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

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

Agree. Kiwifarms is noteable and that makes Chris notable and should be named. Mentally ill or not, wanting to have notoriety or not, those are not relevant things to being documented on Wikipedia except maybe in extraordinary and extreme cases. We always see people getting attention in the media we don't think deserve any, like it or not they're relevant to the subject. 185.31.98.184 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article has been written and re-written so many times, always with some hackneyed attempt to obfuscate the origin of the name, and by extension avoid the whole "CWC"-thing. It really does the article no good, as this isn't just "a mentally ill person", it's a prominent figure in internet culture, who, for several reasons (not just the 2021 arrest) has received a fair amount of mainstream media coverage. In general, I believe this CWC person is notable enough for an article of their own, based on the extremely unique circumstances of their life and their massive cult following. It wouldn't be too out-there, given articles of a similar nature (see Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case as example) do exist on Wikipedia.

I understand that such an article would have to have a close eye on it, to prevent it from going off the rails, and that the topic itself has been sort of banned, since both CWC and their detractors used Wikipedia as a "battle ground" of sorts way back when, but I consider it a disservice to not at least have a brief mention of the namesake of this article, particularly since several of the listed sources provide this very information. A Simple Fool (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed to death. There would need to be consensus in a structured, formal, well-attended discussion (such as a Request for Comment) to change the community's current position. I notice that no comments in this section provide any evidence that there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these are reliable sources or not, but there are several articles to be found regarding CWC and recent events through a Google search. (1, 2.)

