Talk:Kiwi Farms

Misapplication of Le Monde article
This article by Le Monde is being used to argue that the site inherently targets far-right personalities based off of this paragraph:

"Kiwi Farms is a discussion forum dedicated to online harassment. Its members – there are 16,000 daily logins according to its administrators – meet there to plan, organize and coordinate targeted harassment operations against Internet celebrities, mainly feminists or trans rights activists, people suffering from psychological problems, journalists, people from the world of video games or comics, and even some personalities from the American far right."

Yet a following sentence says:

"Kiwi Farms was created in 2013, before taking its current name in 2014. Its creator, Joshua Moon, nicknamed 'Null,' is a former administrator of the unmoderated forum 8chan. This alternative to the 4chan forum is considered one of the most extremist, racist and hateful online forums. 'Null created Kiwi Farms with the clear purpose of harassing an online comic book author, who had already been the subject of an intense harassment campaign on 4chan for several years."

Clearly, the idea that KiwiFarms goes out of its way to target "far-right individuals" wasn't intended by Le Monde. To anyone with knowledge of the terrain, this shouldn't be surprising, as infighting is remarkably common among groups such as this. It would be like saying that James Allsup "targets" far-right influencers such as Nick Fuentes because there was a falling out. This clearly shouldn't be stated without context in the article. KlayCax (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Tagging, , . KlayCax (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by inherently. Our article currently states "It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including ... far-right personalities". This is supported by the source. If there's a source that frames this as infighting, I would support adding that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm seeing you've re-reverted saying that Le Monde supports the targeting of far-right individuals being infighting. Where are you seeing that in the source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with the previous phrasing is that it implies that KiwiFarms inherently goes after people that it sees as far-right. I think the citations clearly contradict this or at least don't support it. It's very common for far-right influencers, websites, and personalities to deeply dislike one another, so the SPLC + Le Monde articles shouldn't come as a surprise. In fact, Le Monde specifically notes that "even" and "some" far-right personalities have been targeted by it.
 * (Implying that this is not done to all or most.)
 * KiwiFarms has been alleged by some news organizations to be far-right itself. KlayCax (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the previous phrasing implies that KF inherently goes after anybody. It just lists the types of people it has gone after. The site doesn't go after all or most of any of the groups listed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the others are simply listed without any prefixes: (e.g. Feminists, mentally ill, internet celebrates, transgender rights activists, et al.)
 * In contrast, when it cites the fact that "far-right" personalities have been targeted by the group, it is always prefaced (in every article as well) with "some" or a "few" or what not. That seems to be talking about infighting.
 * Claiming that KiwiFarms isn't hard right on social issues — at least in the Western World — seems a bit disingenuous. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that, and I don't think the article was either. Would you be ok with restoring it as "and some far-right personalities"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it being mentioned somewhere, . However, I think additional context would be necessary if we decide to leave the statement in. KlayCax (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What @Firefangledfeathers said. The current article text names accurately which groups the site has gone after. I think perhaps there is a false cognate here of "target" that can be used to mean both happening to "go after" opportunistically and "strategically pursuing". It may be worth trying to differentiate these. My understanding is that the site does not go out of its way to stalk far-right personalities unless they fall under its "drama" or "grift" sections, but does have an entire section devoted to finding and going after transgender folks. But, of course, the encyclopedia should follow what the secondary sourcing says and not my own quite possibly biased original research. (mind my conflict of interest as usual) lizthegrey (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I, mean. They've certainly have gone after far-right personalities. But mostly in the sense of finding them "hilarious" rather than targeting them on the basis of their position on LGBT rights, feminism, or anything like that.
