Jump to content

Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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)
the kiwifarms site can be reached by its .onion and .top domains. itsme (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove picture of Joshua Moon.

The source of the picture is from a youtube video which has been removed and is not available on the internet archive there fore making it unverifiable. Not to mention the potential copyright issues that comes with it. Ananinunenon (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a Commons issue, which should be taken up by nominating File:KiwiJoshMoon.png for deletion if you feel it should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Just checked commons and someone has already marked it. Cheers. Ananinunenon (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Though the video itself is not archived, the actual licensing on the video itself is available on the archive. This clearly shows that it is under a CC license, which is non-revocable. There is no reason to suspect that the screenshot does not originate from the video in question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I checked the archive and saw the licence, my bad. However the point still stands that it cannot be verified without the video. WP:BLP Clearly states to that such content must strictly adhere to verifiability. Ananinunenon (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ananinunenon: There's nothing contentious about this picture. You might want to see WP:OI; it would be rather absurd to require images to be strictly verifiable, as many images of living people we use are not published in reliable sources. There's also File:Joshua Conner Moon.png that we could use, though I prefer the current image. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean. File:Joshua Conner Moon.png should probably be used then, a picture of someone in such a contention article holding a bible may not be the best idea from a NPOV perspective. Ananinunenon (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

exclusion from archive.org

see https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=List_of_websites_excluded_from_the_Wayback_Machine&diff=48927&oldid=48925 itsme (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought wikis weren't considered reliable sources. Dennis Dartman (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
You are quite correct that they're generally not, but I did not understand this to be a proposal for inclusion in the article--more of a general data point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I read it the same way. It's particularly relevant as some respondents in the RfC have referenced the possibility of including an infobox link to an archived version of the site. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
You could probably just source it to wayback; it should probably say there that it’s been excluded if you look for it. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Not just Internet Archive. At some point in the last twenty/thirty minutes, it seems that both Google's cache and the sentence extract they show next to the link have gone. The URL and thread/page name still appears, but not the rest of the content. No RS on this yet, but seems to be doing the rounds on Twitter. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw it mentioned in gizmodo earlier, though that was a twitter cite. Still, the screenshot clearly shows this is an intentional exclusion and not “404 thing not found” Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 8 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)
Well if it’s a mainstream, notable porn site with no malicious code or malware I don’t see how it wouldn’t be protected under WP:NOTCENSORED. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should ever link spam or phishing links, but Pornhub has a clickable link in the infobox, and we all know how the ads on THAT site can be suspicious... JungleEntity (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM in sources cited

In the spirit of trying to do no/less harm, I noticed that the title of one of the sources used (list-defined as "Insider-Colombo" in the wikitext) specifically names an individual that we are trying to avoid specifically identifying any further. The title itself is rather long and I think it could be cut short as "Kiwi Farms, the forum that has been linked to 3 suicides, was made to troll..." and ended with ellipses which avoids the name while still mostly preserving the title's meaning. Feels a bit like cherry picking/out of context but I think it might be the lesser evil. Thoughts? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The existence of Chris-chan's name is not something we need to hide, and thus we do not need to be bending over backwards to pretend she doesn't exist. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Revenge Porn"

I'm confused by the definition we're applying to the "leaking of explicit photos". In the forum, nothing private was leaked, simply a link to Keffals' former porn website was shared. To me that isn't revenge porn, rather finding someone's previous porn career and linking it. If she wanted the pictures and videos removed, she would have done so.