I don't think it's enough to create an entire new article, but I think it's worth a mention in the KiwiFarms article, especially as some sources mention KiwiFarms directly. JungleEntity (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The honest answer? There is, realistically, no way to write about the person in question without violating WP:BLP. I do believe they may satisfy WP:GNG, however, Wikipedia does not need an article on every notable subject, nor does every notable subject need a mention. It is easier (on everyone's sanity) to avoid it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also worth noting that a fairly strong consensus was built at WP:AN that there is pretty much zero chance of them having an article written. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said a mention in this article, he is too significant to not mention by name. Mudkipboy7 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued misgendering of her is somewhat of a concern. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, "Wikipedia does not need an article on X notable subject", and "it's easier to avoid it" screams laziness to me. It strikes me as odd that a place for information would basically pick and choose articles based essentially on how comfortable they happen to feel about a specific subject. It's just a bad look to leave gaps in information "just because", despite articles about similar (less notable, even) people existing seemingly without much issue. It's such an arbitrary rule, and it seems likely that most of the people enforcing said rule either know too little, or nothing at all about this subject A Simple Fool (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis is on BLP, not on "easier to avoid". It is not people picking and choosing articles based on comfortableness, the point is that no one has been able to write an article that both meets BLP and establishes the notability. 0xDeadbeef 22:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Why can't we name them? We don't need a whole article, just add "Christine Chandler" or whatever after "webcomic artist." Riffraff913 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Chris Chan is such a complicated figure and bias, uncited sources and rumours are rampant, not least the so-called "troll armies" ready to editwar the article into unreadability, the topic is just too difficult to cover. Chris Chan may be a worldwide sensation, but maybe it's best their presence is confined to legend rather than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VariousStuffs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ginder's death still has not been validated through an official source, indeed the only "validations" we have are from a USA Today article which claims to have spoken with Ginder's employer and the Kotaku and PC Gamer articles which reference Hector Martin. While arguments have been hade regarding the validity of these claims, there is some phrasing that I suggest could be altered in order to reflect this. Regarding Martin's reports, the article mentions that he "reported on June 28 that he had spoken to police who confirmed that Near had died the previous day", the phrasing, much like the following part about the USA Today article, makes this seem authoritative, while in reality these are both sources which reference people who are either not citing any verifiable information (in the case of Martin) or have not had their claims independently reported in other sources (in the case of Beckett in the USA Today article). According to the principle of WP:V, the information must come from reliable sources, and while arguments for Kotaku and USA Today fitting this criteria have been made, the sources which these publications reference certainly aren't by any measure. The best thing would naturally be if a statement or other information could authoritatively conclude whether or not David Kirk Ginder is dead or not, ideally from the Bureau of Consular Affairs if Ginder was a U.S. citizen when this is supposed to have occurred. Tsumugii (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of USA Today, Kotaku and PC Gamer to do the direct research to verify if it is true or not that Near died. If they did not consult the Bureau of Consular Affairs, then we have no reason to. I don't see what reason we would have to trust the accuracy of some government database over Near's employer. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and I thought, wait, aren't you just turning things around to say that you prefer to use primary sources that seem more authentic to you than to trust reliable, secondary sources that have conducted their own research from primary sources? 0xDeadbeef 15:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a Twitter post and a Google Doc counts as a reliable primary source fit for any sort of research, only USA Today had any sources which weren't directly linked to social media. Tsumugii (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsumugii, Why do we need to traverse the sourcing graph to prove its reliability? If reliable, secondary sources say they are true, the Wikipedia article should also reflect that as truth. We care a lot about the sources we cite in the articles, while trusting the sources with their claims. I personally find it hard to believe that a search in a government database should overturn claims by several reliable secondary sources. 0xDeadbeef 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be mitigated if we can find a reputable source that is reporting on the overseas death records. Good luck with that, though. Riffraff913 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it interesting how someone can suffer "lifelong abuse" from a site nine years old, but maybe that's just me... Winston von Ripplechip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slightly ambiguous summary of what it says in the Kotaku source. I'll see if I can make it a bit clearer. DanielRigal (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Does that make more sense now? DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help that the only source is basically a GDoc and some guy saying "Dude, trust me", followed by Kotaku picking it up and saying "Yeah dude; trust him." Winston von Ripplechip (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a problem with Kotaku, not with Wikipedia. Take it up with them if you want to. Unless they retract their article, we consider it reliable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that looking for death records is going to do anybody any good. As far as I am aware, we don't have any reliable source for Near's legal name and my understanding is that Japan does not recognise non-binary genders. Amateur sleuthing through the Japanese records is not going to yield any reliable sources that we can use. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack where the haystack is labelled in Japanese. The risk of incorrectly identifying unconnected people would be very high. Out of basic decency and respect more than anything, I urge people to just drop this line of inquiry. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The forum is now offline. Somebody should edit that ImStevan (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I can confirm it's offline, it's too early to tell what the cause of it being offline is. We don't have any RS on the outage, and it could be for any number of reasons unrelated to the current call for Cloudflare to remove services from the site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, seems it's already back up ImStevan (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I've noticed that trying to get them targets fired from their jobs sounds odd. It would be nice if targets was dropped from there. Thanks!

-- Holzklöppel (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Good call! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly rephrase the following:

LightNightLights ^(talk) 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for teaching me about Template:Td. You're so close to 500 edits, and not needing to wait on us slowpokes! Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a useless thing to have in the infobox, considering how often the site's status fluctuates, making it just needless busywork for editors. If a reader really wants to check if the site is online or not, they can go to the site themselves or check something like DownDetector. I believe we should only put something regarding its online status in the infobox if the site goes permanently offline. Things like huge DDOS attacks that are happening to the site right now should be left to the History section, if it needs to be said at all. JungleEntity (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1, nothing to add. -- ferret (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pointless unless it's a sustained / permanent change. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this per the emerging consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a campaign was started to try to convince Cloudflare to stop supporting the site" -- should it be clarified that the objective of the campaign is to enable federal crimes (DDoS-ing) to take the site offline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardark (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source that says as much? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, just common sense. Saying that Cloudflare is "supporting the site" is vague and misleading. They're not supporting the site ideologically or financially, they're just providing the same service that's available to everyone else -- protection against criminal DDoS attacks.

