Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suicide of Near

I'm going to move this to the talk page per Primefac. @PhotographyEdits, Susmuffin, Berrely, and Blakegripling ph: I think that you are the most recent editors to the page, so tagging you here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• So far the arguments for including it center around coverage while the arguments against center around there being no confirmation of the death, if I understand properly. (I keep this page on my watch list, so thought I'd go ahead and start a discussion to get things rolling.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Here's the coverage thus far:

1. Kotaku
2. Nintendo Life
3. GameRant

I don't know if I missed anything, I'm trying to stick to just the sites known to be RS on here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So far there are 2 sources (of which I find reliable) that talk about the sucicide and Kiwi Farm's association, and I'm not sure if there's any specific policy on this. Maybe WP:BLPCRIME is of use? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Tentative with GameRant, they often overdramaticise stories, and their sister site, ScreenRant is generally unreliable with BLP related news per WP:RSP — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't edit super frequently on game topics so I sometimes forget which are or aren't usable when they pop up so frequently and visibly in a search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My largest concern here is the lack of confirmation. An individual made a series of posts that implied they were going to take their life, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and which is tragic in its own right. I know we may never get true proof-of-death, which is always an issue with these sorts of topics (be it a natural death, divorce, date of birth, or other things that don't usually get widely reported as part of a person's normal life). This could have been a cry for help, or only an attempt (i.e. they could be in the hospital now recovering), or they backed out at the last minute and are too ashamed to resurface online (the list goes on, and less charitable, so I'll stop there).

There certainly could be room for including it as a "look what Kiwi did to this person" (i.e. the posts, the response, etc), but do we then include every such instance that makes the press? Primefac (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe then the wording could be changed to make it sound less definitive? “In June 2021, following a series of posts claiming they were going to take their own life, SNES emulation developer "Near" was reported to have taken their own life due to harrasement received from Kiwi Farms” or something similar to that. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if it meets our requirements. Kiwi Farms is mentioned in passing in the Kotaku article. Meanwhile, the Nintendo Life article does not actually mention it. Instead, one of the embedded tweets discusses it. I do not feel that there is enough usable content here at this time. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

According to someone close to Near on Twitter, the police confirmed their death. In addition, supposedly the story was reported on Nippon TV, but I do not yet have a source for this. --73.78.27.163 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, although it's very likely, we have no way of 100% confirming this. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully (from an RS perspective) if it's actually on Nippon TV someone else will pick it up. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a screen capture, if it helps. --73.78.27.163 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a photoshop by a malevolent party. Aside from the transphobic language used in the overlays ("Deaths: 1, mortality rate: 41% (and rising)", "41%" being a buzzword on transphobic sites like Kiwi Farms): The "reaction shot" in the bottom left corner is a 2017 (or older) picture of Masatoshi Hamada, a famous Japanese comedian. As ubiquituous as live reactions are on Japanese TV, news almost never have reaction boxes, and certainly not with still images of comedians. 85.212.42.198 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There's another coverage by an RS:

1. Video Games Chronicle

On another note, GameRant is deemed unreliable on WP:VG/S (if it has any relevance here), also with what Berrely has mentioned above. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's just a rehash of the NintendoLife article, fwiw. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's true. I'm just adding to the list of coverage we have so far. But to a certain extent, you can also argue that the articles are all more and less the same since they're all using almost the same primary sources (i.e. Near's tweets, the mutual friend's tweets). VGC just decided to cite Nintendo Life.

