Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
It looks like it may be offline because their data center is blocking cloudflare CaptainLeslieHero (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Maranello10 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph
That first paragraph in the article is so biased that it’s almost insulting to my intelligence. Instead of making a fake news hit piece about this site, how about actually doing research and find out what it is actually about? I’m actually offended by that. 50.107.100.99 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What part about it's fake news? is the stalking fake, or the exhaustive, obsessive interest? I ask as one of the people who wrote source documents referenced here. - Margaret Pless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.124.167 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Delisted from multiple major search engines?
Word on the site, confirmed by many users, is that the website was just delisted by a number of internet search portals including DuckDuckGo, Bing, and others.

The forum is associated with 8chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica, both of have gone offline in the last weeks , so speculation is that Kiwi Farms is also in the process of being purged from the mainstream WWW. As they say, nothing of value was lost, but I thought it might be helpful to point this out here.

Can't find any good mainstream sources reporting on this yet, but the front page of Kiwi Farms has a sticky notification. There is also a thread dedicated to the deindexing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B10D:4177:251B:28D4:E868:DEE9 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an important thing to include on the article, I think, since delisting from search engines is a major thing. I think we should include references to the censorship of this site/removal from search engines. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/08/05/playing-game-whack-a-mole-online-extremists/ discusses the possibility of search engines de-indexing Kiwi Farms and sites like it, and there are other articles (including official social media posts that would constitute reliable primary sources) mentioning this. Saying "nothing of value was lost" is a strange statement of bias to make about the de-indexing of a useful, important website which betters society. Considering half of this article is devoted to discussing the DDoS attacks that this site is the victim of, and how it is primarily known for taking a stand against government censorship by authoritarian nations. There are similar sources online discussing the issue of deindexing in general, and it has been re-indexed on some engines 143.244.45.194 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

How is a Know Your Meme image a reliable source?
this is the first source in the article as well. the implication is that know your meme should be taken seriously as a legitimate source then?-2601:546:8101:8E80:48C:A529:CE7F:FCED (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2019
Basically, I just want to add more info to the page, and maybe, just maybe, put some more info in the infobox. Slavicanimefan2005 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Chris Chan
I couldn't help but notice that this page contains no mention of Christine Weston Chandler - the aforementioned webcomic artist. I realize this is a touchy subject, but given this person's infamy, as well as the fact that the original name "CWCki Forums" is a direct reference to Chandler A Simple Fool (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , feel free to propose a reliable source for this. Guy (help!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, he should have an article. DiAsNW (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , again, find reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 18:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have, there are plenty of examples on the CwCiki. The wiki itself is a tertiary source. DiAsNW (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, a user-generated wiki is not an acceptable source for personal information. Please take a look at the Wikipedia policy Biographies of living persons and the guideline Reliable sources. Cheers, gnu 57 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the sources referenced on there. DiAsNW (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , then link directly to the ones you're actually talking about. Don't indirectly link to something that links to them and handwave that there's something there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You realize the contentiousness of this website right? What is an acceptable source here? The guy linked to a page called the CWCiki, the main page itself literally confirms the original name was CWCiki forums, with CWC being the initials of the afore mentioned Christine Weston Chandler. Chandler is an established internet celebrity, and should in all honesty have her own page, given the impact she has had on internet culture. A Simple Fool (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikis, forums, and the like are not reliable sources, as they are not subject to fact-checking and editorial control. Please read that link to see the criteria for reliability. If all we've got is an entry on a random wiki, I'm afraid that's a no. If there's better source material, by all means point it out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the sourcing policy on here is atrocious. KiwiFarms is a forum, spawned from a wiki. In all, brutal honesty, Wikipedia should fix their sourcing, because it doesn't work with even a smidge of efficiency on internet based topics. Had a similar issue on the Onision page, where well-documented allegations were being reverted by incompetents because of these poorly working policies. A Simple Fool (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The goal is accuracy, not efficiency. If that means something gets left out for a while because we don't have good sourcing, that's considered an acceptable tradeoff. In the Onision article, reliable sources eventually did report on what was happening, and after that, appropriate material was added. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, our goal isn't to "scoop" anyone on "breaking" stuff. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been following CWC since she identified as male, so I'm familiar with the sourcing of which you speak. There's just not enough sourcing to establish notability for her at this point in time. The sourcing typically falls into the following categories:
 * Early life
 * Internet lists
 * Infamy posts
 * Trivial sources
 * Wikis, forums, other self-published sources
 * Only a few of these are posted in places that would be seen as reliable sources, as per Seraphimblade's comments, they don't undergo any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking - nor are they routinely cited as reliable sources by other reliable sources. In the case of her artwork coverage or activities, none of those would gain he rnotability since she wasn't the focus of any of the coverage for said works, when they did gain coverage. She was briefly mentioned in the coverage for Shrek ReTold, but that's not the type of coverage that would establish notability for her. None of the contests she's won would give her even partial notability either.
 * The ones that are published in places like newspapers and the like, those are typically local coverage and not the type of thing that would give notability on Wikipedia. In the case of the ones where Chandler has done something that would result in legal trouble, those pose an issue of WP:BLP in that Wikipedia traditionally does not count coverage of minor crimes as something that would give notability, as these are rarely of any lasting interest as far as history as a whole goes. Even the coverage of Kiwi Farms that mentions her only really does so in passing. It's actually pretty difficult for someone to pass notability in general, even with some of the guidelines that takes rarity of sourcing into account, like the notability guidelines for professors or artists. Basically she's really only received tabloid-esque coverage like this, where the point is for people to laugh at her and the others mentioned in the articles. I do think she's interesting, but the coverage just isn't there. I think that this is likely one of the better sources out there and even then she's not the focus of the piece.
 * She's a fascinating character, but she's not really notable in and of herself. Heck, it says something when one of the main people involved with the wiki and forums from the beginning, Champthom, said that Chandler was non-notable years back at an AfD. I'm aware that's an AfD from 10 years ago but not much has changed coverage-wise since then that would change this. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Lolcow" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lolcow. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