I think it's noteworthy that the "campaign" is an attempt to remove that protection, rather than simply getting the relevant authorities to shut Kiwi Farms down, if there is indeed any evidence that it is a criminal terrorist site as Keffals claims. Aardark (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got no reliable sources then you've got nothing and we are not going to action an entirely unsupported request. DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "supporting the site" sounds odd and is inaccurate. Neither of the sources cited say that Cloudfare support them, just that they provide services to them - I've reworded accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More ambiguous than inaccurate but it was definitely good to clarify it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudflare doesn't just protect websites from DDoS, they also act as a proxy that speeds up network traffic. The campaign is for Cloudflare to stop providing service to Kiwi Farm, not "stop protecting the website against DDoS attacks so we can DDoS them". If you understand wiki-speak, this is against the NPOV and OR policies. 0xDeadbeef 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that from? That's not what sources I can find say: e.g. Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare provides DDoS protection services to numerous websites, including Kiwi Farms, effectively keeping them online.[1], and One of Cloudflare’s most popular services is anti-DDoS protection, which routes attempts to knock a web site offline by flooding it with traffic through its unique worldwide network. Without that service, it’s unlikely Kiwi Farms would be able to stay online.[2] Endwise (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise: Cloudflare is, at its core, a content delivery network (CDN) which quickly serves users websites that they request through their web browsers. It also defends sites against attackers.[3] Secure and accelerate your apps, APIs, and websites in minutes by pointing your DNS to Cloudflare. Instantly turn on performance and security services, including: CDN, WAF, DDOS protection, bot management, API security, web analytics, image optimization, stream delivery, load balancing, SSL, and DNS.[4] I have used cloudflare for my websites, and it should be obvious that their DDoS protection is achieved by acting as a reverse proxy for your network traffic. If you do a nslookup for kiwi farms or other websites behind cloudflare, you will get cloudflare's IP. 0xDeadbeef 08:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is obvious to people who are not familiar with how these services work but you are correct. In fact, a few days ago, I saw somebody falsely claiming that Cloudflare had nothing to do with KF and so, out of curiosity, I looked up their IPs and, of course, it was exactly as you say. Maybe there is some confusion as (iirc) their DDoS protection is not the same as their full CDN service but even mere DDoS protection clearly involves proxying the content. I'm not sure if it involves caching, although I'd be surprised if it didn't to some degree. If nothing else CF was hosting a custom error page for KF which, at one point, had a transphobic "joke" about suicide on it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. this and this would be an authoritative source on how Cloudflare works. 0xDeadbeef 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some musings (although not from any news outlets) that Cloudflare is only providing CDN for Kiwi Farms, and not DDOS protection. Because DDOS protection falls under the broader umbrella of Cloudflare's CDN, would it be worth changing the article from "Kiwi Farms uses DDOS protection services from Cloudflare", to "Kiwi Farms uses CDN services from Cloudflare"? However, If another source specifically states that Kiwi Farms uses Cloudflare's DDOS protection, I think it would be ok to leave the present wording. JungleEntity (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive! 'Anti-trans stalkers at Kiwi Farms are chasing one victim around the world. Their list of targets is growing.' - NBC News; (archive)

"Clara Sorrenti and those supporting her are hoping to open up Kiwi Farms to debilitating virtual attacks by demanding Cloudflare, one of its internet security service vendors, drop the site. Cloudflare has so far refused to budge."