Before fiddling with the page though, I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions, as revenge porn tends to be the intimate leaking of photos or videos without the person's permission. Naihreloe (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say your issue in this instance is with the sources; The Hill uses the terminology explicitly and The Herald comes close enough that to my mind it is implied. Thus, for what it's worth, I think the wording should stay. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I'm finding the sources are being quite off the facts for this, I've already had one issue with a source accusing KF of something when they didn't and another claiming KF is funded by Trump. It's a bit of a mess! Naihreloe (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, this doesn't strike me as a factual error. While I grant you that it is quite possible to disagree on whether the conduct falls into a strict definition of "revenge porn," at least two reliable sources thought so, and therefore I think it is appropriate for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no "if x wanted it to be removed, x would have done so" on the internet. Even we sometimes don't accept deleting an article just because the subject wanted it to be deleted. Besides, if someone posted their address somewhere online ten years ago and someone posted this address online in order to harass the former, I would call that doxxing and the "nothing private was leaked" is just a BS argument. 0xDeadbeef 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
true, i'm just saying the site is quite recent (2013 for the eldest stuff, last updated in 2020), which made me believe that it's something she's aware of and allowed to exist on the internet. Naihreloe (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I think there is a difference between you posting your address some place obscure online years ago and someone digging it up to harass you, versus producing pornography and selling it for public consumption. You could argue that it counts as revenge porn because now the author doesn't want it out there, but history (and Wikipedia) has many creators that later came to regret their work and tried to scrub it off the face of the planet. Of course, the pornography produced by Keffals' is still copyrighted, so Kiwi Farms' is still illegally using it. JungleEntity (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It depends on how we're going to use the term. If it's in discussion here, then... maybe. If it's in the article, then probably not. There is strong evidence that they've obtained nudes and explicit videos from people who did not consent to them being shared/reposted to KiwiFarms. Not saying that they necessarily hacked anyone to get the images, just that they are using them in a way not intended by the creator. As far as them explicitly telling people to use them in trolling campaigns? That's where it gets shaky. They don't tell people to go out and target people, but at the same time they don't really discourage it in any effective way. They may tell someone that they should stop, but then still host images and information obtained by the person. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The users on KF strongly and consistently discourage others from harassing or in any way even interacting with anyone they discuss on the website. - LilySophie (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Your take is not supported by the sources, LilySophie. --Pokelova (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Signature split from hatted comment below
Off-topic bickering. Discuss the content, not each other. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
And that this is your first edit in several years after having previously been banned for a transphobic slur is concerning to say the least. --Pokelova (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
What is concerning is your conduct, which is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. Personal attacks are forbidden, while assuming good faith is encouraged: see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please refrain from behaving this way further. Bad conduct aside, the fact I stated is supported by looking at the forum and the statements by ReaderofthePack are neither supported by sources nor by reality, hence why I decided to give some clarification to further the discussion of how to improve the article. - LilySophie (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Noting your past behaviour in specific relevant areas is not a personal attack. As for your "look at the forum" idea, that violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. --Pokelova (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Calling someone "transphobic" is a personal attack. I ask you again to stop your personal attacks, or I will have to notify an administrator of your conduct. If you would like to familiarize yourself with the guidelines regarding conduct on Talk pages, you can see them here, including the rule to "comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. Discussing ways to improve articles does not fall under WP:PRIMARY - only including information in the article itself without it being taken from a reliable source would. - LilySophie (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Observing that you were banned for using a transphobic slur is not a "personal attack", I'm afraid. And your record of bans or blocks in relation to a relevant subject area is scarcely something you can suppress in this discussion by Karen-ing threatening to notify an administrator. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Which makes me wonder whether we could get additional and better sources that more accurately reflect the situation. If anybody would like to help search, that would be wonderful. - LilySophie (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the sources are fine, and accurately reflect the situation.
With respect to Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her and made death threats, that is what The Hill, New Zealand Herald, NBC News, and RNZ state. All of these are reliable sources, so the statement seems both verifiable and due.
With regards to users on KF strongly and consistently discourage others from harassing or in any way even interacting with anyone they discuss on the website that is demonstrably not true. The site was originally founded, under a different name, to stalk and harass an autistic webcomic artist Insider, 2021. The rename from the artist's initials to Kiwi Farms was in part due to the expansion to include the stalking and harassment of others. Harassment from users of the site has been the direct cause of at least three suicides; Chloe Sagal, Julie Terryberry, and Near (all sourced in the article). While current coverage naturally focuses on the campaign against the site, and the background that lead to its popularity, older coverage (USA Today, July 2021, Gizmodo, July 2021, Daily Dot, December 2020, Kotaku, January 2020, Daily Dot, August 2019, New York Intelligencer, July 2016) all note the site's dedication to harassment of its targets. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Each of these statements is easily proven to be incorrect and one of the people mentioned as having died isn't dead. That's why I think it would be great to find some better sources, so that the article can be nudged further towards reality and de-emphasize articles from the low-quality sources you mentioned. - LilySophie (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
one of the people mentioned as having died isn't dead -- that would be a fairly big deal for our article, can you substantiate that claim? Dumuzid (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure! No suicide was reported by japanese authorities for a person matching the description of the person known as "Near," not at the time when suicide was supposed to have happened, nor anywhere around that time. This is one example of a fact for which it would be neat to find a reliable source to include in the article. - LilySophie (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I doubt very much that anyone on this Talk page is interested in reading your original research, since we can't use it to decide about article content. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