By the way, it seems that the Nintendo Life's article as well as Kotaku has an update where the mutual friend had spoken to the police department. So take note of this, everyone. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Zero actual proof of him killing himself other than some google doc that literally anyone could make up. Probably best to take this off until there is some actual real-world proof of death Honey-badger24 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC) I can confirm that David Kirk Ginder alias Byuu/Near was cremated today in Tokyo. I have photographic evidence of his funeral from colleagues that attended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricfrog (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Looks like the original google doc was deleted anyway. Didn't the police confirmed Near's death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.136.155 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No. The guy who posted the doc claims to have contacted the police and confirmed his death, but the police in Japan will not just tell any random person information like that due to the very strict personal information and privacy laws we have here ( I've lived in Japan for the past 20+ years). So, Héctor Martín Cantero is mistaken at best (maybe his language skills suck?) Or more likely, lying. What reason he has to lie is unknown. But, I think this is all just a LARP by someone who wants to get Kiwi Farms taken down even though they've done nothing illegal at all Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a RS casting doubt on it, feel free to provide it. But right now we have multiple reliable sources credulously reporting Cantero's story, and no contradictory sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Where are these sources? What is their proof other than Cantero, who claims to have confirmed, which is basically impossible to do unless he is family. The only sources that seem to be linked are places like Kotaku and Vice etc. Who bring no new evidence at all as proof. What are the reliable sources you're talking about? I genuinely want to know, because this case interests me. I'm not claiming to have any sources. I'm just saying ONE guy saying something in a tweet should not be taken at face value. Especially when it seems rather improbable. There's ZERO actual proof either way. So why is this article treating it as fact?Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Answered below so as to not have two threads going at once. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Also "Cantero subsequently reported he had spoken to police who confirmed Near's death on June 27, 2021." this is heresay. There is no proof other than Cantero saying he did it. This should be re-worded to: "Cantero subsequently claimed he had spoken to police who confirmed Near's death on June 27, 2021." Otherwise anyone could Tweet something like "Near isn't dead, he's actually an alien and he just phoned home" and you'd have to put it in here. One tweet claiming something that is pretty much impossible to have done isn't something that should be on here. Maybe even removing the whole part about Near would be better until actual proof either way has been released. At the moment there's no concrete proof at all other than one guy making claims that are quite frankly very hard to believe. Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CLAIM. The statement is being accurately attributed rather than presented as a 100% statement of fact, but there is so far no reliably-sourced doubt as to its accuracy. Regarding "anyone could tweet...", that's not true—someone would have to tweet that and then reliable sources would have to report upon it as a credible claim. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cantero subsequently reported is a neutral, accurate statement of fact. It does not give undue authority to Cantero as a source of verification for Near's death - in fact, avoiding doing so is why I changed it yesterday. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia does not allow original research, so your 20 years living in Japan isn't useful for changing this article. --Equivamp - talk 01:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

By that logic Cantero's research is also original research, so why is that left in? Literally EVERY link used in regards to Near's alleged suicide in this article just links to Cantero's Tweets. They bring no new information at all. They just circle back to his tweets about it. So, Wikipedia uses unverified information from Tweets as a valid source of information now?Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read the policy. If a reliable source repeated your statements about Japanese law and used them to cast doubt on Cantero's credibility, we could use those too, but so far it appears they have not. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you're fine with having an article up that is based on heresay, you go with it. It just makes this site look dumbHoney-badger24 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So, if one guy tweets something, and some other news sites pick it up and run with it without checking anything (which seems to have happened here, because there's been no actual proof either way), you're supposed to go with that??? Trusting Kotaku and Vice who have added nothing to the story is weird. At least wait until a reputable news service picks it up and looks into the claims Honey-badger24 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If reliable news sources report that someone has died based Cantero's tweets, then we can say things like "according to Cantero, Near died by suicide" (and we are currently attributing the statement in such a way). When the RS independently confirm it, we can remove the attribution. We leave it up to reliable sources to determine a statement's credibility, and they seem comfortable with Cantero's claims. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

David Kirk Gilbert alias Near/Byuu was cremated on July 15th in Tokyo and was attended by some of his colleagues. I have photographic evidence I can provide to any of the authors of this pageElectricfrog (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We require reliable, independent sources, so photographs like you are describing are not usable. There are already reliable sources reporting his death (and no contradictory ones). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparently Joshua Moon (owner of KF) made a few statements about the alleged suicide, perhaps it would be wise to include them within this article? --Jimmy Jimsson (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's helpful to provide reliable sources to support what you think ought to be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

During the DDOS attack on Kiwifarms, Null (the owner) left up a text statement. Such as "Nobody knows who Byuu is. Even after years, nobody knows his last name. Nobody knows where he lives. Nobody knows where he works. He is completely anonymous and even now it is not possible to do a wellness check on him." https://web.archive.org/web/20210701075204/https://kiwifarms(DOT)net/ 174.30.12.125 (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this (coupled with the lack of evidence showing any targeted harassment from the site itself) should at least warrant the change in "Following the June 2021 suicide of Near, a software developer who had been a target of harassment from Kiwi Farms users..." to "Following the June 2021 suicide of Near, a software developer who had been allegedly a target of harassment from Kiwi Farms users...". I don't agree with Kiwifarms or their actions towards other people on the web, but I'd also like to keep the facts straight and free of bias. JungleEntity (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources report the harassment, and none have cast doubt on the existence of harassment from the site. Moon's statement is not sufficient to do so—he would [say that], wouldn't he? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is more information about Near's suicide, from USA Today (link is from archive.today because they're paywalling it): [1]. Ruxnor 💬 02:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the US State Department, no American Citizen died in Japan in late June. Other countries have late June deaths, like Mexico but there is only one American death in Japan on June 11th. Is the the State Department of the United States of America a good enough of a source for Wikipedia to cite? https://i.imgur.com/0YtehhC.png https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/death-abroad1/death-statistics.html 174.30.12.36 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Another proposal about the "History" section and CWC