Tweedle (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though NBC News is listed at RSP as one of the "generally reliable sources," I will have to disagree that this can be used for suggesting that the whole campaign is for Kiwi Farms to be DDoSed. The two page authors probably worded it as "debilitating virtual attacks" because they do not know what DDoS attacks are. 0xDeadbeef 11:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK then we can simply just use exactly how the source describes it as, a 'debilitating virtual attack', no? Regardless anyway I dispute the claim that the author's do not know what a DDoS attack is when at-least one of them, Ben Collins, has used it multiple times on their own Twitter page and on one occasion used it within an article they co-authored (the article). Tweedle (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, yeah. I would still disagree that the campaign's intention is to DDoS Kiwi Farms, but rather for Cloudflare to stop offering DDoS protection to Kiwi Farms. I don't know if that distinction makes sense, or maybe it is just about the wording. 0xDeadbeef 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBC appears to be implying something that the subject has not said. Are there other sources that say the same? Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge however I have not looked further into it, I am sure they will be more sources in the future will state similar and someone more dedicated then myself would be able to find said sources. An implication regardless though it is still reliable enough to say 'NBC claims... ' Tweedle (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't like Kiwi Farms as much as the next sane person, but the source that BOTH of the "sources" yall are using for the claim that Kiwi helped with the spam of the Trevor Project does not mention Kiwi Farms, only 4chan. It doesn't matter what the secondary source says, the primary source (this tweet) only mentions 4chan. Why don't yall actually read before moving stuff about? Naihreloe (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I've taken a look to see what other reliable sources have said about this, and the only others I could find were the Los Angeles Blade, and BuzzFeed News, who also attributed it only to 4chan. As such I now suspect that this is a mistake by NBC, so I'd now support removal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I've misread the sources and I apologize. Removal seems fine (and has already been done). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudflare released a statement in their blog detailing that they are cutting services to kiwi farms and are blocking them. The current website is displayed with a cloudflare blocked message, and I would like to request that the current status of the website be changed to temporarily offline or blocked.

Cloudflare blog and tweet:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

https://twitter.com/Cloudflare/status/1566190024864964611

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudflare-drops-kiwifarms/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cloudflare-provided-security-services-kiwi-farms-blocks-website-rcna46219

https://www.rawstory.com/cloudflare-drops-controversial-far-right-website-kiwi-farms-after-public-backlash-site-is-down-report/

Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested changes had already been made to this article; see the current revision. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just didn't refresh the article. Good day or night, Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the first paragraph under Harassment, the last sentence contains the phrase "neurodiverse people", and links to the article on Neurodiversity. However, the term should be "neurodivergent". Neurodiversity is just a concept that people's brains, or neurotypes, are variable, and that includes neurotypical people. With that in mind, it should be clear that saying "neurodiverse people" means the same thing as saying "everyone". What is actually meant in this context is "neurodivergent people", those whose are not neurotypical. Unfortunately, the whole article on Neurodiversity is a mess, and neurodivergent just redirects to that article, but at the least, the wording here needs to be changed. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyRatchick I've changed it to neurodivergent with this edit. LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. AndyRatchick (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philroc (Tagging in order not to edit-war) I'd argue not that we shouldn't link the term lolcow to Wiktionary but that we shouldn't link it at all. The definition is mentioned right after the mention of the term (for reference, the definition is "people that can be 'milked for laughs'"). LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Farms may claim to be "dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities", but that's not what neutral sources say or what they are known for, it's self-promotion. Specifically, it's a slight rephrasing of their own description which is:

Community dedicated to discussing eccentric people

What they are known for, and the actual reason for their existence, are their harassment campaigns.

See eg nymag (2016):

Kiwi Farms, a loose community [...] that specializes in harassing people they perceive as being mentally ill or sexually deviant in some way.

Vice (2021):

a forum famous for being the center of internet-led targeted harassment campaigns

The Guardian (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a community forum website that frequently targets trans people online.

NBC (2022):

Kiwi Farms, a website associated with harassment campaigns against transgender people.

I propose to change the intro from:

American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs").

To:

American Internet forum dedicated to the harassment of trans people and other minorities.

To avoid having "harassment" twice, I also propose to rephrase "trolling, harassment, and stalking" to "trolling and stalking". Zukorrom (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and other minorities" does not seem to reflect the sourcing, and it's kinda awkward phrasing tbh. Would change to dedicated to the harassment of online figures or dedicated to Internet-based harassment. Equivamp - talk 10:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the lede is dedicated to describing the website as a source of harassment of their targets, with the word already present three times. I think Equivamp's suggestion is better, but then some of the other sentences should also be change to avoid even more repetition. How about:

Kiwi Farms, formerly known as CWCki Forums (/ˈkwɪki/), is an American Internet forum dedicated to the discussion and harassment of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows" (people who can be "milked for laughs"). The targets of threads are subject to organized group trolling and stalking, as well as doxxing and real-life harassment. These actions have tied Kiwi Farms into the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.