And you have personally canvassed all possible records in Japan? Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
They are a matter of public record and have been canvassed quite easily, since the individual in question is not originally from Japan, and the number of suicides of persons living inside Japan but not born in Japan is very small and therefore easy to keep track of. - LilySophie (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
So that's a "no"? Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
LilySophie, your personal opinions - even things that you "know" or believe to be true - are irrelevant to the determination of Wikipedia content. What matters is the facts reported in the best available sources. Where your personal reality dicerges from the consensus reality documented in RS, WP only cares about the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, for sure. I'm not certain what you're talking about with that weird "consensus/personal reality" stuff, but it will be important to find good, reliable sources to include these facts in the article with. Thank you for reminding me! - LilySophie (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
In future you might want to lead with sourced statements, rather than unsubstantiated assertions of things you believe to be true. WP:OR statements aren't relevant to establishing article content, no matter how convinced you are of your own perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I should lead a discussion on how to potentially improve the article with sourced statements? That would be a bit redundant, wouldn't it? Since it would be easier to just insert the information and source into the article straight away in that case? - LilySophie (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, that is the best practice when it comes to controversial content. That you regard this as absurd doesn't reflect very well on your competence in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@LilySophie: We've been through this before, see Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 2#Suicide of Near. Please also read our policy on verifiability. Either drop the stick or provide reliable sources for your claims. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
You have been through trying to find better sources before? That's good, but I think that there is always a chance to find higher quality sources, especially since this is a recent-ish event still, and the discussion you linked was 15 months ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if better ones have sprung up in the meantime, especially as new information about that person came to light! - LilySophie (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The onus is on you to provide the sources. If you aren't gonna, all we are doing is beating a horse that's been dead for 15 months now. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
LilySophie, it is past time to drop the stick on this issue. DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As far as the site discouraging trolls goes, that's kind of a yes and no type of deal. The site does have rules posted about trolling. However what this usually translates to is that the planning takes place off site and the results posted to the site, possibly under the guise of a troll "sending" them the information so that it appears that it was done by a second party. Kind of a plausible deniability/skirting around the definition type of deal, I suppose. If there are RS about how the site itself defines trolling and their rules to avoid it being actively planned on the forums, that would be good to add to the article. Especially if there are RS where it's compared/contrasted to how the term is often defined by others.
When it comes to Near, keep the old discussions in mind. The list used as proof that the death didn't happen is kind of OR. The public wasn't made privvy to the proof provided (talking to the friend and the employer, as well as likely other proof), so for all we know the proof could have been very definitive. Wikipedia has to go by what RS cover. Now if there are multiple RS covering KF's claims that Near is still alive, then a sentence could be added to the article. However given the claim and the obvious controversy that such a statement brings with it, we'd need some strong sourcing (ie, news articles and the like) and the sentence itself very, very carefully written. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Basically, the site pays lip service to the whole "don't troll on the forums", not because they want to stop people from trolling but because they want to avoid the culpability that would come from outright planning taking place on the site. In other words, it's likely just a case of the trolls still using the site but avoiding using "I" statements to identify themselves as such or discussing any active plans in a visible manner. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think your theory that the rules regarding trolling on the site only encourage plausible deniability and for the actual planning to be off-site feels very much like the same line of reasoning people are using to deny Near's death. You have no proof that that is actually the "meaning behind" that rule, only what I assume a line of reasoning, that being "Kiwi Farm's says trolling/targeted attacks aren't allowed, but they still go on, so that rule must only be for show", much like the reasoning that Near is still alive, as in, "People say Near is dead, but this one governmental document says no American died in Japan during these dates, so he must be alive." The site's administrators could very well want the targeted trolling to truly stop.
    I think it would be best to make either a note or add in a sentence stating that Kiwi Farm's administrators maintain that trolling isn't allowed on the site, with a citation linking to that exact rule (when the site comes back up of course). I think this would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, but I'm not sure if the site now on the blacklist would affect this. JungleEntity (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Your analogy works up to a point, but I would respectfully submit that there's a big difference between the proposition that "X is forbidden, but X happens nonetheless," and "It is claim X happened, but I am unable to find evidence of X." That said, a brief note of whatever rules as may be is probably warranted, I should think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a too charitable intepretation of Moon and his conduct to be honest. Just read the NYM piece from 6 years ago, long before the current controversy, it's very clear that harassment (like actual harassment, not just writing disparagingly about people) is inseparable from the nature of the forum and how it operates, and always has been. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • My analogy was more trying to equate the Near conspiracy with what I understood @ReaderofthePack's claim to be, that "It is claim X (Kiwi Farms' rule discouraging trolling is only for lip-service and that harassment campaigns are still planned off-site, and those results are then posted on the site in a dishonest manner), but I am unable to find evidence of X.
    @ReaderofthePack may very well be correct in that trolling campaigns are planned off-site, with only their results being posted on the site, but they have no evidence for this or the notion that the rule discouraging trolling was only put in place for plausible deniability. In the end, Kiwi Farms' administrators have no control of their users do off site, so it's useless to speculate that they are somehow encouraging this behavior. JungleEntity (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Jews, blacks and hispanics?