The history section honestly reads extremely awkward and confusing. It is quite obvious the author desperately tried to not name CWC in it (e.g. "the name was adapted from its earlier title, "CWCki Forums"" - unfamiliar readers will not understand this sentence at all without any explanation of what "CWCki" stands for or even is; and that's despite the wiki being mentioned one sentence before that one). I understand the individual has been heavily harassed for over 14 years and Wikipedia wants to avoid including him in any article, but so have people in other events of high significance who are still named in corresponding articles related to them (e.g. Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, or Rose Christo in this very article in the context of My Immortal). It also, once again, is inconsistent when someone with the description of "a Canadian woman" named in three sources (of which two are by the same author) seems to be relevant enough to be named in the article, when several other sources already used in the article for other content explicitly reference the CWC situation. That's on top of more sources popping up in the last few weeks that further discuss KiwiFarms history in the context of CWC due to recent events.

Other issues:

• the existing description of CWC is badly sourced. What source calls her a "webcomic artist"? "Online personality" would be more accurate, especially for her activity in recent years which barely included her webcomics, and fits sources on the history of Kiwifarms much more accurately.
• "Despite having the word "Kiwi" in its name, Kiwi Farms has no connection with New Zealand; the name was adapted from its earlier title, "CWCki Forums"." should fall under WP:COPYPASTE, it's barely edited from the source ("Despite having 'Kiwi' in its name, the website has no association with New Zealand; rather, the name was adapted from its former title of 'CWCki Forums'."). I haven't checked whether other parts of the article are like this.

Here are some suggestions:

• complete rewrite - as discussed, a lot of the confusion comes from explictly naming things like "Sonichu" and "CWCki", mixed in with some WP:OR to make it work. If this needs to be the status of this article, it needs to be improved and a more proper description of the situation that is understandable to someone reading this who has never heard of CWC.
• remove any names from the article, unless they are notable by themselves, to make things at least consistent (e.g. Terryburry, Near). I understand the harassment perspective, but this should expand to other individuals if possible.
• rewrite the paragraph to include CWC. Two of the sources used for Terryburry explicitly discuss CWC, and others have popped up since then that explicitly discuss CWC in the context of Kiwifarms's founding (Yahoo, Business Insider). This would be my personal suggestion, as I don't see any issue with it, especially since this page is already protected and I can't think of a good way to rewrite the paragraph as suggested above, which however is absolutely necessary at its given degree of quality.