We should also work to expand the lede in general. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 11:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is value in naming the groups targeted by Kiwi Farms, as it's important information for understanding why they are doing it. "and other minorities" is already sourced in the main article ("particularly minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people"). The focus on trans people is sourced by the sources above. I'm also not sure "online figures" is exactly right, nor is the harassment only internet-based.

I'm very open to other phrasings though! Maybe something like "dedicated to the harassment of minorities, particularly trans people", "dedicated to the harassment of trans people", or "dedicated to the harassment of trans people, women, neurodivergent people, and LGBT people"? Zukorrom (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato For my taste, that suggestion is still too close to the self-description. What does "discussion of online figures" even mean? I'd wager that a regular wikipedia reader imagines something quite different when reading that, compared to what is happening at Kiwi Farms.

imho it's also missing who they target (which implicitly explains why they are targeting them, which seems like important information).

I'd also avoid using their derogatory vocabulary (at least in the lead). It doesn't add any value, but denigrates their victims. Zukorrom (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zukorrom: I agree with you on the removal of "lolcows" from the lede, as it adds nothing to the article, but am neutral on the other part, if anything because it would make the sentence a bit awkward. What if we added that in the second sentence, like this: "Their targets, usually transgender or neurodivergent people, are subject to... Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 11:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Zukorrom (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this change. At the very least, the site's focus on harassing trans and neurodivergent people needs to be somewhere in the lede. Jenny Death (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be implicitly saying anything. Is "minorities" supported by the source? Is there a better term that can be used? I think the general audience would only associate that term with people of color when what you are seeming to mean is the mentally ill or developmentally disabled? --Equivamp - talk 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"minorities" is already in the main article, supported by two sources. But Isabelles suggestion seems good to me, and I don't think there are any objections to it. It's definitely a huge improvement over the current phrasing. Zukorrom (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These recommendations look good to me—the available sourcing has changed a lot in the past few weeks and this lead reflects that well. I think it's probably also worth adding something about Keffals to the lead, given how much of the coverage focuses on her and her campaign to draw attention to the site and pressure Cloudflare into dropping them as a customer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really be listing the current URL of a website as dangerous as this, after its primary domain was already taken down? Jenny Death (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we do the same for 8chan, and all that's happened and is happening related to this website, I'd support removing their external link. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We did that for 8chan because of concerns over child pornography. That seems to be nothing at all like what we're dealing with here. Endwise (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely should not be advertising alternative domains or assisting with people finding this site. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with excluding the URL. The sheer amount of leaked personal information on the forum (full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses) about vulnerable individuals is terrifying. Add in the frequent use of that information to harass people, actual threats to life via swatting and most recently a bomb threat in Northern Ireland [5], and the rest of the obscene and hateful content on the site, I don't think there's any good reason to publicise whatever URL they're currently using. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be a rough consensus not to include the URL, I've WP:BOLDly removed it and mentioned this section in the edit summary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely seems reasonable given the discussion so far. Perhaps we might want to start an RfC on it a bit later though. Endwise (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression (from WP:ELNEVER/WP:ELOFFICIAL) that we only don't link to an official link to a website in cases where the material on the website is illegal/violates copyrights, or is serving malware, rather than being obscene and hateful? E.g. Nazi site The Daily Stormer is certainly hateful, and shock site Goregrish.com is certainly obscene, but we do link to both of those. Endwise (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doxxing is, in many jurisdictions outside of the US, illegal. While the forum's servers might be hosted in the US, many of the active users and their targets are international. Swatting likewise is also illegal in many jurisdictions. Both of these things are frequent actions that arise on KiwiFarms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal per Sideswipe. That's true regarding 8chan, Endwise, but given the proliferation of doxing and violent threats on this platform I think a similar case can be made here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we DO keep a URL, it should still be the main URL. Let readers see what Cloudflare has to say, until the site updates it's DNS records away from CF. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! this is a major infobox policy. If you want to leave the url off, we should give it the attention and time it deserves. TeeVeeed (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not representative of the site content the site is currently serving. Domain name doesn't matter (at least not in Infobox). A link to the site serving with their intended contents matter, this is for the credibility of Wikipedia. You must not dictate what readers should see because of Wikipedia censorship policies. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to keep it, doxxing is illegal is some jurisdictions, but so is hate speech is some parts of the world, which sites such as the Daily Stormer are guilty of, but still have their URLs displayed. I'm certainly not very much of a fan of the site's content, but in being consistent, I'd say it should stay. As for whether it should be the blocked main URL or online alternative URL, that should definitely be discussed. Wikicannibal (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the URL as this site has demonstrably incited real-world violence against marginalized people, and shows no sign of stopping this behavior. I propose that we take this to an RfC. (I'd prefer someone else start the RfC however.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds whether or not an RfC is necessary on this point. While it could be helpful, per WP:RFCBEFORE I do not think we've exhausted discussion here yet. However, even with a huge pile of WP:AGF, given the nature of KiwiFarms, I have a (I believe) reasonable fear that such a discussion could a target for off-wiki harassment and canvassing.