I am at my 3RR, so I won't revert again, but I strongly disagree with @Aquillion:'s recent additions, especially the claim that Kiwi Farms specifically targets jews, blacks and hispanics. Out of the sources, the arxiv preprint [1] and SITES paper [2] says nothing on the topic, and again covers familiar territory from other sources about Kiwi Farms's harassment of transgender and disabled people. The main book on which the claim is based Perspectives on the Information Society is published by The Crocels Press, an extremely obscure Welsh publisher with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, essentially self-published imo. I don't see how it can be considered a reliable source in this instance. Lev Topor's journal article [3] only says Another site is Kiwi Farms, where a simple search of the term “Jews” will bring up various antisemitic and anti-Zionist themes. Nothing in that sentence explicity states that Kiwi Farms users specifically target jews. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear on the scope of the dispute, you no longer object to stating that they target transgender people or neuroatypical people, yes? You say that the sources talk about familiar territory from other sources about Kiwi Farms's harassment of transgender and disabled people, but prior to the sentence I added we did not cover that aspect (ie. the fact that the site specifically targets those groups) anywhere in the article. Can I take it from this that you support the parts of my addition related to those (and perhaps even mentioning at least those aspects more prominently?) Beyond that, I disagree that Crocels Press would qualify as self-published; you cannot dismiss publishers simply because they are Welsh - self-published has a specific meaning, you have to show that they publish things indiscriminately. But the paper in question was published academically anyway as well, in the International Conferences on Internet Technologies & Society, so I'll cite it to that instead. Beyond that, in context - where the author is listing antisemitic and racist websites- the article by Lev Topor clearly supports the fact that they target Jews. Certainly we could tweak or reword parts of it (if you think that the summary of a source is inaccurate but that the source itself is usable, you could propose a better wording to eg. summarize Topor's article as you see it.) But at the very least removing the entire sentence strikes me as out of line; there is, as you acknowledge, extensive sourcing discussing the site's primary types of targets, and we previously didn't cover that aspect at all. If you have better sources that say different things then of course we could use those instead, but these aren't so low-quality as to justify removing a single sentence in the body, at the very least. We can remove the preprint if you want, since it's not the sole source for anything. Does that address your core objections? (I think we might even want to consider mentioning the targeting of transgender, disabled, and neuroatypical people in the lead, since that has the strongest sourcing, seems like a major part of the site's notability, and nothing could reasonably be construed as disagreeing with it, but that's a separate discussion - body first.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
When did I ever object to stating that they target transgender or disabled people? That has already been in the article for a while, and I've not objected to it at all. I'm not an apologist for Kiwi Farms, believe me. Requiring quality sources is not whitewashing or apologism. I don't see how Lev Topor in any way explicitly indicates that they target jews, only that at least some kiwifarms users are antisemitic. I'm not disputing Crocels Press because it's Welsh, obviously. I'm disputing it because it's extremely obscure and seems to have no reputation within the field of social science. What makes it ultimately different from a vanity press? The description of Kiwi Farms in the book as a "neo-Nazi white supremacist hate group... website" contradicts those given by other sources. Who is the author of that particular chapter Ashu M.G. Solo? Does he have any scholarly reputation? Going through his scholar results, he appears to be an obscure independent scholar who primarily publishes about computer science. The article already has much better sourcing than this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Solo publishes about social and computer science. Internet harassment sits at the intersection of these things. In any case, I've demonstrated that it was a peer-reviewed paper, so I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a single sentence summarizing it is WP:UNDUE. Your personal disagreement with the author's conclusions doesn't allow you to dismiss it as a source; clearly there are large numbers of high-quality sources describing the site as far-right; there are other sources with other descriptions, but few sources that completely disagree. Likewise, saying that the site contains threads targeting those people is not the same as saying that its focus is to target them, which is what numerous other sources say and which wasn't currently in the article. -Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The quote you attributed to the ref in this edit isn't in the source, assuming this is the source. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That... is odd. That version doesn't contain the case studies section where it appears. I'll revert to the previous ref for now, to be safe, and look into it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