Small addendum: a rework of sources would be nice, Newshub.co.nz is seemingly not accessible from some EU countries.--79.205.179.39 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to review the various other discussions that have been had recently about adding details about her to Wikipedia. I will make a few wording changes to address your concerns about confusing language, but I'm not going to be adding her name or additional details about her. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussions you mentioned were concerned about several issues which do not apply anymore and I also referenced. Firstly, almost all sources discussing Kiwifarms also discuss CWC to an extent, and vice-versa. The discussion above that you referenced has not brought up the aforementioned Yahoo and BI articles, which are additional sources for both this and the history of Kiwifarms (the Yahoo article even explicitly referencing your concern about no reputable source documenting CWC's history). There is also this article from Daily Dot in 2019 discussing Kiwifarms and mentioning CWC in the same context as the suicide of Chloe Sagal, which I haven't seen brought up yet. Not including CWC by means of WP:BLPNAME does clearly not apply with several sources explicitly discussing CWC in several contexts of Kiwifarms, even when the situation has nothing to do with one of the two subjects, and naming CWC - there is very arguably more sources than on the Terryberry situation, in fact. Second, I don't see how WP:BLP even applies to this case, simply naming the individual for much-needed context like several other people in the article is not biographic. I don't think any source avoids naming CWC, quite the opposite especially after recent events. It is not Wikipedia's role to decide whether or not including the name by media is appropriate or not, the name can be sourced from several reputable websites, including sources already used in the article, without issues. Thirdly, WP:BLP1E, which you also brought up, is exactly what I pointed out as being applied inconsistently. If you want to only include living people, then why is Rose Christo named? She also has been victim of harassment from Kiwifarms due to the situation described in this article. Yet nobody on the My Immortal talk page has brought up any comparable concerns, nor has the name been removed from this article despite those concerns and you seemingly even agreeing in the discussion you referenced. Considering that and no urgency on this issue, I honestly do not see any risk from also naming CWC in this article. Additionally, WP:BLP1E is about being biographic and not shortly mentioning the person to a topic they are clearly relevant to as attended by several sources. This seems even more inconsistent to me considering someone like Terry A. Davis has a full, highly detailed article dedicated to him beyond any of his development achievements, despite arguably being another victim of internet harassment and having received notability mostly for that. Fourthly, I am not trying to discuss adding a full biography of CWC but simply naming the person so the paragraph can be written in a somewhat understandable manner without having to jump through hoops and making it incomprehensible for anyone who never heard of Sonichu or doesn't understand what CWC stands for. I understand your concerns due to some people wanting this kind of "recognition", but that should not be what leads Wikipedia's quality. Lastly, the current version still is just horrendous and full of WP:OR. Where does the "imageboard" claim come from (that's not part of the NY Mag source)? It still calls her an "artist" without any source. And why not just call her an "online personality" when this is attested by several sources? This response has been incredibly long already, but I'll try to provide an alternative in a follow-up. --79.205.179.39 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You might have more success in getting people to believe that you are here in good faith and not simply looking to further the harassment campaign against her if you didn't repeatedly misgender her in your comments. Just a tip. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's honestly difficult to keep consistent while going through sources and discussing her 2007 era (when she did not come out yet and for which I misgendered), especially as a non-native speaker. I've corrected the instances, let me know if I missed anything. I also avoided voicing concerns about your agenda not being completely unbiased based on perceived inconsistencies in your application of WP:BLP, so it would be great if we can assume good faith in this discussion and improve the article.--79.205.179.39 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add one more source, which is an academic one. Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment discusses online harassment and explicitly mentions and discusses the dynamics of Kiwi Farms several times in a multitude of contexts. Besides detailed discussions on other topics unrelated to the site's history, it also has the date of the renaming as 2014 (referencing this article) as well as once again explicitly names CWC in the context of the founding of Kiwi Farms. The book is not freely available online, but the excerpts can be found through Google Books.--212.184.130.250 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the pronouns. I think there's certainly a discussion to be had about removing the names of other BLPs from this page, frankly. But "names of other living people are being improperly included in this article and so CWC's ought to be as well" is not a compelling argument to add her name. Thanks for the source link, that looks like it could be promising. Will try to find access to it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a good source! I've added a {{refideas}} template above, and will try to add some details from it this evening. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion that would not include CWC and improve on the discussed issues: "The website originated from 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica communities focusing on harassment and trolling of online personalities, beginning around 2007. In 2009, members who felt that the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry about about one such personality was not detailed or accurate enough, founded "CWCki" (named after that person's initials) which initially focused on documenting that person exclusively. The forums of that website, "CWCki Forums", later became Kiwifarms. Despite containing the word "kiwi", the forums have no connection with New Zealand." I don't think there is a sensitive way to not generalise somewhat inaccurately while keeping this section somewhat comprehensible, hence my argument above. If there is a source going into more detail of the renaming (I think it was due to similar pronunciation + "farming" more people like CWC), that would be great - that last sentence does not really feel like it adds a lot by itself.--79.205.179.39 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't prohibit sources not available everywhere in the world (nor ones which are paywalled or offline, so as long as they are publicly published somewhere). I've reworded further so hopefully there's no trace of close paraphrasing remaining (thanks for the tip-off). We will not get consensus here to mention the person you are referring to, and Quinn and Christo are different people in different situations with different sources relating to them. — Bilorv (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that "webcomic artist" is a reasonable description for the initial victim here. I would strongly object to changing it to "online personality" as that description would serve to legitimise their obsessive interest in her. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sonichu isn't a webcomic though. It is a regular comic book that the creator would shill online on (Redacted) personal website.----Mr. 123453334 (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Redacted. Enough with the misgendering! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That description is used in some sources and much more accurately reflects CWC's online presence. Even the NY Mag article used as a source calls her a "self-described “artist, gamer and creative type”" and does not mention any webcomics at all let alone calls her a comic artist or webcomic artist. If you have a better term that accurately describes her or a source, feel free to provide it.--79.205.179.39 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I did some more research on this today on sources beyond those relating to Kiwifarms. I can find only one source calling CWC a "webcomic artist", which is this Newsweek article - however, that one also calls her an "internet personality" in the title. Besides that I can't find anything using this identification. Variants of online personality or online creator are by far the most common identifications, and besides that maybe Vlogger / Youtuber. "Creator of Sonichu" also seems to be used rather often, but as discussed above in vast detail this seems confusing and honestly even somewhat contradictory and mocking to include one of the reasons for harassment while refusing to just name the person. If you really want to avoid "online personality" and there are objective reasons to do so, at least something like "artist and content creator" would seem much more accurate in reflecting CWC's description in media and secondary sources on Kiwifarms.--212.184.130.250 (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, Daily Mail and NY Post are not usable sources (WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing the description slightly if a supported and accurate phrase can be found. "Artist and content creator" seems reasonable. I agree that "Creator of Sonichu" is excessively specific and that most readers would have no idea what that even means. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Internet Artist" might be good as well, but I'd go for "Content creator". It has digital connotations nowadays and while CWC didn't actually draw her art digitally (at least not to my knowledge) the primary way she distributed her art was the web. JungleEntity (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally go with "Internet personality" and/or "Webcomic creator". I don't have any issue personally with Sonichu being named in-article, given that is what Chris is known for, but I'd rather have Chandler's name in there than the comic's if there's a choice. Given it's a forum originally named after, and based on Chris-Chan there's literally no excuse not to have that info. I have to say though, the lengths people have gone to not to name a incredibly public and well known figure is sort of funny. A Simple Fool (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We should call her whatever she was referred to at the time it was named. "Internet personalities" didn't really exist (as a term, anyway) in 2007; "webcomic artist" is probably the closest and most accurate term. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "webcomic artist" is best. — Bilorv (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. The "internet personality" part, with commissions, and live streams didn't come until a few years back, well after Chandler became well known. A Simple Fool (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Webcomic artist is probably one of the easiest terms to use since the comics were posted online at one point in time, so CWC would fall under that banner. Internet personality is kind of a problematic term since her infamy stems from the various trolling sagas. It's just kind of a little loaded. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Questionable situation surrounding Near's death

