View source for Talk:Kiwi Farms

{{pp-vandalism}}
{{pp|small=y}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=other|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 6
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4
| archiveheader       = {{Talk archive navigation}}
}}
{{Refideas|state=collapsed
|1={{Cite news |last=Urquhart |first=Evan |date=September 4, 2022 |title=Kiwi Farms was booted by Cloudflare. Deplatforming the anti-trans site shouldn't be controversial. |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |url=https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/kiwi-farms-cloudlfare-anti-trans-speech.html |access-date=September 5, 2022}}
|2={{Cite news |date=September 5, 2022 |title=2nd web-hosting provider drops harassment site Kiwi Farms |work=[[The Associated Press]] |url=https://apnews.com/article/technology-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-gay-rights-7ddcd2315b11f7282acb82df8b689f12 |access-date=September 5, 2022}}
|3={{Cite news |last=Venugopal |first=Sahana |date=September 6, 2022 |title=Explained: Why are web hosting providers de-platforming Kiwi Farms? |work=[[The Hindu]] |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/why-web-hosting-providers-are-de-platforming-kiwi-farms-cloudflare-ddos-guard/article65856839.ece |access-date=September 6, 2022}}
|4={{Cite news |last=Gilbert |first=David |date=September 7, 2022 |title=Inside Keffals' Battle to Bring Down Kiwi Farms |work=[[Vice News]] |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgyagd/keffals-kiwi-farms |access-date=September 7, 2022}}
|5={{Cite news |last=Covucci |first=David |date=September 15, 2022 |title=Kiwi Farms gets booted from another major domain |work=[[The Daily Dot]] |url=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/kiwi-farms-top/ |access-date=September 18, 2022}}
|6={{Cite news |last=Breland |first=Ali |issue=March+April 2023 |title=The Website That Wants You to Kill Yourself—and Won’t Die |work=[[Mother Jones]] |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/kiwi-farms-die-drop-cloudflare-chandler-trolls/ |access-date=February 2, 2023}}
|7={{Cite news |last=Hall |first=Ellie |title=The Notorious Kiwi Farms Is Back Online |work=[[Buzzfeed News]] |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/kiwi-farms-back-online-keffals-campaign-null |access-date=February 4, 2023}}
|8={{cite news |last1=Tiku |first1=Nitasha |title=The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/03/kiwifarms-website-offline/ |access-date=30 September 2023 |work=Washington Post |date=3 September 2023 |language=en}}
|9={{cite news |last1=Cross |first1=Katherine Alejandra |title=In the War Between Harassment and Censorship, No One Wins |url=https://www.wired.com/story/kiwifarms-tech-ethics-networked-harassment/ |access-date=30 September 2023 |work=Wired |date=22 September 2023}}
|10={{cite news |last1=Newton |first1=Casey |title=A return to Kiwi Farms |url=https://www.platformer.news/p/a-return-to-kiwi-farms |access-date=30 September 2023 |work=www.platformer.news |date=6 September 2023 |language=en}}
|11={{cite news |last1=Claburn |first1=Thomas |title=Deplatforming hate forums doesn't work, British boffins warn |url=https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/18/deplatforming_hate_forums_fails/ |access-date=30 September 2023 |work=www.theregister.com |date=18 April 2023 |language=en}}
|12={{cite web |last1=Foundation |first1=Electronic Frontier |title=ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech—No Matter How Awful It Is. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=30 September 2023 |language=en |date=29 August 2023}}
|13={{cite web |last1=Foundation |first1=Electronic Frontier |title=We Need to Talk About Infrastructure |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/12/we-need-talk-about-infrastructure |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=30 September 2023 |language=en |date=20 December 2022}}
|14={{cite news |last1=Gilbert |first1=David |title=J.K. Rowling Ally Arrested for Allegedly Doxing a Trans Activist |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k87vq/caroline-farrow-arrested-kiwi-farms |access-date=30 September 2023 |work=Vice |date=6 October 2022 |language=en}}
|15={{cite web |last1=Bicheno |first1=Scott |title=EFF speaks out against ISPs acting as extralegal digital censors |url=https://telecoms.com/523400/eff-speaks-out-against-isps-acting-as-censors/ |website=telecoms.com |access-date=30 September 2023}}
|16={{cite news |last1=Bogle |first1=Ariel |title=Defamation in the internet age: could a $400,000 Australian court ruling silence the notorious online forum Kiwi Farms? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/23/defamation-in-the-internet-age-could-a-400000-australian-court-ruling-silence-the-notorious-online-forum-kiwi-farms |access-date=22 October 2023 |work=The Guardian |date=22 October 2023}}
}}
{{Connected contributor|user=Lizthegrey|editedhere=no|otherlinks=https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Lizthegrey/0/Kiwi_Farms|declared=1106911376}}