8chan See Also
I'm not sure this applies here. For one thing, there is no backwards link on the 8chan page. Likewise there are numerous websites that house harassment and doxing that we have pages on, and we don't link them either. Would anyone object to the removal of the see also section? I just don't think it's needed. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"History" section innacurate
Unfortunately, I cannot edit the page. But at the time that the website was launched, CWC was not identifying as transgender. While she does now, it seems inaccurate/misleading to write that the forum was created to "troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist". I suggest changing it to "troll and harass an autistic webcomic artist". I would appreciate feedback if you think this change should not be made. 2607:FEA8:5A0:14B9:C86:B746:B55E:9AE6 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest reliable independent secondary sources that say so. Guy (help!) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

it's pretty clear you didn't read the article that was actually cited in the first paragraph for the actual transgender reference. it says, and this is a direct quote: "Its justification for picking on Chandler, such as it is, has always been her perceived mental illness — first, for being autistic, and, in later years, for being transgender." Editorio007 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The word in question is "originally". How could it have been originally launched to harass a transgender person when said person was not transgender when it was originally launched? Chandler coming out as transgender was, by the source, years after Kiwi Farms was originally launched. As of now, the history section is ambiguous. 12.159.84.13 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Weston-Chandler did not identify as transgender when the Cwcki Forums were created, so saying that the Forums were initially created to troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist doesn't actually make much sense. If you wanted to mention Chris later being bullied for being trans, the section talking about the site's origins is a somewhat less sensible place to do that than if you were to, say, add more info on the site's continued focus on Chris-Chan after it became the Kiwi Farms. It could also be stated that the words "troll and harass" here may seem somewhat biased. The cwcki forums were created for discussion and speculation about Chris' art and life. The fact that this often did manifest in a lot of trolling and harassment is true, but it was not the exclusive purpose of the site. CryptidPyr82 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , so provide reliable independent sources that say so. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Like the Hitch-0Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate, and in cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that has got it wrong. Or, in our case, reality-based reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * to be fair, it's hard to see how that section is inherently linked to what the current source says. The only source cited on that section doesn't use this exact verbiage, and seems to talk about the origins of kiwi farms as a rather ill-defined community rather than as a specific forum/website. if the issue is with sources, then perhaps this section should be removed entirely for the time being, as the source cited actually doesn't talk in particularly concrete terms about what the site itself actually is or why it was formed. CryptidPyr82 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning Sonichu as what it was made from
Shouldn't we mention that Sonichu is a combination of Sonic the Hedgehog and Pikachu? Yes, it is clearly home-made, but also clearly taking two characters for her own homemade work.UpWithJimmy (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure, if you can find reliable independent secondary sources that say so. Guy (help!) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it honestly need to be sourced since it blatantly obvious? Otherwise, this makes his so called Sonichu character look original! UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. Guy (help!) 00:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Facepalm)(Sigh) Can't say I agree with you but I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring so whatever.UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's policy and always has been. Guy (help!) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well how about we add the "Citation Needed" thing if we add "mix up of Sonic the Hedgehog and Pikachu" next to Sonichu?UpWithJimmy (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope. That's for stuff that someone finds to be unsupported, not an excuse to add text with no source. Guy (help!) 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then take the wordSonichu off! We can just add his homemade comic. If Sonichu can't be mentioned being a combination of Sonic and Pikachu, than that word can't be there like how Chris Chan's name isn't mentioned.UpWithJimmy (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you unlock the page so that I can remove the word Sonichu?UpWithJimmy (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:SYN. The existing source mentions sonichu but not pikachu. Guy (help!) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just take off Sonichu so that readers won’t think it’s seen as original! UpWithJimmy (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's in the source. Pikachu isn't. That's about it, really. Guy (help!) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I get it! I’m saying the word SONICHU should be removed if it isn’t going to be mention what he really is! Even if that word is in the source can we please remove it! UpWithJimmy (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. Guy (help!) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I suspect you don't get it - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! You people really get on my nerves! I am so sick of this!UpWithJimmy (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well anyway, I noticed you added "a mashup of the Sonic and Pokémon universes". I'm okay with that.UpWithJimmy (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Transgender is irrelevant.
Although the person is indeed transgender. The trolling started way before that came out, so I think it is an irrelevant piece of information. Spongehog (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , If the information is sourced and is verifiable, I don't see any reason to not include it. Even if the trolling started before they came out as transgender, nothing in the article states that the trolling or harassment was due to them being transgender, just that they were transgender. Removing it because you think it's irrelevant is sort of a violation of WP:NPOV. Unless it's some sort of cruft or anything like that, we should include as many verifiable facts on Wikipedia as possible to keep with our mission of being a free encyclopedia. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do have to wonder if the KF people perhaps consider that harassing someone for being autistic is in some way better than harassing them for being both autistic and trans. Guy (help!) 08:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Considering the logic the OP is using for removing "transgender" from the section, that same logic should be used to remove the "autistic" part from the section. Because if their gender identity or whatever is irrelevant, so is whatever developmental disorder they have. The argument made by the OP is a perfect example of cherry picking. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the Autistic part is the primary reason. The trolling of CWC started around 2007-8. CWC didn’t come out as trans until around 2 years ago. The trolling has always been around the person living in their own world and has next to nothing to do with their gender/sexuality. That’s why I think it’s irrelevant because although the person is trans, the harassment has only been because of how gullible the person is, and there is numerous examples that I can use to show you that. Spongehog (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can tell, the site harassed her for being autistic and then added harassment due to her being trans. In which case the statement is correct. Guy (help!) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
Article states "The website was originally launched as an exclusive imageboard to troll and harass an autistic transgender webcomic artist". This is inaccurate as Chrischan did not come out as trans until much later, around 2013 from memory.
 * See above. Guy (help!) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Some ideas for improvements
(Note: I've met Josh Moon in real life, though we're little more than acquaintances now. He usually ignores my Twitter DMs on the rare occasions I find occasion to send him one.)

