This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template. Template:Not a forum Template:Annual readership

The following are reference ideas for Kiwi Farms. Click [show] for details. The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Urquhart, Evan (September 4, 2022). "Kiwi Farms was booted by Cloudflare. Deplatforming the anti-trans site shouldn't be controversial". Slate. Retrieved September 5, 2022. "2nd web-hosting provider drops harassment site Kiwi Farms". The Associated Press. September 5, 2022. Retrieved September 5, 2022. "La battaglia per fermare la piattaforma online che perseguita le persone trans" [The battle to stop the online platform that persecutes trans people]. Il Post (in Italian). September 5, 2022. Retrieved September 5, 2022. Venugopal, Sahana (September 6, 2022). "Explained: Why are web hosting providers de-platforming Kiwi Farms?". The Hindu. Retrieved September 6, 2022. Gilbert, David (September 7, 2022). "Inside Keffals' Battle to Bring Down Kiwi Farms". Vice News. Retrieved September 7, 2022. Covucci, David (September 15, 2022). "Kiwi Farms gets booted from another major domain". The Daily Dot. Retrieved September 18, 2022. Breland, Ali. "The Website That Wants You to Kill Yourself—and Won't Die". Mother Jones. No. March+April 2023. Retrieved February 2, 2023. Hall, Ellie. "The Notorious Kiwi Farms Is Back Online". Buzzfeed News. Retrieved February 4, 2023.

It’s [removed per WP:BLACKLIST]. That should be included in the box, objectively speaking. Goblintear (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RfC above named "RFC on linking to Kiwi Farms". LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't we remove the link here too per WP:Problemlinks? Licks-rocks (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually linked. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! Consider my comment retracted. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After being online a few weeks, it's offline again today. https://archive.ph/aIUSE . I'm curious what wikipedia policy is regarding "flakey" services. Can't just go around changing "is" to "was" and back again every other day... Habanero-tan (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is now, someone else might have changed it. Even if it isn't, the RfC above concluded that even a non-clickable link should not be included (also the domain is on the WP:BLACKLIST anyway.) I suggest we remove the domain from the above completely.Egefeyzi (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm boldly removing it, working against the blacklist by writing "dot" instead of "." is not allowed anyway Egefeyzi (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s domain name ([redacted per above RFC and per WP:BLACKLIST]) has been up for months at this point, and the campaign to take it down has sputtered out. I think it’s safe to say we can relist it in the info box.

Original reason given not to list it had nothing to do with “responsible platforming” (not our job) but rather that the domain name was constantly changing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Farms#domain_name Goblintear (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we remove the domain from here per the RfC above Egefeyzi (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It already was removed back when the RfC concluded. The guy who started this subsection is trying to get it added back, which will not happen without a new discussion. Zaathras (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to have a new discussion once the Twitter deplatforming campaign is no longer active. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm boldly removing the domain from here (the Talk subsection) per the above RFC, and per the WP:BLACKLIST. A new RfC should be opened to re-suggest adding the domain name back in and to remove it from the spam blacklist, though considering how recently the RfC closed, I don't think that would be appropriate. Egefeyzi (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shootings, many ISPs in New Zealand (and some in Australia) made the decision on their own accord to block KiwiFarms, 8chan and 4chan(?). It is not illegal to access or provide access to KiwiFarms in New Zealand as far as I am aware of. I have tested it and I can access KiwiFarms from my relatively small, but still reputable ISP, in New Zealand.

If possible could someone with the necessary permissions research this more and adjust the article accordingly. Lia8629 (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" does not mean "all". Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Christchurch mosque shootings, the site was blocked in New Zealand."

This is in the introduction paragraph.