That said, if we are to hold an RfC, how would we phrase the question. Would a simple, straightforward Should we include or exclude the URL to KiwiFarms in the infobox and external links section? be sufficient and neutral enough? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not just Kiwi Farms? Or should it be on an ad hoc basis? Prior to this, only 1 site had the distinction here on WP, so it is easy to keep track of that. But if we are going to allow individual talk page discussions to rule over this, that needs to be clarified or not. Agreed that changing policy like this at this point should undergo a formal process like RfC. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The illegal content of a site must be stated clearly and point out clearly where on the Wikipedia policies it breaks, and a clear consensus conclusions must be reached to remove it. Please no more bold moves, it's good that we have started discussion about this. If it the consensus cannot be reached here please don't change anything to "de-link" the site from Infobox other than updating it with a new domain name to the intended server. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done so above. The forum is notorious for its doxxing, swatting, and harassment of vulnerable individuals, actions that are illegal in many jurisdictions worldwide including the US, so covered under WP:ELNO#EL3. Sources for these actions are already present in the article text, and it obviously would not be responsible or wise for us to link to specific incidents on the forums ourselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we don't waste contributor time when we have a rough consensus. The addition of official external links have always been done under best-practice guidelines; there is no policy that I know of that states we have to provide a link to the subject of the article. On the other hand, WP:BLPEL, a policy, states: External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. I believe WP:BLP should be heavily considered here, due to the activities Kiwi Farms promotes. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this is precisely the type of thing that we need to waste time with.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, I don't really want to power-level myself as a sometime visitor to KF here, but no one forces people to commit suicide, and no one forces them to look at KF. Personally, I know that I would have deleted a requested thread if someone was that distressed about it, but no one forces anyone to visit the farms so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted. This is about culture wars, and preventing readers from having information to make their own decisions about their own opinions is not a good look. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted. I'm honestly speechless. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...so the "bullying" is like the suicide- self-inflicted Wow. That is absolutely abhorrent.

...no one forces them to look at KF Aah yes, because the harassment on Kiwi Farms stays on Kiwi Farms. That people who have threads about them have been swatted, subjected to identity theft, and had personal information like full names, addresses, telephone numbers, employers, email addresses, is clearly immaterial because they didn't have to look at the site... Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The real world actions that you are talking about are scary and should always be reported to admin in my opinion. I have not seen anything like that when and if I view KF. Are they mean? Yes. Personally I feel like it is a stretch saying that KF is responsible for suicides. Telling them not to be mean does not prevent suicide though. What you are calling harassment is sometimes just taking-away the ability to control someone's narrative when that person has a public persona. Like The Butcher of Ardmore for example or other monetary or deviant interests that benefit from controlling the narrative.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since KiwiFarms got taken down by Cloudflare and the outcry succeeded, and AFAIK there are no plans for the owner of the website to re-host it, when would it be permissible for all the verbs in this article to be changed to past tense? Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA, I'd put the word "harassment" before "discussion" in the lead part (see above discussion). Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the sources. If they start talking about KF in past tense, we should -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]