This article is obviously on a very sensitive subject, and attracts a lot of editors either acting in bad faith or without knowledge of how Wikipedia works, I'd still like to try and forward some changes I think would be positive:

Lead

 * Discussion ought to be changed to gossip. That's how The Verge describes it and that's how the site described itself in 2013.

History

 * Kiwi Farms was never an imageboard, it's a forum.
 * We should try to bridge the gap between 2007 and 2013. Pless (2016) can help with that, and also helps explain how it went from being about one transgender person to many people; Pless links to her own image in the article, which I believe expands the WP:RS quality of New York Magazine over to her image, but others will need to weigh in on that; certainly the image provides interesting context.

Controversies

 * I think this header should be dropped and merged to "History", or History renamed to Timeline.

Distributed denial of service attacks

 * It seems strange this is the first time we mention Moon. He ought to be get a sentence in either § History or the lead.
 * Nothing really changed from the hosting front. Not sure if an RS states this or not.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you guys have any comments on these? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the lead is entirely in line with how RS describe Kiwi Farms. For the rest, look at the history of this page. If you can find RS then show them, but thus far there have been none. Guy (help!) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to give some weight to how they describe themselves. Certainly there's nothing positive about the word "gossip". We could do that by beginning sentence two as Described as a "gossip" forum. Regarding the "history of this page", I'm not sure what you mean, I can't seem to find where these suggestions have been made before. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I don't think we give any weight at all to how they describe themselves. This is a case where we should rely 100% on reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't weight be given to how they describe themselves? That seems a little strange. If an entity's statement of intent differs from their perception, that's an important controversy to discuss. Gossip doesn't have any negative connotation, it looks like the site consistently makes statements describing themselves as a gossip site and they believe their actions to be trivial. Since it mentions the founder and is essentially a private forum, the BLP could be a useful guideline. 143.244.45.194 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the heart of the problem is exactly that "gossip" has relatively harmless connotations and hence that using the term risks trivialising the actions of a site that is dedicated to harassment and, um, let's just say, "even worse things". It is clearly not a description made in good faith by honest people. It is a cynical tactical evasion intended to achieve just that trivialisation of their actions. We can report their self-description in a way that is very clearly distanced from Wikipedia's own voice (which definitely means that it has to be in quotation marks) but we can not describe it as "gossip" in Wikipedia's own voice without departing from neutrality and credulously assisting them in their ham-fisted attempts to launder their reputation. Also, I don't buy the idea that any article that mentions a living person in some way is effectively a BLP. It is not about the founder and contains no biographical details about him. In fact, the article has absolutely no content that would make it comparable to a BLP. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 June 2020
Change an autistic transgender webcomic artist, who was first spotted in 2007 on a 4chan video game board for having designed their homemade comic-series Sonichu to an autistic transgender webcomic artist, who was first spotted in 2007 on a 4chan video game board for having designed her homemade comic-series Sonichu per MOS:GENDERID. I'll also note that the source cited for that statement refers to the individual as "her" as well. Equivamp - talk 05:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed pronouns altogether. Guy (help!) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

PP template
the template says 30-500 but it must say protected until 29 april 2020, it was 30-500 --201.231.9.237 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Done. I have adjusted the protection template accordingly (pp-blp). El_C 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2020
Change to

I believe this is correct? I'm still getting used to editing Wikipedia, hence why I cant edit the page yet. Anyway, the edit is pretty simple. The source is dead (and appears to have been dead for around a year) but an archived copy is available. Coyopelly (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you, good catch – good job!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Death of the site?
So, the only thing that protecting Null from being sued for defamation is Section 230, which might get repealed, next year. And according to [https:// kiwifarms.net/threads/regarding-the-apparent-and-imminent-repeal-of-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act-and-the-future-of-this-website.80663/ this thread] he's getting ready to close the site if the above happens on account on how expensive it is to fight off these lawsuits without Section 230. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D000:62D:B5BD:64AA:E6C3:ADA0 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, and...? If and when that happens, and we can reference it, then it can be added. We're not going to predict the future. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember when the guy who created this article via Articles for Creation was banned from Wikipedia and refused appeal against Wikipedia policy? What was up with that? --DawnDusk (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Add Chris-chan to see also
Seeing as the site came out of that might be some thing useful to add down there?Nbisbo (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Define "lolcows"?
The article now states that Kiwi Farms discusses online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" without saying anything more about what the latter term means. Someone who looks up the forum without being familiar with it already is likely to be confused by this, so adding a definition of 'lolcow' could be useful, especially since Lolcow just redirects here. One way to do this would be to just use the forum's own definition (on their site, archived here; by WP:ABOUTSELF this seems to be a reliable source for the forum's usage of the term) and append it to the first sentence thus: ... figures and communities it deems "lolcows", or "people and groups whose eccentric or foolish behavior can be "milked" for amusement and laughs." (followed by the appropriate citation) - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We've got the definition at wikt:lolcow so I added it in. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mad at the Internet
The Kiwi Farms podcast has been hosted on Apple Podcasts and Spotify since February 2019, holding a 4.9-star rating on the former. 2601:281:CC01:2320:69BF:1E3:7170:5BC (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:INHERITWEB must be heeded here. It appears the show may have notability warranting a brief note in the article born of briefly having a popularity ranking on Spotify last year (https://chartable.com/podcasts/mad-at-the-internet). --BananaYesterday (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any references other than chartable that say anything about this? Unless there are, I do agree that INHERITWEB would keep it from being added. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021
Hello

Another suicide is directly attributed to kiwi farms.