At a glance, these are two different paper versions. It looks like it was originally a conference paper presented in 2020 (uploaded to ResearchGate in February 2020), and it was later edited (rather heavily I think), then the edited version was published to a journal in 2021 (published online 2022). Mention of Jews/Hispanics etc. is on p. 95 in the ResearchGate version. Looks like that was trimmed and just transgender & disabled people were given as examples in the later article. Chillabit (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
If that's the case then it's definitely undue. Conference abstracts are not peer reviewed and are generally subject to little to no editorial oversight. The fact that the claim was removed after peer view implies that the reviewers found the claim to be innaccurate, so I see absolutely no reason to include this at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, Johnathan Bishop Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the founder and editor of The Crocels Press, is banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, which relates to this COIN thread Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Character_theory_(media) and various threads linked to therein. This documents various issues, including having previously falsely claimed a relationship with Swansea University. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Conference abstracts are not peer reviewed and are generally subject to little to no editorial oversight. That is not true for the International Conferences on: Internet Technologies & Society and Sustainability, nor most computer science related conferences in general. Per that conference's call for paper's page (2022 conference, 2020 conference) submissions to it are subject to blind peer-review. As such I do not think we can make any meaningful conclusion on our own as to why the content was removed between the original form of the paper at the 2020 conference, and the later form of it in the 2022 post-conference journal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
If COMSCI conferences are subject to significant peer review, why did so many nonsense SciGen conference papers get published? Just because it was ostensibly "peer reviewed" doesn't mean that the peer review was good or thorough. There's good reason to think the peer review of an academic journal, while not perfect, is signficantly stronger than that of conference. Again, my main issue is the characterisation of Kiwi Farms in the conference abstract is at odds with those given in other RS (who do not describe it as Neo Nazi or white supremacist), the author is an obscure independent scholar with no evidence of an academic background their website is certainly something. If Kiwi Farms was really specifically targeting black and hispanic people, why then did none of the news coverage or any other academic papers covering the topic mention it? Surely if it was true it would be newsworthy and noteworthy to include? And if it was true, why was it then omitted from the revised version of the published paper? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Academic peer review has it's fair share of problems, there are both predatory journals and conferences, whose sole purpose for being is to publish less than reputable research. However unless I've missed something, that does not appear to be the case here.
For your first two questions, current news coverage seems to have focused almost entirely on the harassment that lead to the campaign involving Keffals, and the aftermath from that. Within that narrative, harassment of non-trans and/or non-autistic individuals has been largely generalised. Eg, see statement by Liz Fong-Jones, which is summarised as forum users typically target people who are financially precarious. Meanwhile older news coverage seems to have focused primarily on the harassment of one individual, though again with generalised notations of attacks on minorities. As such I don't know if I would characterise Solo's work, in its longer form, as at odds with what other reliable sources have said. I would perhaps instead say that it is going into more detail about other areas that have previously been generalised.
For your last question, I don't think any of us can provide an answer to that without contacting the author. And I also don't think we should engage in speculation for why it was removed in lack of such clarity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The Forward has an article calling the site antisemitic recently: https://forward.com/news/517780/kiwi-farms-trolling-website-antisemitism-transgender-harass-4chan/ Chillabit (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My issue was never with calling the site's content antisemitic, it was specifically going from Lev Topor saying that the site had antisemitic content to saying that it specifically targeted jews, which is not what the source material said. The Forward gives a much more specific example of Kiwi Farms targeting Jews with the harassment of transgender Jewish convert Yonah Gerber. This is in my opinion worthwhile and due to include. There's also some discussion of Moon's antisemitism and antisemitic harassment on twitter, but that's maybe better included in the "History" section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of nationality

