate-posting and violence-inciting communities or propaganda can hardly considered "censorship," now, can it?

Wikipedia did not "become censored" because of this moment, but we all know how bad the people who say so are at checking their facts, now, do we? Dennis Dartman (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking forward to the argument about how we should allow Wikipedia to become overrun with spam, porn, and phishing links all in the name of free speech... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for the wording of the lead

I'd put the word "harassment" before "discussion" in the lead part (see above discussion). Dennis Dartman (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Source in Russian newspaper Kommersant (a reliable source per WP:RSP) [7] ″Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

They're still on the Tor network. It's not defunct. --Chillabit (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@User:Hemiauchenia good point, ty. And I didn't know they were still active on Tor Stephanie921 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request: Cloudflare campaign

Hi all! There's consensus emerging on this in Cloudflare campaign, so I'd just like to make an edit request while we're at it:

Following Kiwi Farms' harassment campaign against Sorrenti, in August 2022 a campaign was started to try to convince Cloudflare to stop providing services to the site. (some references here)
+ NBC News claims this was done in order to enable "debilitating virtual attacks" against Kiwi Farms. <ref>{{cite news |first1=Ben |last1=Collins |first2=Kat |last2=Tenbarge |date=2022-09-02
|title=Anti-trans stalkers at Kiwi Farms are chasing one victim around the world. Their list of targets is growing. |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-keffals-anti-trans-rcna44834|access-date=2022-09-06}}</ref>

Holzklöppel (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Done! Tweedle (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request.

Can someone please add an inline citation of refenrence 35 and 36 on "In September 2022, Kiwi Farms' DDoS protection, provided by Cloudflare, was cancelled after users engaged in doxxing and swatting of transgender and pro-LGBTQ people." It probably needs it for verifiability. Ananinunenon (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)