Please find suicide note here https://kotaku.com/the-brilliant-snes-emulator-creator-known-as-near-has-d-1847182851/amp

Please find the victims friends statement here https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/12pOhaaFh998B0kyc5Sm4IhlhIp1c9t5gDNTVVPaiJgI/mobilebasic

Please edit the page accordingly.

Other references to Google are Bsnes developer suicide. (aka Near)

My email equilibrium3@live.co.za 41.146.138.49 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RIP Near :(. Might have enough coverage, so far it's and  —  Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 11:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021 (2)
Change:

To:

Notes:

Thank you. Arki J. Kirwin-Muller! (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Arki J. Kirwin-Muller! (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch. It is done. Holidayruin (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

DDoS
To not go into edit warring, I'm asking you here first. I think the DDoS info can be move to the history paragraph, do you agree? It's not really a controversy indeed, but there is an independent source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed this primarily because it seemed a little UNDUE. As I said in the edit summary, DDoS attacks happen all the time; why is this one particularly notable? There doesn't seem to be any inciting incident or long-term ramifications, so I guess it just doesn't seem like something relevant or useful to keep in the article. If there was a reason (e.g. they pissed someone off) then it might make more sense to include it. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021 (3)
Can someone change the, or remove "near's suicide" from this page? No news sources have actually confirmed anything on the subject, and it seems more liable than anything else. On the KF website, its explaining their statement on things and it doesn't match what is being stated on Kotaku- but currently, this is just a seeming ongoing spat between two groups that doesn't really belong on wikipedia and isn't really objective, or actually reporting any credible information; 99.250.170.14 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the content is still in the article... Primefac (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made the header more neutral, pending better sources. PC Gamer appears to be a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Change status to offline
The site is currently experiencing a denial of service attack and is currently down. CaptainLeslieHero (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sites like Kiwi Farms go offline with some regularity and we normally don't mark them as "offline" each time. If they remain offline for a long period of time or there is a RS that describes them as offline, we could make the change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Webcomic Artist?
The article does not mention who the webcomic artist who was harrassed is. This seems like a very important detail, should this be included in the article's text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:6001:E5CB:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Everything notable about the individual in the context of the site is mentioned, and the individual is not directly involved with the site. Adding the name doesn't add value to the article. WP:BLP describes several points which apply to the individual which I think lead to the conclusion that the name not be mentioned. --Equivamp - talk 01:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we link?
Given the activity this site engages in (the stalking, the harassment, the suicide-baiting, the actual body count) is it really ethical to have a link to the site itself here? Obviously people could google it themselves and get there that way if they really wanted to, but it seems like the best thing to do would be to give them as little oxygen of amplification as possible. 2601:601:9A7F:4A0:C46B:3B4A:A549:FF04 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is encyclopedic to link to the entity's website. If people want to find it, they will find it even if we don't link to it. We shouldn't link to specific threads on the site, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that there is precedent for not including a website link: Talk:8chan GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Twitter thread
Please do not restore text that said Near attributed their suicide to Kiwi Farms (or anything else) in the Twitter thread to this article, as such constitutes original research. Suicide is not actually even mentioned in the Twitter thread. Equivamp - talk 08:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are stating that Near committed suicide. I understand that you don't think the Twitter thread is proof, but surely we can use the reliable sources e.g. PCGamer? 116.255.19.34 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting to remove mention of the event from the article. As the article stands as of this writing, I'm content with it. Equivamp - talk 09:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This most recent edit of yours here directly removes text stating Near committed suicide. Do you disagree that reliable sources support this? Are you okay with me restoring this text? 116.255.19.34 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, that wouldn't be acceptable - note how the Kotaku article is careful to say "apparently", attributing the claim to their source, etc. Information about Near still falls under BLP policy and so statements need to be carefully worded and sourced. Equivamp - talk 09:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not really. Reliable sources are stating that a user on Twitter claims that Near committed suicide. Even though these sources may be usually reliable, WP:RS requires that we appropriately contextualize the claim. There's a mile-wide gap between "this publication confirms that Near committed suicide" versus "this publication confirms that a Twitter user claimed that Near committed suicide." May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no legitimate proof that he committed suicide beyond some people saying "Yuh-huh, he totally did; honest injun!" coupled with the fact that the site just happens to be undergoing a massive ddos attack literally screams "shenanigans." ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.24.203 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The section on Near repeats what is verifiable in reliable sources, which is that Near's friend reported he had confirmed with police that Near had died. The wording in the lead is a bit tough, in that we could say "reported suicides of two people.." but that introduces a caveat to Sagal's death that isn't required. Open to suggestion there... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My request to add quotes from emails was deleted entirely from this talk section. Like I said earlier a link to the correspondence between him and the admin of Kiwifarms should be added, even though Kiwifarms is on a blacklist on Wikipedia for some reason (not sure why, since there's nothing questionable or illegal on that website), but it's a primary source that contains first hand information in this case, that could shed light the alleged victims motivations and his offer of $120,000 to the admin of the site. Currently, the article does not contain some very important facts to this story, which are reported on Kiwifarms. 91.231.60.21 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources report on this, it can be added. But we don't go through Kiwi Farms threads picking out what we think is noteworthy or not about the relationship between Near and Kiwi Farms, that is research for reporters and other various secondary sources to do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain the perfectly timed attack.2605:8D80:4E0:CC03:4E22:6724:8754:BF1E (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you know of any reliable sources that discuss the DDoS, feel free to suggest them and they can be added. But if you're just asking for information about the attack, I don't think random Wikipedia editors are likely to be able to give it to you. Wikipedia reflects what's published in reliable, secondary sources; we don't do our own research into events like these. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Please avail yourself of Wikipedia's rules on WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Due weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equivamp (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What do people think about this Gizmodo article, currently cited in the article? It strikes me as a low-quality opinion piece and I'm not sure it should be used. https://gizmodo.com/the-worst-site-on-the-web-gets-ddosd-after-being-connec-1847196197 May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for techonology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. The source is currently being used in three places, none of which I think is particularly controversial. Two are simple statements of fact: the number of suicides that have been tied to KF, and that Julie Terryberry died by suicide after being targeted by the site. The third is an attributed opinion ("several reports attributed [Sagal's suicide] to years of harassment from Kiwi Farms"). It seems appropriate to me, but feel free to elaborate on which usage you're concerned about (or if all of them, why). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's hard to tell if it's a controversial statement or not because, relatively speaking, so few sources are talking about it. But that's a cause for concern in itself - I personally think that in a niche topic like this, there needs to be a greater level of scrutiny because there aren't a plethora of sources to pick from. I'm not sure if that's explicitly in a policy somewhere, but it's just my thoughts as an editor. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which statement? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's not so much that there's a particular statement at issue. I guess my main problem with the Gizmodo source is that when there is a niche topic such as this one, where coverage is fairly sparse, relying heavily on an extremely opinionated article is a cause for concern. This particular article goes above and beyond expressing a simple opinion; the author is incredibly vitriolic toward the subject in a way that calls into question the usefulness of the article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is useful for basic statements of fact that it is supporting in this article, and we do not need to (and don't) include the more opinion-based statements. I'm a little confused about why you're objecting to the source if you have no concerns with the statements it's being used to support. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , To be more specific, the first two times the Gizmodo site is used, it is used to support statements that require some degree of inference. Using the inference of someone who is clearly grinding an axe against the subject is questionable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added additional cites to the first statement so it is not solely sourced to Gizmodo. The second usage is already attributed to multiple sources. Does that help? I don't share your concerns, but if I can help assuage them I'm happy to. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , In that case, is the Gizmodo cite even needed? It detracts from the encyclopediality (new word I just made up) of the article to use such a vitriolic opinion piece as a citation when there are much more level-headed sources to consult. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave it in. It does have some strong opinions in it (as many news articles do), but it is a valuable factual history of the incidents KF has been associated with. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Add .onion url
Kiwi Farms has an onion url over at uquusqsaaad66cvub4473csdu4uu7ahxou3zqc35fpw5d4ificedzyqd dot onion. Do add it to the infobox on the page. MillerLeut (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would abstain from linking content that is very likely breaking US law. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We already link to the clearnet site, which I believe is identical to the onion one. We should probably link to both or neither. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd !vote for both - we do the same with piracy sites. I don't see a reason not to include a link here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect date
The part of the article that says "On July 27, Héctor Martín Cantero posted a link..." seems wrong. Shouldn't it be June 27? 252hpw252 [transmit message] 01:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, thanks! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The police confirmation tweet date should actually be July 28, which is the correct date in the local timezone (JST, UTC+9). Near passed away sometime after noon JST on the 27th, I shared the statement from their friend that night (just past midnight at 00:47 JST, technically the 28th), and I was able to locate the right police department and obtain confirmation in the evening of the 28th (21:50 JST). See MOS:TIMEZONE. Marcan (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there was a little confusion around whether June 27 was referring to the date of Near's death or the date of the tweet. I've reworded it to clarify that June 28 was the date of the tweet saying that police confirmed that Near had died the previous day. Thanks Marcan! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I just noticed that the date of Near's Twitter thread should also be the 27th, for the same reasons; that thread was all posted on that day in the local timezone. The first tweet went out in the morning, and the rest of the thread was posted (as far as the call suggested and as mentioned in the doc) immediately prior to the suicide. Right now the article sort of implies that there was a day between the suicide note and the actual suicide, which was, unfortunately, not the case. (Sorry if I'm a bit emotional about this; we were all trying to save their life but there wasn't much time : Marcan (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the tweets mentioned:
 * The first tweet in Near's thread was posted at 2021-06-27T00:07:41.000Z, which would be Sun, 27 Jun 2021 09:07:41 JST.
 * The tweet by Martín with the Google Doc was posted at 2021-06-27T15:47:33.000Z, which would be Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:47:33 JST.
 * The tweet by Martín about speaking to police was posted at 2021-06-28T12:50:03.000Z, which would be Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:50:03 JST.
 * Does that sound accurate? We might be able to reduce timing confusion a bit by adding the time in addition to the date.
 * Also, I apologize, I've just realized who you are (somehow I didn't put two and two together with your nickname). I'm very sorry for your loss. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and Loaded Language
This article seems to have a very biased point of view and treats allegations as if they're facts. I'm not a big fan of the site but I know its not as evil as the article tries to paint it. This whole article needs to be redone from a neutral point of view. I've even heard stories about how the site has helped people and gotten criminals put in jail. That kind of stuff shouldn't be left out. Also, biased media sources shouldn't be used even if they are wrongly treated as trustworthy by Wikipedia. 173.16.27.205 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see wp:RS for our policy on what information we can include. You must provide reliable sources to support your arguments. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've heard stories? Would any of those stories happen to be in a reliable source? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

