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 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

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

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

1. Kotaku
2. Nintendo Life
3. GameRant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's another coverage by an RS:

1. Video Games Chronicle

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

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

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

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

Zero actual proof of him killing himself other than some google doc that literally anyone could make up. Probably best to take this off until there is some actual real-world proof of death Honey-badger24 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the original google doc was deleted anyway. Didn't the police confirmed Near's death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.136.155 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To not go into edit warring, I'm asking you here first @Primefac:. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's worth noting that there is precedent for not including a website link: Talk:8chan#Inclusion of the link to 8chan GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, the content is still in the article... Primefac (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Equivamp: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That doesn't explain the perfectly timed attack.2605:8D80:4E0:CC03:4E22:6724:8754:BF1E (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:RSP#Gizmodo: 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)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, 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)[reply]

Which statement? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The site is currently experiencing a denial of service attack and is currently down. CaptainLeslieHero (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done Fixed, thanks! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would abstain from linking content that is very likely breaking US law. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Berrely: 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)[reply]

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 | contribs) 01:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]