What my point was is that while many NZ ISPs have blocked KiwiFarms, not all have - as the article incorrectly states. Lia8629 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it; it's not what the body of the article said anyway. Also, I'm not sure what Zaathras meant. Endwise (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot about this. When the OP wrote After the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shootings, many ISPs in New Zealand..., I hastily and wrongly assumed that they were quoting text already present in the article. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note: the article used to contain a sentence noting that this so-called "Kiwi" site has no connection with New Zealand, but an editor who has since been banned for sockpuppetry came along and removed it as "irrelevant". I would have thought a brief explanation was relevant, particularly in view of the NZ mosque shooting controversy (which was the first time many New Zealanders had ever heard of "Kiwi Farms"). The source cited even says so.[1] Muzilon (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the website has been regularly up under the same URL since late September, I would say the URL should be added back into the info box. The only rationales not to add it back in from previous discussions seem to be,

1) The website is constantly shifting URLs. This does not seem to be true anymore. I reviewed archive.is records and it seems to have been consistently up under the .net for 2+ months with little downtime.

2) The website is hate speech. This is not a reason for not linking them. Among other things we have links to

-Stormfront

-4chan

-Encyclopedia Dramatica

I fail to see how this website is any more hateful than the explicit white nationalist ones, or 4chan, which has had at least 5 separate instances of mass shooters posting threats there.

3) The website is spam. This does not seem to be true. I can find no proof of Kiwi Farms ever having malware, cryptocurrency, phishing scandals, etc. If anyone can point me to any reason that this particular site should be on the Wikimedia spam blacklist then please do.

None of these reasons are valid imo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Kiwi Farms#RfC on linking to Kiwi Farms for the relevant RfC on the question, where consensus was achieved to omit the link. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the consensus is predicated off things that aren’t true (the domain being unstable and baseless accusations of it being spam/phishing) and the rest is a general it’s too dangerous to link which is absurd given that we link both Stormfront and As-Sahab, the media group of Al-Qaeda, which actively encourages terrorism and Islamic radicalization. We also have links to Pornhub. I see very little academic benefit to the end user from clicking that link, and the ads there often do actually fall under the scam/shady variety.

I would consider Kiwi Farms to be less dangerous than a group that actively plots and executes Islamist terrorist attacks, and has killed well over 2000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack of all time. What’s the benefit of linking to their website? Informational reasons. I fail to see why Kiwi Farms is exempt from this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just rehashing the arguments of the RfC. Nothing has shifted in such a short time to change that consensus. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What’s shifted is that now the website is stable under 1 domain and has been for several months. The rest of the arguments are the same, but “the website is unstable” seemed to be the driving force of the past discussion, and that is no longer true. If we had a standard policy on not linking to ‘hate sites’ that would be one thing, but I’ve never heard of that and we link to several sites that actively endorse and promote terrorism so that doesn’t seem to play a part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a wise man: cool story, bro. Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see what’s a cool story about it. We link Al-Qaeda. That’s just true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also irrelevant, as different articles have different reasons for inclusion or exclusion. Zaathras (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Whatever you say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about what consensus says. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. Wikipedia links to terrorist organizations, Stormfront (the first internet hate site, connected to plenty of real-life hate crimes and murders), and the Daily Stormer which is a literal Nazi propaganda website. So one might rightly wonder why KiwiFarms gets the black hole treatment. The difference with KiwiFarms is that the RFC occurred at the same time as a widespread Twitter deplatforming campaign against the website. I wonder if the "consensus" would be the same if the RFC was held right now, given that the Twitter campaign has somewhat petered out. I guess the "consensus" holds until then. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 03:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what activity levels of external off-wiki movements have to do with whether something is a violation of Wikipedia policy according to Wikipedia contributor consensus, especially given the existing rules against canvassing which should prevent any such campaign's activity or inactivity from impacting the result of an RfC; additionally, I would suggest that it's excessively reductive to call it a "Twitter campaign" and a subjective judgment call to declare it has "somewhat petered out", at least absent external reliable sources. Please note my declared conflict of interest and take with appropriate grain of salt. Lizthegrey (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster raised a good question: why is this article treated so differently compared to others? Wikipedia links to websites that are objectively and indisputably worse than KiwiFarms. What seems to make KiwiFarms special is that there is a coordinated off-wiki campaign to limit access to KiwiFarms that was at its peak at the time of the RfC. It's hard to not take note of the timing of all this, and the special treatment that this topic has received. Rules against canvassing still do not present users with a conflict of interest from participating in the RfC (for example, you voted in the RfC despite a declared conflict of interest.)