New Chris-Chan Controversy
Kiwi Farms was the one that revealed the audio and chat logs of the new Chris-Chan incest controversy, which has gained widespread attention, definitely the most ever put on Christine. Should this be included in the history section? It is not only the most attention Chris has ever seen, but probably the website's as well. JungleEntity (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is unlikely to be done in a way that doesn't violate BLP. Equivamp - talk 19:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In order to add anything to any Wikipedia article, it needs to be published in reliable sources. I'm not really sure what events you're talking about, but if sources exist it's possible it could be added. If it's just something you read on the site, then no.
 * Given that this individual doesn't seem to be notable enough to mention in a standalone article, much less this one, you'll definitely need some pretty strong sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the latest alleged "revelations" are and I don't care. It is important to remember that "Chris-Chan Controversy" is a wholly artificial concept that only exists inside the sick minds of the denizens of KF. In the real world, this is nothing more than the ongoing, organised (and quite possibly criminal) harassment of an extremely vulnerable private individual. We must not give any credence to this so-called "controversy" by writing about it as if it were a real thing, rather than as a persistent harassment campaign. Any attempt to do so would, in effect, be weaponising Wikipedia as a tool of that very harassment. We will not be doing that any more than we will be giving credence to things like "pizagate". Only if Reliable Sources are picking up on the harassment, and covering it, might that be legitimate content for us to include. If so, please provide links to that coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I only recommended this as it was trending on twitter, and was being plastered across social media. Doing a quick Google search of "Chris-chan" gives multiple news articles about the subject, though I doubt any mainline news will pick it up, as the whole controversy is about Christine . JungleEntity (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as in mainspace. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. It doesn't matter if something trends on Twitter; without RS coverage it's not suitable for inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Attention" has nothing to do with inclusion criteria. It's for sale, Wikipedia is not. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I want to also add that this would still need to tie into KF in some form or fashion. CWC's arrest and allegations aren't automatically pertinent to coverage of KF. For example, this Newsweek article about CWC mentions the crime but not KF. This one does mention KF, but in passing. This means that any coverage would need to be more KF specific rather than CWC specific. I know that there's a draft being worked on at Draft:Chris-Chan, so if that was accepted that would be the best place for any of the major details. At present the coverage isn't all that heavy and a lot of it is in places Wikipedia wouldn't see as reliable. Given the nature of the allegations, there would need to be a lot more coverage to really justify adding this to the article. I'm not saying to never add it, just that we want to make sure to avoid being a tabloid or overly sensational. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help thinking that even using the term "Chris-Chan" is to buy into the twisted KF universe where she is perceived as some sort of comic public persona and not as a real private individual person who has been extensively harassed. My understanding is that the harassment has previously included attempts to frame or entrap her in criminal activity. (I'm going off Natalie Wynn's summary: "The absolute low point came when some trolls encouraged a 13-year-old boy to pose as a 19-year-old girl and have phone sex with Chris-Chan and record it. In other words, they groomed a child to deceive an autistic person into performing sex acts for their entertainment." - Cringe | ContraPoints) This makes the allegations very highly suspect. If the courts decide otherwise then we have a non-notable domestic abuse case which doesn't make for valid content here or (heaven help us!) in a BLP. If the whole thing turns out to be a frame, and that links back to KF, then we might have something to write about here. Either way, that draft BLP has to go. It was created by a now blocked user and nothing good can possibly come of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FFS! The blocked user who made that draft also has a separate draft in their userspace using her deadname. They were working on both at the same time too. I've put that one up for speedy deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a major concern and brings up the issue of real world harm to CWC, hence why there would have to be a lot of coverage to justify adding anything about the newest allegations. Her case is something that I've always thought a psychologist or sociologist would have a field day with, as it brings up a good question of how much is nature and how much is nurture - in other words, how much is herself and how much was brought about as a result of trolling. I was worried about the draft being a BLP issue myself as well, to be honest. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I know that the forum likely didn't want any of this to happen to her but there is a question of whether any of this would have happened if the trolling had never occurred. But that's OR to debate in any case. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Who's the banned user--Trade (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It was User:Methalowiec, who was blocked (not banned as far as I can tell) for sockpuppetry. While hunting around for that I found some other garbage:
 * A Wikidata entry: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98406706
 * A commons category, which you already have up for deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Christine_Weston_Chandler
 * Most shockingly of all, a Russian language article which, based on a Google Translate, looks pretty much the same as the deleted drafts: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Чендлер,_Кристиан_Уэстон (I see from the history that you put that up for deletion but somebody has removed the tag.)
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've cleared out the unsourced statements from WikiData. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any English speaking admins on Russian Wikipedia we can contact? Yhe article have been nominated for several months now. --Trade (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the usernames on this list ring a bell for me, but maybe they will for someone else here. Normally I don't try to get involved cross-wiki (particularly on projects where I don't read or write the language even a little bit), but if it's been tagged for several months that makes me wonder if something is mis-tagged. Surely ruwiki has a more expedient deletion process for BLP violations? Just looked more closely, and it appears it is tagged with their equivalent of notability, which at least on this wiki (and probably on ruwiki) doesn't kick off any deletion discussions. They don't appear to have an equivalent of db-attack, but they do have a ru:Template:db-nn. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make a quick note - there have been a few articles that have mentioned Kiwi Farms in relation to CWC, particularly its influence on her. It's worth keeping an eye on this to see if anything develops on that end and maybe draft a line or two about this in preparation. Not add it yet, but just have something ready. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving to a new US-based domain and Russian registrar.
1) The article says that "Shortly thereafter it was moved to a new US-based domain." It is unclear from this or the source what the new domain is. The article only lists kiwifarms.net which appears to have been the domain for a very long time. What is the new domain?

2) The previous sentence says that the kiwifarms.net domain moved from DreamHost to a Russian registrar. Do we have information which registrar this was? All of the whois archives I've looked at show that kiwifarms.net moved from DreamHost to Cloudflare (a US company.) For example . Apparently kiwifarms.net was with the Russian registrar for a very short amount of time so that it wasn't picked up by the archives.