 * Again, it would be like saying that James Allsup on Fash The Nation "targeted" ethnic nationalist personalities. It's technically true. Yet without context it becomes de facto misleading. KlayCax (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, let's find better wording then to differentiate "targeting" singular people, vs systematically "targeting" groups of people. lizthegrey (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'd be opposed to mentioning the far-right in this way regardless of the language; there's just not enough sources covering it as a meaningful way to characterize the site's activities. I think that when covering the infighting aspect, it would make more sense to look for sources covering it in-depth and to put that elsewhere as individual people who were targeted. In particular, the SPLC (which was used for this before) focused on two people: Nick Fuentes and another individual who was a previous member of the forum. We could just cover those individually (or perhaps just Fuentes, since the other one seems to fall under WP:BLP1E and may not be worth mentioning.) But using the SPLC to imply that they have "gone after" people on the far right, regardless of phrasing, is WP:SYNTH; we could just as easily say that they have "gone after" men, or people who eat meat, or people with dark hair. Lumping them into a category requires better sourcing, and I don't think Le Monde's passing mention is enough when we weigh it against the quality of sourcing for everything else. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Persuasive enough, I'm with @Aquillion now given the WP:SYNTH argument. Fine to mention individual cases, but we cannot extrapolate a pattern. lizthegrey (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more disingenuous to not mention the far-right personalities, because they most certainly do. I don't think this is a sourcing problem - sourcing for this article is going to be tricky, it always has been and probably always will be. We gotta use what we got. It's reasonable to say sources will focus on more "higher-profile" streamers who usually lean left, as far-right streamers are either not as popular or are banned for things usually associated wit the far-right (racism, anti-LGBTQ, etc). I think the Le Monde source is perfectly fine.
 * I don't doubt that Kiwi Farms has systemically targeted people who aren't far-right, especially those who are disenfranchised in one way or another, but there is a substantial amount of far-right personalities that have been targeted on the sites, too much for a list in my opinion, especially because we probably won't find a source claiming Kiwi Farms specifically targeted specifics such as Fuentes or Ethan Ralph or whatever.
 * I know WP:NOR, but a simple visit to the site confirms there are plenty of threads about far-right online personalities, some who's whole online identity is about being far-right. This supports the Le Monde source and I think the original wording is just fine. I'll concede that changing "targeted" to something else might be warranted. JungleEntity (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think that we should put far-right in that list - not in any context, not with any phrasing or wording. Le Monde says ...and even some personalities from the American far right which clearly treats it differently. Other sources don't emphasize it at all. And the difference in quality between the sources for this and everything else in the list is stark - every other point is cited to academic research and / or to in-depth coverage that extensively discusses how Kiwifarms systematically targets that group. This was previously cited in an WP:OR-ish way using two SPLC pieces, which was definitely unacceptable; without that we have brief one half-sentence in Le Monde, which is starkly WP:UNDUE relative to the other sources and has wording that sets that point besides. Based on current sources, I'd oppose any attempt to include it in any form. If it is worth including, we should be able to find sources with a weight at least somewhat more comparable to the other entries on the list. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is censoring you-know-who’s name really helpful, let alone necessary?
I know this is one of those perennial proposals that inevitably gets shot down as “READ THE FAQ”, but censoring “Voldemort”’s name is kind of ridiculous for the following reasons:
 * 1. The article already discloses their initials and provides links that openly discuss their name
 * 2. Everyone already knows who they are even if they’re not individually notable
 * 3. They are not solely known because Kiwi Farms harassed them; contemporary readers probably know them best for their recent legal issues and for being the subject of a lengthy YouTube documentary series
 * 5. There is very little organized harassment going on against them currently; in fact it’s actively discouraged by people who participated in the original campaign