According to the US government, there were no deaths of US Citizens in Japan during the entire month of June, suicide or otherwise. Unless Near's friends never reported his death to the local police, I'm starting to feel pretty suspicious of the situation. This feels worth looking into. BasicSID (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Source: The US Citizen Deaths Overseas database reveals there were 0 deaths of US Citizens in Japan during the month of June 2021.

If Near was not American, then the US government would not have them in their database. I see nothing that says that they fit into that category. Primefac (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hector Martin, the person who initially confirmed Near's death, has actually said that Near is from the USA, but has also claimed the US State Dept's stats aren't complete I don't know why he thinks this. He also claims in the same thread that USA Today confirmed it with their boss. While I wish their was a clear cut confirmation on Near's death, I have no opinion on it being kept in the article or not.JungleEntity (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Near provided a photo of their US passport prior to the claimed suicide. BasicSID (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If there is RS reporting that directly suggests that Near is not dead, it could be used to contradict the RS reporting that they are. However, drawing our own conclusions from State Department data and guesses about Near's citizenship is WP:OR. Leave it to secondary RS to sort that all out, and we'll reflect what they say.

Furthermore, right now the article states that 1) Martin reported that Near had died by suicide; 2) Martin spoke to police and said that police had confirmed the death; and 3) that USA Today reported Near's death after confirming it with their former boss; all of those statements are still true regardless of whether or not Near died. But we're not going to start adding faked-death implications to the article without any credible secondary sourcing just because Kiwi Farms users are speculating. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Death Counter?