I think it might be useful to find sources that provide this information and to clarify this paragraph. 2003:C5:5F04:EF01:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that was meant to say that Kiwi Farms moved to a new domain registrar, not a new domain. As far as I'm aware, the .net domain was still active (until the site was knocked offline at some point recently). The only reliable sources I've seen describing their hosting/registration are the two used in the article, but if you find others feel free to link them here—just note that whois lookups and the like are not acceptable as sources per WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Chan
I've started a new discussion at Wikiproject Internet Culture about reviving the Chris Chan article. There is no question that (s)he is notable now. --AdamF in MO (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no question that she is not: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it certainly looks like the community gave it thoughtful consideration and that settled it. Thanks. —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The story has since received primetime coverage on Fox News to millions of viewers and is getting all sorts of mainstream press. Whether or not you agree with the culture war framing of it by right wing outlets is another issue, but it is pretty undeniable that this is now one of the biggest stories on the Internet. It has been trending on Twitter for nearly two weeks, and received attention from celebrities, journalists, and contemporary Internet personalities. It is not going to grow away and has simply outgrown the scope of a single sentence in this article, especially as the case develops. Wikipedia has plenty of articles dedicated to far less notable subjects and avoiding the issue is forcing people to seek out far less reputable sources about the subject. 2603:8000:B343:77B1:9108:DAE9:4AFA:523D (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If our notability guidelines were updated to include "trending on Twitter" that's news to me. This talk page is not really the place to discuss whether a different article should exist, but such discussions have happened: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074, Administrators' noticeboard (permalink), etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent Events
From what I understand, a troll from the Kiwi Farms who conducted the interview with a certain artist that’s currently in jail for inappropriate conduct with a family member may have groomed him into abusing said relative. How should the article approach these recent findings? Is the website accountable for how its members act outside the internet? The past week was intense for the website, including a potential DDoS attack conducted by the troll’s personal connections with the US government. Should any of this be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:86 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, if you're going to ask if something should be included in an article, you should also provide the reliable sourcing that would support such additions. "I saw it on KiwiFarms/Twitter/some tabloidy website" is not sufficient. More specific to this situation: You would need very strong reliable sources for any of this given the WP:BLP concerns. Consensus has so far been not to include anything about the "certain artist" (see discussions above, which include links to the centralized discussions). I don't think there has been any centralized discussion of this troll you mention, but WP:BLP applies to them too and my guess is the same BLP concerns that apply to the artist and the events surrounding her would also apply to events relating to a troll's involvement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll just add that the criminal allegations are currently before the courts. They will get to the bottom of this, eventually. We should wait and see what happens before covering these claims. If there comes a time when this blows up in KF's faces then we will cover that to the extent that Reliable Sources support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically this. Pre-trial coverage is always on the lighter side and one of the big issues here is that Wikipedia can't include speculation, hearsay, or the like. We can't judge future notability based on current coverage. There's no rush to add information about any of this to the article. It's better to wait and have good RS than to rush and use lackluster sourcing, particularly when it deals with topics like this. That way it's more comprehensive and has the best possible sources. I suppose I'd be remiss if there wasn't mention of waiting for sourcing saving the WMF's legal team a potential headache if one or more of the persons potentially involved in this scenario were to try to threaten legal action because Wikipedia misrepresented them. Not that many succeed, but it would still save them a headache. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to let you know,, that the admin discussions you linked earlier in the talk page (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) doesn't link to the specific Chris Chan incident. There are plenty on the noticeboard, but please change your link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Creating_the_%22Chris_Chan%22_article (which I think is the most recent) so others can easily read it!! JungleEntity (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will update the link, but not to the one you've provided. I was indeed referring to a discussion on AN/I, not AN; it has simply been archived since then: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thank you! JungleEntity (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris is mentioned in one of the sources that is cited
Under wikipedia rules, that would be the "legitimate source" that the user who purged name from the articles history claimed was required 2603:7080:8101:593E:9C2B:E58E:E319:75C6 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Please take time to fully read and understand WP:BLP. --Equivamp - talk 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the misgendering has to stop! I have redacted it above. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also removed a deadname in the section title. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor point, but that's not technically a deadname as it's shorthand for her full name. Not worth restoring though. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just that Chris is not a deadname for someone named "Christine" just because her deadname also could be shortened to it, Christine is using "Chris-chan" on her own Twitter page. On top of misgendering even happening in some primary sources on the situation and potentially being a honest mistake. Just correct the person but please don't make this section confusing by editing on their behalf based on assumptions. --79.205.179.39 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of sources/bias
Wikipedia: Reliable Sources states in reference to Gizmodo (Cite note 5) "There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for techonology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements." Likewise, in reference to VICE media (Cite note 6), "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." On that basis, I think the claim about Julie Terryberry committing suicide as a result of harassment from Kiwifarms ought to be removed pending a reliable source reporting on it.

Conversely as Chloe Sagal, Julie Terryberry, Brenton Tarrant, Rose Christo and the pseudonymous Near are all mentioned by name, would it not make sense to specifically reference Christine Weston Chandler as the reason for the site's creation, rather than euphemistically refer to her as a "webcomic creator"? Insider specifically has reported on it, but much like VICE media according to Wikipedia: Reliable Sources there's no consensus on reliability - assuming VICE is classed as reliable in the context of this article, it would make sense for Insider to be classed as reliable too, although if there's agreement that VICE doesn't meet criteria for reliability for this article then it would make sense for Insider to also be classed as an unreliable source. Additionally, Christine as the reason for Kiwi Farms' creation is referenced in New York Magazine which as per Wikipedia: Reliable Sources is classed as "There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." - thus if Gizmodo is classed as reliable despite the lack of consensus for controversial/contentious statements, it would make sense for this to be classed as reliable, unless Gizmodo is also classed as unreliable on that basis.