In recent edit by User:Elli, the reference to American was removed. Given that the owner's nationality is American, and he has characterised the site as operating under American law and thus enjoying First Amendment protections to engage in "offensive" but allegedly legal speech, and having named his hosting company "1776 Solutions" and basing it out of the US (Wyoming company registration, Nevada hosting location), it seems to my (admitted conflict-of-interested) eyes to be highly relevant information where it's hosted and what country's laws it claims the protections of. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with including that detail in the article, but it's not relevant enough to be in the short description. Short descriptions aren't meant to contain encyclopedic content, they are meant to be a very concise explanation of the article's scope, and the nationality of the site here is an encyclopedic detail. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Most of what Lizthegrey describes is not currently in the article. If reliable sources highlight those facts, then a summary of those sources should be added to the body. If it turns out it's an important enough set of facts, we should summarize the body content in the lead and possibly in the short description too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This paper discussing why New Zealand was unsuccessful in persuading US authorities to act ("The United States cited support for the summit, but claimed to be constrained by the First Amendment") might be helpful, along with its sources list ([4] [5] [6], and Citron, Danielle Keats. 2014. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.). See also this Wired article and this CJR article. Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding sources for Moon himself citing the First Amendment anywhere reliable aside from his own forums, since he responds to journalists and law enforcement (where he might be quoted) with expletives rather than cogent arguments. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I think adding that NZ authorities contacted US authorities, and that the US said they were constrained by the first amendment would be relevant to the Christchurch Shooting section. However, I also think mentioning that it's an American site should be in either the history section or in the lead. Other sites like Google (it's a tech conglomerate but still) and Something Awful both have "American" in their leads. JungleEntity (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the lack of sources of Null citing the First Amendment, he only cites it in response to takedown requests that violate his (admittedly liberal) view of fair use and criticism. Generally, though, he makes an effort to avoid using the First Amendment to defend the site's behavior. To quote a recent interview with Null on the Rekieta Law youtube channel, "People online mistake 'First Amendment' with 'Right to say the N-word and derail conversations.' We're not a free speech site, we just try to be hands-off as long as laws aren't being broken."
As for Null's response to journalists, he has stated publicly on his YouTube/iTunes podcast that he's been refusing to respond to recent inquiries due to family issues and the (allegedly) inflamatory/leading questions being asked by reporters. As for law enforcement, he has an annoying stance that without a court order in the US, he only needs to comply with US-based law enforcement. To give him a shred of credit, he has gone to US law enforcement on several occasions regarding Christine Chandler, Ethan Ralph, DarkSydePhil, and other "lolcows" that were either breaking the law or were victims of other people breaking the law. BasicSID (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference to MTG swatter