The article here states that, "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." I have found no such death counter on their website. Either I am missing it, the source cited is incorrect, or no such death counter exists in the source "Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment". Does anyone know what is happening here? If it is wrong, can someone please edit it? Mortal Crispy (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Source snippet. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the source is from the book. I still have no clue where this counter actually is on the site though. Perhaps if it was a temporary thing on Kiwifarms, it should be mentioned on the article. If it is still on there, it should be cited as a source. Otherwise, the statement should be removed. Mortal Crispy (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The article says that Kiwi Farms "has celebrated such deaths with a counter on the website". It makes no claims about whether they currently do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This interested me, and the book "Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment" actually cited the death counter claim to https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/chloe-sagal-death-1202858068/. However, on the article, it has no mention of a online "death-counter". Does the initial source's ("Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment") claim of a death-counter being on the website still hold merit if the very article it uses as a source to that claim has no mention of it? JungleEntity (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a good observation. I was just going to say that the tense on this page be edited so that it is more obvious that the counter is not there anymore, but this revelation may require something else. Mortal Crispy (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The book has four references for that statement, which includes more than just the death counter claim. I can't access all of the references; if the sources is reliable, I don't necessarily need to. The current language in the article has the counter claim in past tense, which is appropriate. Firefangledfeathers 14:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean we just say '...a counter that used to be on the website...' instead of what is there now. The current version makes it look like it is still there to me. Assuming "Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment" has their sources right that is. Mortal Crispy (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The current text does not imply to me that there is still a counter: we use "has celebrated" rather than "celebrates". To say or imply that there is no longer a counter, we must have a source that says so (who's to say you've not just missed where the counter is? Or that the counter doesn't appear on Wednesdays only? etc.). In any case, we strongly prefer secondary sources (books about KiwiFarms) over primary sources (KiwiFarms) because we are an encyclopedia (tertiary source). — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it is so hard to cite any of the scarce records of the timer, then would it be appropriate to just remove mention of it altogether to avoid confusion? Keeping such a minute detail on here does not add much to the article, especially if it is chronologically dubious. Mortal Crispy (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no dubiousness. It's reported in an expert source. The point of relying on secondary sources is that we are not expected to investigate each fact ourselves (far too onerous). If we were to remove facts of this level of sourcing or less than we would be cutting most content out of most articles. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that the source itself is not dubious, just the context of the counter not being there makes the whole thing confusing. If anything, it just makes that one fact of the source outdated. Sorry if the way I said that seemed like I was casting doubt on the validity of the source in general. It still seems appropriate to do something about it though, considering the death counter fact is no longer applicable to the present. Mortal Crispy (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to adopt a historical perspective on topics. Something shouldn't be removed as "outdated" because if it is covered in a reliable source then that shows it is of historical significance. The article isn't aiming to describe how Kiwi Farms looks today—more along the lines of what effect it has had on the world as a whole throughout its existence. An easy example would be Myspace (though that article quality isn't great), which is much better known for its role in 2003-2012 than 2012-2021, so the article mostly focuses on that. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

So we can't remove the death counter bit because it speaks to history, we can't update the quote to say "...counter that used to be on the website" because no source bothered to report on something so unimportant disappearing, but we can keep a quote that implies that the death counter is still there despite the fact that anyone can go to the website and see it is not? Is there anything we can do about this? Mortal Crispy (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence you are objecting to doesn't imply that a counter is still there. It implies exactly what it says, which is that there was a point in time at which a counter appeared. It makes no comment on whether a counter still exists, because there's apparently no sourcing saying one way or another. As for "is there anything we can do about this?", "we" (the editing community) can do anything we reach consensus upon as far as changes to articles, but it typically has to start with someone making a compelling argument for why it ought to be removed, despite there being a reliable source to verify it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

we can keep a quote that implies that the death counter is still there – I don't know why you'd raise a point that I already addressed, to which you replied "Fair enough", and expect me to say something new. In some cases better wording will reduce the amount of misreading of a particular passage, but in some cases the onus is simply on the reader to parse the English language correctly. — Bilorv (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Add distinguish to New Zealand video game developer Ninja Kiwi

There should be a not to be confused with Ninja Kiwi, a New Zealand video game developer because their names are similar in the sense that they both contain the word “Kiwi” From D0nk M3m3s (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced these names are sufficiently similar to cause frequent confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"near did not commit suicide"

there is no death certificate, so why is this states as if it is a fact? 213.55.225.51 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

this thread (permalink) explains it. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This sub-heading is false - Near is confirmed to have committed suicide and Kiwifarms was implicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.95.86.101 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. Nobody is convinced by the denials, which I assume to be completely insincere anyway. The article is written on the basis that the suicides are real and it reports the matter as accurately as is possible given that not all of the details are known. That won't change unless new facts come to light. I know it is galling to see them but it is best not to get wound up by the unsupported denials. They don't matter. Anyway, I've put the sub-heading in quotes so that nobody mistakes it for anything being said in Wikipedia's voice. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we know any Russian speaking admins?

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.