--79.76.47.111 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Terryberry's suicide and its connection to Kiwi Farms can be sourced to two–three sources at the moment (I've just added a third, though it cites the other two). The general statement that three suicides have been attributed to harassment from the site is sourced to more than just Gizmodo. You might want to review WP:MREL for a little more detail on what "no consensus" in that table means—the idea that if one article published by a no-consensus source is acceptable for use in a Wikipedia article means that all articles published by no-consensus sources are acceptable (or vice versa) is not how we approach that guidance. If you have specific concerns with the reliability of one of these articles, certainly feel free to elaborate, but three sources supporting the statement and none contradicting makes me comfortable with its inclusion.
 * Regarding inclusion of the name, see WP:BLPNAME. She is not a notable individual, and given the site was dedicated to harassing her, I don't think we ought to be including her name to be cautious of expanding that harassment vector. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd point out that the third source you've linked to is literally entitled "Kiwi Farms, the forum that has been linked to 3 suicides, was made to troll Chris Chan years before she was arrested on an incest charge" - given the preamble of the article cites that the name "KiwiFarms" is derived from the name "CWCki Forums", the inclusion of Christine's name is relevant to the article (although I would also note that the claim that KiwiFarms was originally called "CWC Forums" is unsourced, although cite note 2 in the "History" section does explain that it was made in reference to Christine, although without clarifying the site was originally named as "CWC Forums"). Julie Terryberry, Rosie Christo and "Near" are not notable people (and Rosie Christo and Julie Terryberry would both fall under WP:BLPNAME, as they are both only referenced in regards to a singular event). Please advise. 79.76.47.111 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEADCITE for why the citation may have been omitted in the lead but included in the article text.
 * That sources mention the names does not mean we have to. I have no strong opinion on including the other two names you mention and would be fine with either being removed if consensus goes in that direction, but I will note that WP:BLPNAME, a section of our policy on biographies of living people, does not apply to Terryberry as you have suggested, as she is dead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly I am dubious as to the inclusion of the entire section on "My Immortal", which does indeed have a place in "internet history" but Rosie Christo's inclusion appears to be an invitation to ridicule. 79.76.47.111 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that it's pretty odd to include. Its inclusion alongside three suicides and a mass shooting is pretty bizarre, given that it is nothing like either of those things. The sourcing is pretty bad (MuggleNet..?) and I'd be fine with it being trimmed or removed entirely. That said, My Immortal (fan fiction) is surprisingly detailed and apparently better sourced, so perhaps sources could be pulled from there (though I wouldn't be surprised if the more reliable sources sidestepped mentioning KF). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I find it unreasonable that there's so little mention of Chris Chan, both on this page, about a forum that was literally named after them initially, and in general. Sonichu as a concept, or the incest may not be notable enough to warrant a page, but Chris Chan is an unique phenomenon. It's safe to say Chandler is one of the most documented individuals in history, the case of a person having an entire Wiki + a full length documentary with a runtime of several days seems like something worthy of cataloguing. Especially now that the worst has happened, and all eyes are on this person. A Simple Fool (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of "unique phenomena" that are not described on Wikipedia for all kinds of reasons. WP:BLP takes priority here, and that an individual has been extensively "documented" by an internet forum does not mean we should ignore WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, etc. Wikis are not reliable sources, and I'm not sure what documentary you speak of, but as far as I'm aware there is no RS documentary on her. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hate to be rude, but that's just such a weak response. Ignoring the wiki part, this is a person that's been a well-known phenomena for close to 20 years, there should be enough "reliable" information to piece together an article. Judging by the fact that you don't know about the documentary, I'd hazard a guess that you know very little about this person, or their general relevance in internet culture? For the past week, Chris Chan has been a major story, surpassing the Olympics on Twitter at one point. It's all just weird legalism to me lol. In the end, Wikipedia is just gonna lack the information about this thing, and those seeking it out will just come up empty. Kinda weak IMO A Simple Fool (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you, or the others arguing for her inclusion in this article or some other, to provide those reliable sources that demonstrate that she's a "well-known phenomena for close to 20 years", that she meets WP:N somehow, and that this is not a WP:BLP1E scenario. From my brief Google search you seem surprised that I don't know of a 59-part "documentary" YouTube series evidently based on the "documentation" of this individual on CWCki. I think it may be you who is poorly estimating her status as a well-known person on the internet, unless by "the internet" you mean harassment sites. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that people are still banging on about Twitter trends, tabloids and obsessive amateur YouTube "documentaries" even after their abject irrelevance has been explained suggests that there is some serious WP:IDHT going on here. Maybe I am naive in doing so, but I am going to make a tentative appeal to human decency and ask people to reflect that "this thing" is actually a real person's life being deliberately and systematically destroyed purely for the entertainment of a small clique on-line sadists. There is no BLP in this. The legitimate subject here is the harassment. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong to just admit your ignorance of a topic. This person has been covered by major news sources in the past month, specifically as an internet personality. It's a person that probably has millions of people that are at least somewhat aware, given the "obsessive documentary" alone has hundreds of thousands of views. Bottom line though, is that Kiwi Farms was created because of, and originally named after Chandler. It's sort of weak to ignore important information because of some policy that obviously doesn't do this page any good. Not to mention there's already Wiki pages about specific Internet harassment cases. I can't really see a valid argument from either of your ends, sorry A Simple Fool (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms: an imageboard?
§ History begins with The website was originally launched as an exclusive imageboard [...]. I don't have access to the Veale (2020) source, but the Pless (2016) source doesn't contain the word “imageboard”. From my memory, KF has always been a traditional web forum. For example, the Wayback Machine shows it using phpBB in 2014:. Now it uses XenForo. Where does this idea come from? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It apparently came from this edit, which was (unacceptably) cited to a KiwiFarms post which itself contradicts that the site is or was an imageboard: "4chan and 8chan are both imageboards with a huge number of topics and no real focus. Threads on the imageboards last very temporarily, while Kiwi Farms is instead a forum focused mostly on conversations and a huge emphasis on preservation." I'll remove it, thanks for the catch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)