Tl;dr we are not protecting anyone or doing anything useful by hiding the name of a well-known internet personality. Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This person is still alive, is not a public figure, and has no source of notability outside of being harassed. (Youtube notability is not Wikipedia notability.) So I would be very skeptical of proposals to add their name to the article.
 * This is not to say that I couldn't ever be convinced, but it'd take some WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing. Sourcing that'd probably be sufficient to establish a whole article on them. Loki (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Enough of a public figure to have a Wikipedia page: Keffals. If not a public figure, then that article needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the same person that we're talking about here. Keffals is unambiguously a public figure with notability independent of being harassed. Loki (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, Keffals has actually interviewed Christine. So we have that, as well as Fox News and other mainstream news outlets discussing her legal issues and the Kiwi Farms involvement, in terms of reasons Chris could be considered at least somewhat notable. I’d say if both national news has coverage of you and a notable streamer has hosted you you’re no longer strictly a “private individual”; that and she (Chris) isn’t trying to lay particularly low or anything. Dronebogus (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that argument around CWC's self-promotion; it's the strongest argument in favour of inclusion, and one I also voiced earlier. I'd advocate it more firmly if not for my concerns over their competence. However, if we are to go with that argument for them being a high profile individual, this feels like procedurally it would adhere best to WP:NPOV and WP:AVOIDVICTIM to first handle via a separate discussion of unsalting Chris Chan, a page draft created then mainspaced with a fuller recounting of who they are and their significance beyond WP:BLP1E, and then that article linked from here. lizthegrey (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The draft title is also salted, but if someone who actually has track record of writing articles (i.e. not new editors) wants to take a stab at a neutrally-written, well-sourced draft about CWC, I'll unsalt. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to imply that these are your motives, Dronebogus, but the argument here does boil down to me as being "the harassment was so successful that we should allow it to continue on Wikipedia." I tend to agree that the possible harms are quite low.  But for me, the benefit to the encyclopedia is nil.  As such, the balance (for me, anyway) is an easy one.  As ever, happy to go wherever consensus leads, but akin to Loki, I don't see myself as easily persuadable.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s not really what I was arguing; my case was the harassment is almost entirely in the past, they’re widely known as part of internet popular culture (not to mention the fact that their legal problems were covered on national news), and the article dances around mentioning them in such a clumsy way it’s almost patronizing. I’m not arguing for any change in their notability status; I’m arguing it’s bizarre we’re going out of the way to symbolically “protect” the privacy of a well-known individual by not mentioning their name, once, in an appropriate context, in a largely unrelated article. Dronebogus (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please no. Can we all find better things to do in life than talk about this all over again? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean by “Inevitably gets shot down”. I don’t like it when old consensus gets treated as gospel even when there’s valid reasons to reconsider something. Dronebogus (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are going to suggest that there is encyclopedic value in naming this person, that's pretty much subjective judgement. If you believe it is worth it despite the BLP issues and implications people have suggested countless times, that is also subjective judgement. The consensus, as far as I know, is against inclusion. WP:CCC applies, but I just don't agree with your points and I don't think it is really worth our time to discuss this again. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 09:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dronebogus, I apologize for my clumsy wording. I know that's not your argument, and I don't doubt the good faith of your motives.  But I do feel like it ends up being the practical upshot here.  This person is notable only because of a harassment campaign.  I see absolutely no benefit in using the name, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The harassment I would not say is a thing of the past given KF's and other sites' habit of paparazzi photo snapping of her every time they encounter her in public. lizthegrey (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do get the feeling that it is sort of a fossilized consensus from many years ago, when the person who shall not be named was basically an obscure crackpot known for drawing a strange webcomic and occasionally delivering homophobic rants on YouTube. At this point, it seems like they are quite well-known basically everywhere on the web except Wikipedia. It does not seem plausible to me that we are actually doing much in the way of protection by maintaining this omission.
 * It is probably relevant that most the people who come to argue for the inclusion of the name are farmsers, and that farmsers are generally execrable morons (they invented the term "A-logging" but somehow failed to realize this describes nearly every post made on their site for the last decade). It is indeed hard to see that much benefit from mentioning CWC, especially since so many people will become extremely rankled at the idea of doing so. I regard the issue as mostly a minor curiosity emerging from Wikipedian idiosyncrasies -- e.g. Daniel Brandt may, by now, clear the notability guidelines, but we sure as hell do not have an article on him. Maybe this is just the price we pay for having a project that works well most of the time. I think it is probably not worth arguing about it too much.