---

I'm sure that all the Russian speaking admins are having a very tough time at the moment with war related issues but I was kindly reminded that we still have some mentions the primary KF victim on Russian Wikipedia and in Wikidata. I wonder whether there is any way to enlist the help of a Russian speaking editor, ideally an admin, who can help remove (and preferable salt) this?

Here is what we have:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98406706

  Includes deadname and link to videos harassing her as well as other information that likely constitutes doxxing. I have nominated that for deletion here: here. I have no experience with Wikidata deletions so I don't know how well that is likely to go.

• ru:Чендлер, Кристин Уэстон

  This is already nominated for deletion. It looks like previous attempts at deletion have stalled or failed so I have my doubts whether anything will actually happen unless it is given a push.

• ru:n:Категория:Кристин Уэстон Чендлер

  This is perhaps the most disgusting one. Based on Google Translation, it seems to misgender her throughout and to report the allegations against her as if they were established as facts. It is framed as a "category" but it contains only one item, which is coverage of an incident completely unrelated to this individual and seems intended to smear by false association.

If anybody can help here then please do. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the Russian article on the primary KF victim is deadnaming the individual, at least any differently than English Wikipedia (for example, the English Wikipedia lists the former names of The Wachowskis, much in a similar way that the Russian article does to the individual in question.) Russian Wikipedia might have a transphobia problem (such as listing the Wachowskis on The Matrix article as "the Wachowski Brothers", although this may not have mal-intent as the Wachowski's were pre-transition during the release of the original Matrix and the actual Wachowskis article's title is "The Wachowski Sisters")

Regardless, if you think Russian Wikipedia still has a transphobia problem, I'd recommend going elsewhere to try and fix that issue, as I don't think that's in the scope of the Kiwi Farms article.

Edit: Looking at the Russian Matrix's talkpage, the change from "sister" to "brother" on the article was recent, and fueled by transphobia (and the hypothetical reasoning I gave above.) However, there is an ongoing discussion about reverting back to referring them as sisters, and I think it's an issue best left to the Russian Wikipedia itself.

JungleEntity (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• A bigger issue, in my mind is that the webcomic really shouldn't have any mention on RU Wikipedia beyond what we mention. The policy really ought to be the same; probably under the UCoC, it is.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Under Wikimedia's UCoC page, it's difficult to discern if the mentioning of the webcomic/artist breaks UCoC, as the Russian Wikipedia's article (ru:Чендлер, Кристин Уэстон) isn't targeted or derogatory in nature. Regardless, UCoC doesn't currently yet have a reporting or enforcement procedure.

  From what I can find, the reason that same person doesn't have an English Wikipedia article is WP:N or W:BLP, and those reasons could be used to delete ru:Чендлер, Кристин Уэстон so you're welcome to bring that up on Russian Wikipedia. - JungleEntity (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just some comments:

1. It's Wikidata policy that pretty much anything with a Wikipedia or Wikimedia project article gets an entry in Wikidata, so it can't be deleted unless the ruwiki and ruwikinews articles are deleted (which is unlikely). If the Wikidata item was deleted for some reason while the ruwiki/ruwikinews pages were still up, I'm sure some bot out there would notice and reinstate it.

2. The article on ruwiki has been up for deletion since August, and it seems like they are notable per ruwiki notability rules (particularly ru:ВП:ВИДЕОБЛОГЕРЫ). Each language wiki and project has its own notability and reliable sources rules (wow! so shocking), and trying to skirt them like this doesn't feel like a good idea to me. Also, Wikidata's notability guideline is loose in general; plenty of things that don't have Wikipedia articles have items in there and are perfectly valid and fine per Wikidata rules (ex. various scientific articles, literary works, some people). wizzito | say hello! 17:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Allowing each language wiki to set their own notability rules and general loose Wikidata rules are good in the long run. We should not mess with other wikis just because some of their content doesn't meet our notability standards (but may be actually notable in their respective language/country). It's just a unwanted side-effect (at least, for English Wikipedia) that people like the victim in question get articles. - JungleEntity (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"We should not mess with other wikis just because some of their content doesn't meet our notability standards" - exactly! That is what I feel that DanielRigal is doing; trying to mess with ruwiki and Wikidata simply because an article on this person probably meets their notability standards. It's very WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior to me. wizzito | say hello! 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would remind you that the Russian language Wikipedia is still operated by Wikimedia, which is American, and American laws on harassment and stalking still apply. As for "I don't like it", I freely admit that I don't like people using Wikipedia to harass vulnerable people with the intention to induce them to commit suicide. It's called being a decent human being. More people should try it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of what you linked from Russian Wikipedia breaks American harassment laws. The Russian Wikipedia article isn't derogatory or targeted, I honestly don't see the Russian Wikinews category saying anything unproven, as legal documents for both of the arrests mentioned are easily found online (although it wouldn't hurt to put a source). Wikidata is simply hosting the videos. It might not be the best to host those videos, but it isn't taking any stance in the situation. JungleEntity (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As JungleEntity pretty much said, which part of the ruwiki article is "harass[ing] a vulnerable person" and "induc[ing] them to commit suicide"? I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that an article on this person is acceptable on other wikis, but as Isabelle said, this is probably not the place to discuss it. wizzito | say hello! 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this space should be reserved for discussion of how to improve the English Wikipedia article. If you want to continue this discussion, I'd recommend either moving to an editor's talk page or maybe to meta:Forum, where discussion about the various Wikimedia projects is hosted. Isabelle ^🔔 22:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you please explain the name "CWIKi"?