Requesting that the sentence

On August 24, 2022, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene stated in an interview with NewsMax that she was swatted twice by a KiwiFarms user who identified themselves as "AltisticRight".

Be replaced with

On August 24, 2022, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene stated in an interview with NewsMax that she was swatted twice by an individual claiming to be Kiwifarms moderator "AltisticRight".

At the moment it's unclear who was behind the swat call. According to news sources discussing the call, the individual admitted in the call that they were swatting MTG due to her anti-trans stances. [Source 1] [Source 2]

Although the site is still down still, it's worth noting that "AltisticRight" has denied involvement on Kiwifarms and other message boards, citing the facts that they've never engaged in discussing Representative Greene and that there was very little discussion regarding her on the site at all. BasicSID (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: The WGHP/Fox 8 source in the article stated that "while the caller allegedly told the police that their swatting was a result of Greene’s anti-transgender beliefs and policies, they also allegedly told police they were a KiwiFarms user, two things that seem in conflict with one another." Ignoring the Business Insider source, which mentioned the username "AltisticRight", there is no given source of AltisticRight's denial. Regardless, WP:BLPCRIME might apply. LightNightLights (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the article with BasicSID's proposed wording. If sources are skeptical that the swatter actually was a Kiwi Farms user (and, to be fair, the author has a point that it doesn't seem to make much sense to swat MTG for being anti-trans and also be a Kiwi Farms moderator), our wording should reflect that skepticism. Endwise (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a reasonable rationale. I don't oppose the "Kiwi Farms user" to "individual" wording change; I just wanted to qualify BasicSID's statement that "the individual [...] [swatted] MTG due to her anti-trans stances" which they used as edit-request rationale. LightNightLights (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

School shooter linked to the forum

How isn’t this mentioned? There is already an article on the incident, and the perpetrator was a poster on the website as well as affiliates.

Sources:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/02/08/evidence-new-mexico-school-shooter’s-involvement-racist-alt-right-overwhelming

https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/atchison_online_1.0.pdf

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-mexico-school-shooter-had-secret-life-on-pro-trump-white-supremacy-sites

https://viralnova.com/william-atchison/

https://www.daily-times.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/17/aztec-high-school-shooting-investigation-william-atchison/513013002/ Screendeemer (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Without having looked through any but the first link, it's probably because "visiting a website" doesn't really mean "was heavily influenced by" or "posted their manifesto on"; just because a nutjob visits a website does not mean we need to include that nutjob on the website's article (unless, as previously mentioned, it was the website they used). Primefac (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The sources tend to just list a bunch of websites, e.g.: Atchison also allegedly frequented the Daily Stormer, the racist alt-right’s most notorious website, in addition to other known online communities favored by the alt-right, such as EncyclopediaDramatica, Kiwi Farms, 4chan and various videogame forums. If all there is is a list of such websites, and Kiwi Farms is among them, there's not really much to say about that on this article IMO. It makes sense for there to be a line listing all those websites over at Aztec High School shooting (which at a glance there is), but there's nothing meaningful you can say about it here, I think. Endwise (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't Chris mentioned by name?

A dozen discussions (linked below) have determined that we are not going to name Chris-chan in the article. It does not require further hand-wringing. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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)
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)

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

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

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

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.

"Milked for laughs" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

"Various ideologies"

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

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

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

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

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

"Sonichu comic" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

RfC concerning Chris-chan

Per my comment at 02:15, 6 October 2022 below, this is closed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