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I just think this should be revisited once the off-wiki campaign dies down. I find it hard to believe that a massively coordinated campaign to remove KiwiFarms URLs across the internet had absolutely nothing to do with the KiwiFarms URL being removed from this article in a rather unprecedented way. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's a simple matter that the potential harm of linking outweighs the potential value of including the URL. I don't know about any of the other articles you mean, and I can assure you I was not part of any coordinated campaign, but reasonable minds can certainly differ on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all arguments that were made and rejected during the RFC. Additionally, RFCs aren't decided based on numbers; they're decided based on the strength of the arguments. As the closer said, the crux of it is that the arguments for inclusion were unequivocally weaker. A tiny handful of other sites isn't a clear-cut precedent, especially when they're only connected by a vague handwavy "websites someone might object to for some reason" sense when we have guidelines and policies specifically saying, very clearly, that websites shouldn't be linked if they are focused on harassment. Additionally, your (implicit) speculation that there was canvassing in opposition to including the link isn't borne out by the way arguments broke down in the RFC above; the fact that the topic was trending on social media could have resulted in canvassing for either side, but for the most part, there were more experienced editors opposing inclusion, and more inexperienced editors arguing for inclusion - which is part of the reason the arguments for inclusion were so weak. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're incorrect when you say that there are guidelines and policies that specifically say that we shouldn't link to websites where harassment takes place. The closest thing is a guideline which says that the practice is discouraged, but that's it. I'm not trying to reargue the RFC. I disagree with the closer, but if I was the closer, I'm sure you'd be the one disagreeing with me instead. I just think it's reasonable to conclude that the off-site deplatforming campaign had something to do with the reason why the URL was removed from this article despite many other much worse websites -- that exist specifically to call for hate crimes against minorities -- remain linked. My only point is that it would be interesting to revisit the RFC when there isn't a campaign to de-list Kiwi Farms from every website it appears on. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors aren't required to make their decisions or form their opinions in a vacuum; if some were influenced by seeing things outside of Wikipedia, that's neither here nor there. As to your last sentence, can opinions change over time? Sure. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key difference is whether it is a _non-specific_, general call for hate crimes against minorities, or whether there are _specific_ instances of harassment against _specific_ individuals being specifically conducted through and disseminated via the site that is under discussion for linking. See Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment#Key_guideline_points which specifically says "Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress." and "Privacy violations are especially harmful.". While I profoundly do not agree with the positions taken by the Daily Stormer, for instance, they don't routinely publish the home addresses of individuals they are opposed to. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick nose-count in this discussion shows overwhelming opposition to including the link among longstanding editors. I don't think it's reasonable for you to speculate that rushing to repeat the RFC again would get the result you prefer, no, especially when you're basing your argument on completely evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONs about WP:CANVASSing. As I said, the fact that the topic was being highly-discussed everywhere could just as easily have attracted people eager to include the link as people who wanted to oppose it; given that much of the opposition to including it came heavily from veteran editors, who would know not to participate in discussions they were canvassed to... if you have proof that they were canvassed, you can take it to WP:ANI or WP:AE, but otherwise you should focus on trying to come up with better arguments and not on hoping that just re-running the same RFC will get you a different result. Of course you can wait a year and run another RFC per the usual WP:CCC, but surely you have to recognize that right now, the sharply negative response to your suggestion here suggests that consensus has not, in fact, changed. I will note, in passing, that glancing at your edit history you have almost no edits outside this topic area for the past three years, which strongly suggests that, if anything, you may have ended upon on this article after seeing discussions about it outside of Wikipedia - since you've raised concerns about canvassing yourself, it seems reasonable to ask if you could you explain how and why you ended up here to weigh in on that RFC (and to argue about it after its closure) after such a long absence from editing. --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree very much that I have declared my WP:COI (and thus received some replies/remarks above in this talk page) because of my having been targeted by the site and thus my public opposition to the site; I wish that those who are site members and bringing the perspective of wanting the site to remain online, be linked from elsewhere etc would similarly declare their COIs (and thus neatly avoid the problem of appearing to have CANVASSed, by being clear how they found their way to the article/talk page). Lizthegrey (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you might be seeing my comments as more personal than they really are. We all know that when a topic becomes "hot" online, there are an influx of editors. I'm not saying they are single-purpose accounts or are following only because of a link, but publicity tends to draw certain attention that may result in decisions that wouldn't have otherwise been made had there not been that publicity. I'll definitely be interested in looking into another RFC in a year or so. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus can certainly change. But (and I mean this in good faith), by prolonging discussion here you are simply entrenching positions. If you are looking for a truly fresh take on the issue, it can only help to let it drop out of sight for some time. That is, however, just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're saying the same thing as I am here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the recent RfC, plus Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which is a widely accepted behavioral guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to !vote. We're not reopening that massive RFC two months after it finally closed. That'd be a massive waste of time for everyone involved. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The webcomic artist who was the basis for the creation of the CWCki and CWCki forums was not initially discovered on 4chan but rather Something Awful forums. Discussions on 4chan rather greatly facilitated the attention given towards said webcomic artist to the wide audience we know of today. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a reliable source to that effect, it would help. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source that mentions it more down in the early days section:

https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-arrested-trending-who-is-mom-twitter-history-sonichu-2021-8

But assuming because of the title, the source should not be included because the source, despite being independently verifiable, violates WP:HNE, even though it is reliable, and verifiable. Therefore, non-factual information should probably be kept because at the end of the day, it is harassment to mention it because of the source title. So including factual information is probably not a good idea because the source title is controversial and contains the name of someone who should probably not be mentioned because they have endured enough. Just a thought! Kronintz (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to resolve this would be to change the phrasing to "It was originally launched as a forum website to troll and harass a webcomic artist who was first noticed in 2007". My personal preference would be for Wikipedia to accept that she-who-shall-not-be-named is a public figure who has done interviews and been covered by mainstream media outlets, but I'm not going to fight you all on that. I'm just going to be bold and take my initial suggestion to the article. Also, doesn't BLP also apply to talk pages? I don't know how you can get away with namedropping her here. Koopinator (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the best way to handle this is to just end the sentence at 2007. No issues with the Insider source, but the added detail has little to do with the subject of this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with citing this source, actually. Other sources that mention Chris Chan are cited, particularly 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 which is by the same publisher. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, previous discussions came to this exact same consensus, partly because not including those sources would strip most of the article. It's only BLP if it's spelled out in the article's text. JungleEntity (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem right to me. WP:BLP explicitly says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Koopinator (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, the reason for not mentioning Chris Chan by name was more of an IAR "this will cause more trouble than it's worth" thing than a BLP policy thing. I don't really think there's anything spelled out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which would prevent us from mentioning her by name (it's not badly sourced or whatever else). Endwise (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question comes up every month it seems, the quick answer is that Wikipedia appears to have a borderline neurotic need to keep any mention of CWC off the site, even though said person is well known, and has been both reported on, and been interviewed on, several reputable news sources, even pre-arrest.

From what I can gather, this policy came up because CWC was an active user on Wikipedia many years ago, and caused some drama.

Of course, pretending a notable person doesn't exist because of web drama from the late 2000's is inane, but it appears the people upholding this policy have a very poor grasp on the topic. Or, there is still some amount of bias, given that less notable cases similar to CWC's are not only allowed to be mentioned, but also have entire pages of their own. A Simple Fool (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will just point out that this does not in any way reflect my reasoning on the subject, but I am well beyond borderline neurotic, so there is that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:AVOIDVICTIM. That's the BLP policy issue, there's no creative rules interpretation or grand conspiracy around it. When someone is notable only due to being the target of a harassment campaign, and attempts to insert them seem to come mostly as an ongoing part of that harassment campaign, you get what I understand can _look_ like an attempt to censor, rather than just enforcement of policy. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AVOIDVICTIM doesn't say anything nearly as strong as "we can't name the victim of a harassment campaign". Elli (talk | contribs) 13:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a logical conclusion to me when the subject's entire notability is as a result of a harassment campaign, but you are of course entitled to your own views. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. The person's name is clearly something that is "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". We don't even have a biography of this person, and while BLP applies to content in any article that discusses a living person, this section is clearly meant more for articles about victims, or about events where certain people were victims. Sharing Chris Chan's name does not [amount] to participating in or prolonging the victimization; they have repeatedly sought public attention and clearly do not mind people knowing their name.