 * Food for thought: has anyone actually asked CWC for an opinion on this? jp×g🗯️ 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if anything she’d appreciate the publicity for her cult (yes she’s running a cult now) Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a relevant thing I think, now that she's out of custody; it's possible to discern whether she is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual of her own choosing. lizthegrey (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But in all seriousness as much as I’d like to know her opinion, the inevitable unwanted publicity it would attract to both us and CWC far outweighs any microscopic benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Let me turn the question around. Is reopening this can of worms really helpful, let alone necessary? Naming her would only cause a whole heap of trouble. People would try to use it as a bridgehead to introduce more content about her, to distract from the actual subject of this article and generally to be disruptive. So, why bother? It really doesn't add anything meaningful to our coverage of the actual topic here. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s what is known as the slippery slope fallacy. When that happens anywhere else we protect pages, block trolls, and revert vandalism. There is nothing so special about CWC that her name represents a class-5 security threat. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that last addition is in any way helpful to this discussion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dronebogus, that last comment is Exhibit A for why this is a problem.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to offend anyone, I thought it was just a joke. Anyway removed now. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dronebogus, I can't speak for anyone else, but that sense of "this is a person about whom it is safe to make jokes" is part of what makes me resist directing any attention their way. That said, I absolutely understand how that sense develops.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s a difference between poking fun at someone, stalking/harassing them in the sense of paparazzi/stanning, organized trolling/harassment, and an organized hate campaign. I think they’re all kind of being conflated here. Once again I’m sorry if I accidentally offended anyone by making an arguably insensitive joke but it’s not because I hold ill will or prejudice against CWC or think it’s “safe” to make fun of her any more than I think it’s “safe” to make fun of anybody else. Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like the literal use of the term "bridgehead" is a good illustration of the distance between the factors in play here and the task of writing an encyclopedia article. jp×g🗯️ 20:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A bridgehead is literally a fortification used by invading military forces to secure passage across a difficult terrain feature (i.e. a river or marsh) -- even if it is "just" an analogy, it still makes no sense outside the context of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. The purpose of the website is not to build fortifications -- it's to build an encyclopedia. jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect JPxG (and I do, in fact, respect you!), this reads a bit like "no one around here knows how to build an encyclopedia but me." Reasonable minds can differ on a great many topics, and we can still have the same goal in mind.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to say kiwifarmers are more likely than not to have a battleground mentality regarding wikipedia, if I'm being honest, so it's not that danielrigal sees it as a bridgehead, it's that other people would use it that way, regardless of how we see it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. I wasn't aware of any potential ambiguity in what I said but I am happy to confirm that this is what I meant. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To spell things out based on policy: I think there is growing evidence now that CWC has been released from custody that they are behaving in a high-profile way, actively seeking media attention. This potentially means they are notable in their own right and not subject to WP:1E (counting the harassment and "documenting" as one ongoing event for these purposes). As @Dronebogus says, there are tools for dealing with pages that are frequently vandalised because the individual also happens to be the subject of a harassment campaign (see for instance Brianna Wu which is goldlocked). Yes, it creates work and is a pain, and inevitably will be used to further harass them, but we don't avoid creating pages entirely because of the heckler's veto.
 * The argument against is that even if they are behaving in a high-profile way, we owe a duty of care to avoid endangering people who are WP:INCOMPETENTS and are behaving in a high-profile way due to exploitation of their mental incapacity. There is also another argument regarding WP:AVOIDVICTIM harm reduction: if we view it as suitable to include their full name in an article relating to harassment of them, does that present a neutral view of them in the totality of the circumstances? Or is it necessary also to create a dedicated BLP for a fuller presentation pursuant to NPOV? lizthegrey (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Slighly related topic: should the individual's name be omitted from reference 21? Skyshifter  talk  12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No. If I understand correctly consensus is not to include her name in the article, not “censor every possible mention”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But then I don't see the point of omitting her name in the prose. I can just click reference 21 and her name is right there, in the article (as references are part of the article). I think if the name is omitted from the prose, then it should also be omitted from that reference, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Skyshifter   talk  12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One could reasonably make the argument that with two other references provided as verification for that particular sentence, it is not necessary and could be removed. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Skyshifter   talk  12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a general note, we do not necessarily pretend that Chris-chan doesn't exist; I have declined more than a few RD2 requests where her name appears in various locations. The long-standing consensus is that including her name in articles (here or elsewhere) will just serve to prolong the harassment. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally someone breaks the taboo on actually using her name. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)