Is this code or what? The name should be explained. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.136.185 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It already is explained - they were trolling an artist, and those are their initials. No further explanation is necessary. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain how their initials are five letters and the last one is lower case. 185.31.98.35 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The actual name as mentioned in the article is "CWCki": three are initials and the last two letters are part of a pun on the word wiki, Hawaiian for "quick", and used in the modern day to refer to a website that is primarily written by its readers (Wikipedia is unrelated to this hate site, but the "wiki" in it has the same word meaning). — Bilorv (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there wikipedia policy in place on why the person in the initialism is never mentioned at all? Given their extensive media coverage and the original name of the website, a small mention in this article seems warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.45.37 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If I may very briefly summarise the consensus of the previous discussions here: We do not wish to participate in a harassment campaign against a vulnerable individual for both legal and moral reasons. The person in question is not famous and does not need to be named in order for us to document Kiwi Farms behaviour. I just did a quick Google news check and not only is she no more famous than the last time I checked, there has been next to no ongoing coverage of her which strongly suggests that the claims about her did not stand up to scrutiny. We are here to document what Kiwi Farms is. We are not here to do their dirty work for them. For further details please see the archived discussions. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'll also add that she's also very and obviously mentally ill so unless there is a lot of coverage establishing notability, it would pose a huge BLP issue to name her in the article. (I'm aware of the letters she's sent out while she was in prison.) Besides, the site isn't really known for that person anymore. Most of the time when the site is covered in the news that person is a footnote and sometimes not even named, assuming that they're mentioned at all. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel like the artist is potentially notable, but any mention would immediately violate BLP, and there's simply no way around that. Just because a person is potentially notable enough to warrant a mention doesn't mean that they should be. In fact, we should be extremely cautious about including information about living persons, particularly if they are mentally ill or a victim of harassment. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The artist in question is now in a secure health facility and his trolls are being starved of attention. Do NOT give into their demands to expand upon the whole “saga” of “CWC” unless it strictly complies with WP standards. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:952A:47D0:5A94:FDE9 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the My Immortal fanfic really deserve as much attention as the other controversies?

The other controversies relate to provoked suicides and potential connections to / response to a terrorist incident. The authorship of My Immortal (which, as I understand it, is itself of a sort of meme notability and not due to being a serious work) seems to really pale in comparison to the other stuff. So what if something interesting was discovered on the website, that's what it's supposed to do. On the Daily Mail wikipedia page we don't list everything they ever discovered, what is important about the author of this meme fanfic work?! 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• It basically all boils down to coverage of the event. The purported authorship gained a lot of coverage in the media and the site's involvement as far as the brother goes got its own fair share of coverage as well. It's enough to justify a subsection. As far as the other stuff the site has done or covered, very little of that gains enough coverage to justify inclusion here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  ok, that makes sense, thanks. 185.31.96.13 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• No problem! It's a reasonable question to ask! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 25 May 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think it would be more reasonable to cite cloudflares official reasoning, that being increasing threats of off site violence. BJackJS talk 22:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

September 4

The article says that the website was back online "intermittently" on September 4 with the Russian-based service provider DDoS-Guard. There is no mention of September 4 in the source. This looks like an original research. Xmp512 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I added that, it's from this AP article. It says "Sunday", which was Sep 4. Chillabit (talk) 01:53, 7 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.[2], 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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)

Shouldn't we say when in August the campaign was started? Xmp512 (talk) 02:05, 7 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)

Thanks! Holzklöppel (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)