  • Support - as proposer. As far as I can tell, the main rationale for the exclusion of Chris-chan's name (as seen in several discussions over the years) is that it would violate BLP, specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME. However, BLPNAME only applies to people whose names have "not been widely disseminated or [have] been intentionally concealed". Chris is, to say the least, the complete opposite of this; her full name has been mentioned in several reliable sources concerning both Kiwi Farms (ex. [7], [8], cited NY Mag article) and the "incident" in 2021. As for AVOIDVICTIM, I don't see how merely naming Chris would count as endorsing the troll campaign against her. Philroc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Philroc: @Primefac just closed a discussion on this 12 days ago; why are you proposing it again? Funcrunch (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the following list of past discussions, which I had previously included in the prior discussion above:
  • For at least the last three years, it has been well demonstrated that any mention of Chandler is a magnet for both vandalism and harassment. We quite regularly see waves of severe BLP violating vandalism on BLP articles of folks who have similar names to Chandler. The community consensus on this is exceptionally strong, as demonstrated via the discussions on this talk page, AN, and ANI. There is no way to write content about this individual in a way that cannot violate the WP:BLP policy, particularly in light of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Chandler's notability stems exclusively from being a victim of Kiwi Farms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Sideswipe9th: Thanks, I made sure to look through those before starting this RfC. Ignoring the ones about Chris having her own article (which is an entirely different matter and inappropriate for now), a lot of them essentially repeat the same assertion (including Chris's name = BLP violation = harassment) with no real explanation of what makes it true. Philroc (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
      Heh. There's an aspect of WP:NEEDTOKNOW and WP:DENY at play here, as a great deal of the content that would explain the Chris's name = BLP violation = harassment chain is by necessity revdelled and oversighted due to major BLP violations. With that in mind, I can say that there is at least one edit filter that I'm aware of (there may be more), which tracks the use of Chandler's name being added to articles and talk pages. While there are naturally some false positives, due to good faith contributions in talk page discussions like this one, on the whole that filter tracks significantly more disruption than good faith edits. In particular, BLPs for other individuals whose name is similar to Chandler's, often see waves of disruption where content is changed to refer to Chandler purely for harassment reasons.
      Unfortunately cleaning up after these waves of vandalism can take a not insignificant amount of time and energy from a very small subset of editors (ie, admins and oversighters). Many IPs and newly created vandalism only accounts have to be blocked, and depending on the scale of the attack anywhere from dozens to hundreds of revisions need to be redacted. As such, anything that can amplify or act as a magnet for such further vandalism is heavily discouraged, and as a result the strong community consensus is that we do not mention Chandler's name in any articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
      @Sideswipe9th: That's honestly a good point. I looked through the edit history for Chris Chandler (a football player) and I think I understand what you mean. However, this specific article is already indefinitely ECP'd, so I don't foresee any potential disruption if Chris-chan's name is added here. Philroc (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
      A not insignificant amount of disruptive editors WP:PGAME to autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, solely for the purpose of disrupting in articles with semi or extended confirmed protection, or in some discretionary sanctions areas where there is a blanket 500/30 requirement without the articles actually being tagged as protected. At this stage, it is very much about harm and disruption prevention.
      Honestly even if this RfC did find a consensus for inclusion, I'm not even sure that a local consensus at this page can overturn the more global consensus from the discussions at AN and ANI. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
      @Sideswipe9th: If that's possible, then one could say that page protection as a whole is pointless. Philroc (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
      You could, though I don't think many, particularly admins who action those protections, would agree with that. Regardless that's a tangent not related to this article, so we shouldn't continue that here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sideswipe9th. This would essentially make Wikipedia an arm of the Kiwi Farms harassment campaign, and that would be unconscionable. Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Dumuzid: If that's the case then I suppose that NY Mag, Vice, etc. are all accomplices to the Farms for daring to report on Chris at all. Philroc (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    You can suppose anything you like! Wikipedia is a wonderful place that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Philroc, can you point to any discussion on Wikipedia that shows editors in favor of adding Chris' name to the article? As Sideswipe9th has shown above, there is a long standing consensus, which is not only local, to not have their name in Wikipedia's mainspace for a variety of reasons. Opening an RfC on a suggestion that has clear consensus against among community members, and no previous discussion was done to workshop whether this was a good idea or not, is less than ideal and I suggest the nominator withdraws it. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Isabelle Belato: I'll be brutally honest: if I started a discussion even tangentially related to Chris here, I would've been immediately shut down by the same small clique of editors that always gets to decide what is and isn't suitable for articles like this one, sometimes regardless of policy. I believe that this RfC is an excellent way to gather outside opinions on the CWC issue. Philroc (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
      • What you're attempting to do here is sustain a campaign of harassment against this person. There is clear, clear community consensus against using the Wikipedia to victimize this person any further. Drop it. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
      Philroc I would not call every editor who contributed to the twelve previous discussions on this, across four venues (this talk page, a WikiProject, the administrator's noticeboard, and the urgent administrators noticeboard) a small clique of editors. Not counting blocked editors, and IP editors (because it's hard to identify at a glance if it's the same IP with an unstable address), no less than 43 editors and 17 admins have contributed to the prior discussions on this. The consensus not to mention the name is exceptionally strong, and not a local consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
      Philroc I strongly advise you to reconsider that "small clique of editors" comment. The present community consensus is about as broad as you're likely to find for such a circumstance. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per strong community consensus as noted above. WP:DROPTHESTICK before someone suggests sanctions. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have removed the RfC. As mentioned above, considerable opposition towards this proposal has been expressed in the past, including the recent past. Wikipedia is not available for lulz or harassment and people who might be unaware of that background will need to accept that it's not possible to satisfy everyone all the time. I will topic ban anyone who continues to wave a stick. I have left this uncollapsed for now to allow for a couple of days of venting, but apart from that, it's over. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiwi_Farms/Archive_3&oldid=1132306010"