Have you actually read AVOIDVICTIM? Your conclusion does not make sense based off of what it says. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement of these policies is inconsistent at best. For example, there is a full page for the Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, another 4Chan trolling campaign. Is this person's entire notability not due to a harassment campaign? If anything, I would say the Slaughter page is a tougher one to justify. The fact that stands is that Chandler is significantly more well-known, has been famous for far longer, and has been reported on in mainstream news on several different occasions, particularly during the 2021 arrest, but not exclusively. It's absolutely ridiculous to have a full page detailing the trolling of an eleven-year old, and a segment on this page about other trolling victims that took their own lives, and still draw some imaginary line at including any mention of CWC, who was the original reason the site was formed, and literally the person the site was originally named after. A Simple Fool (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you've been at this 3 years now. WP:DROPTHESTICK Lizthegrey (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone caring about an issue for a while doesn't mean their argument about it is wrong. You've also discussed this persistently and have a clear conflict of interest on this subject, so telling someone else to drop the stick isn't really a fair criticism when you could instead discuss the ideas they brought up in their comment. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussed back in September 2022, I included a list of all of the prior discussions on Chandler's name, going back over the last three years. Discussion venues were this talk page, WikiProject Internet Culture, AN, and ANI. If you wish to read the linked discussions, please see the collapsed list within my comment at 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC). The consistent and strong community consensus across all of those discussion venues is that content on Chandler cannot be included in any article, be it a stand alone biography, or a sentence/paragraph in an article related to her, because there is no way to write content about her that cannot violate the WP:BLP policy and because any content about her will immediately become a target for vandals and further harassment.

Liz is right in saying that A Simple Fool has been trying to add this content for three years, and Liz is also right to suggest that ASF should let this go, because consensus has very overwhelmingly not changed in that three year time period. ASF has brought no discussion points that have not already been raised in one or more of the past discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, in fact, read essentially every one of those discussions. Most of them did not actually establish a policy-based consensus with most people just citing... previous discussions about the topic. I imagine in a few months, you'll include this discussion as well, next time this gets brought up.

Additionally, just because people have discussed something before doesn't mean that the conclusion reached by said discussion was right, and refusing to engage with the facts of the situation and what our policy actually says just because the current consensus is in favor of your position is not constructive. The last discussion that substantively engaged with the facts of the situation and wasn't closed because of "past consensus" was arguably the August 2021 ANI thread.

There should be an RfC held on this topic at a more neutral time that is worded in a neutral way and has actual debate on the policies at play here, because the current consensus clearly is not satisfactory to many editors (as can be seen by this continuing to be brought up) and is not actually clear as to what is/isn't allowed (as can be seen by continued debates as to what level of mention we should include here, among other things). Having one discussion that establishes how we should deal with discussing her and what level of detail we are allowed to include on her would be a clear net positive. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine in a few months, you'll include this discussion as well, next time this gets brought up. Seeing as thus far it's a rehash of the points already made and addressed in the previous discussions, you imagine correctly!

just because people have discussed something before doesn't mean that the conclusion reached by said discussion was right Perhaps. However it's also worth keeping in mind that having a different opinion on policy points like WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

There should be an RfC held on this topic at a more neutral time that is worded in a neutral way and has actual debate on the policies at play here I suspect, given the history, and that content relating to Chandler (even tangentially) is an obvious and frequent vandalism magnet, the appetite for such a discussion amongst editors will be low. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However it's also worth keeping in mind that having a different opinion on policy points like WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Of course this is true, but that doesn't mean there aren't incorrect interpretations of policy.

content relating to Chandler (even tangentially) is an obvious and frequent vandalism magnet page protection exists; so do blocks. If we were to follow this, we wouldn't have articles about many well-known and controversial things.

the appetite for such a discussion amongst editors will be low That isn't a good case against having such a discussion. It's absurd for a group of editors to decide they have a consensus they like and then repeatedly attempt to shut down any attempt at even having a discussion to consider changing or clarifying that consensus. If they don't want to have such a discussion, then they don't have to participate. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I've never read it. Good luck establishing that consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, digging up old posts on a talk page isn't a smoking gun, to me it just indicates you're aware that the position you're taking is a weak one. I'm sorry, but this site twisting itself into knots trying to avoid any mentions of CWC while simultaneously having no problems describing the online harassment, trolling and even suicides of other internet users is absolutely ridiculous. A Simple Fool (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is here, for anyone interested. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM, but people who are not conflict of interested like I am may find it helpful to add additional material/citations using what's there. Lizthegrey (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this WP:NOTFORUM? It can be useful for improving the article, like you seem to say in the rest of your reply... JungleEntity (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, my "for anyone interested" does sound forum-y, but yes, that was just my sloppy way of drawing attention to new reporting in a reliable source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CWCki is a site that catalogs her entire life, and the initials is literally their name (CWC), so CWCki should be omitted and the "CWCki Forums" too because that mentions the victim too. Budrtinki (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at Talk:Kiwi_Farms/Archive_5#Remove_mentions of "CWCki" or "CWCki Forums" several months ago. There was consensus to remove the fact that they stand for a person's initials, but not to delete the mention entirely. Consensus can change, but I would encourage reading that discussion first. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this concerning as anyone can theoretically vandalize redirects to say anything that can potentially mention Christine or say basically anything they want. This must be stopped because it validates the CWCki as something with notability on DuckDuckGo.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cwcki&ia=web Budrtinki (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This... isn't really something we can do anything about, nor is it an issue for us to solve. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a harm reduction perspective it seems a lot better to provide NPOV material that is indexed than to withhold that material and have people searching for the term find more harmful results. I'm not sure trying to Template:NO INDEX the redirect if that even were feasible would actually do good, it might allow worse harm to happen. Lizthegrey (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be unreasonable to add protection to the redirect if it attracts vandalism, but the Protection Policy doesn't allow WP:PREEMPTIVE protection in most cases. Though I'd note that it probably would have been better to not bring it up on this talkpage, at the risk of nose beans. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a big issue. DDG having a quirk displaying something on their search engine is their problem. It doesn't contribute to notability whatsoever. The actual CWCKI is both the top result on Google and DDG, and I think that means more to notability than their little algorithmic-generated sidebox. That little box has a "Share Feedback" button you can use to tell the devs that it was generated wrong. JungleEntity (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Farms has lots of gore content, videos of people dying etc. They post transgender surgery images and mock them in special threads. Most images/video/media on this site are stolen

I think these should be mentioned in the thread. Saint concrete (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful around original research -- is there sourcing from outside the site that reports on what you and I both know is there? Closest I can find is that the NBC article says it features images from social media of their victims, but nothing about gore, snuff, or nonconsensual sexual image abuse. Lizthegrey (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint concrete, I'd ask that you seek consensus here for consistency of language before removing the "and harassment of" from parallel projects such as Wikiquote that use the same text as the lede here, especially when your rationale is denial that such harassment occurs rather than perhaps an argument around WP:DUE in the lede about whether the harassment is intended, or a byproduct of the "discussions" of online figures. I'll note you did so 4 minutes before raising what appears to be the opposite question of whether here on Wikipedia the article should have original research added of allegations of additional types of harassment suggests that one or the other of these edits is not acting consistently and in good faith.

I'll note for uninvolved parties that the site that the above discussion may be a honeypot for finding additional targets to harass, as I've been informed that my response was immediately within an hour or two quoted off Wikipedia in a dedicated "discussion" (aka harassment) thread. I am happy to supply such evidence privately to a duly authorised administrator, checkuser, or oversighter, in keeping with policy to keep potentially harassing and defamatory information off-wiki. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I might have been wrong. That's it. This is not an important issue and does not need a Talk page here. Revert the edit and just go on. Saint concrete (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Kiwifarms.net has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2 § Kiwifarms.net until a consensus is reached. Mizutani The Pokemon (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]