== Is censoring you-know-who’s name really helpful, let alone necessary? ==

I know this is one of those perennial proposals that inevitably gets shot down as “READ THE FAQ”, but censoring “Voldemort”’s name is kind of ridiculous for the following reasons:
:1. The article already discloses their initials and provides links that openly discuss their name
:2. Everyone already knows who they are even if they’re not individually notable
:3. They are not solely known because Kiwi Farms harassed them; contemporary readers probably know them best for their recent legal issues and for being the subject of a lengthy YouTube documentary series
:5. There is very little organized harassment going on against them currently; in fact it’s actively discouraged by people who participated in the original campaign
Tl;dr we are not protecting anyone or doing anything useful by hiding the name of a well-known internet personality. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:This person [[WP:BLP|is still alive]], is [[WP:NPF|not a public figure]], and has no source of notability [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM|outside of being harassed]]. (Youtube notability is not Wikipedia notability.) So I would be very skeptical of proposals to add their name to the article.
:This is not to say that I couldn't ever be convinced, but it'd take some [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] sourcing. Sourcing that'd probably be sufficient to establish a whole article on them. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::Enough of a public figure to have a Wikipedia page: [[Keffals]]. If not a public figure, then that article needs to go. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 01:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::That's not the same person that we're talking about here. Keffals is unambiguously a public figure with notability independent of being harassed. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Interestingly enough, Keffals ''has'' actually interviewed Christine. So we have that, as well as Fox News and other mainstream news outlets discussing her legal issues and the Kiwi Farms involvement, in terms of reasons Chris could be considered at least somewhat notable. I’d say if both national news has coverage of you and a notable streamer has hosted you you’re no longer strictly a “private individual”; that and she (Chris) isn’t trying to lay particularly low or anything. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would agree with that argument around CWC's self-promotion; it's the strongest argument in favour of inclusion, and one I [[Talk:Kiwi_Farms#c-Lizthegrey-20240508020900-DanielRigal-20240506102800|also voiced]] earlier. I'd advocate it more firmly if not for my concerns over their [[WP:INCOMPETENTS|competence]]. However, if we are to go with that argument for them being a [[WP:LOWPROFILE|high profile]] individual, this feels like procedurally it would adhere best to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]] to first handle via a separate discussion of unsalting [[Chris Chan]], a page draft created then mainspaced with a fuller recounting of who they are and their significance beyond [[WP:BLP1E]], and then that article linked from here. [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[Draft:Christine Weston Chandler|The draft title]] is also salted, but if someone who actually has track record of writing articles (i.e. not new editors) wants to take a stab at a neutrally-written, well-sourced draft about CWC, I'll unsalt. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Primefac|Primefac]] I an not a new editor, and I may be interested in taking on this job. What policies should I re-read in order to make sure that this isn't an attack page or something which would be inappropriate for Wikipedia? What would be the threshold for a reliable source in the context of this (e.g Reddit and Kiwifarms are obviously inappropriate for a subject like this).{{pb}}I do not participate in this trolling, not do I intend to ever do so. However, the subject of Internet drama interests me. AFAIK, the main obstacle to something like this is that it's sources are non-reliable and/or inappropriate for an encyclopedia. What would be necessary to see if this is worth taking a shot at? {{pb}}Thanks, [[User:Aeschylus|aeschylus]] ([[User talk:Aeschylus|talk]]) 20:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I would suggest joining in the conversation at [[Draft talk:Christine Chandler]]; the threshold for reliable sources is the same as any other article, but it is currently one of the main holdups for a neutrally-written, well-sourced article to be written. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 01:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::So if I understood this correctly, the main issue with this article's creation is not necessarily the subject, but that it is not mentioned in reliable sources, but only notable in a very informal way like Kiwi Farms and whatnot which does not satisfy notability guidelines? [[User:Aeschylus|aeschylus]] ([[User talk:Aeschylus|talk]]) 04:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
::::CWC has several news articles in her name that are independent of being harassed, so I’d argue she’s notable enough. She is also considered a public figure I believe- she is one of the most documented people on the Internet. [[User:Dr. Precursor|Dr. Precursor]] ([[User talk:Dr. Precursor|talk]]) 03:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Being "documented" was involuntary and part of the harassment for many years. We can't count that towards a good faith notability argument because of [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]]. If there are sources that do not have to do with the harassment and "documentation" then there is an arguable reason for an experienced editor to draft an article that adheres to policies around BLP and NPOV and not doing unnecessary harm to subjects. [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I feel like this is just turning into “any time anyone mentions CWC it’s just part of the harassment feedback loop”. Which you could argue it sort of ''is'', but let me reiterate that the ''organized'' harassment ended years ago. A handful of idiots randomly paparazzi-ing CWC is not “organized harassment”. Neither is someone keeping track of her public court records, or what she posts of social media or YouTube, or discussing an inadvertent IRL encounter. Point is that CWC is an internet celebrity, a public figure by her own free will, and a household name for a lot of people— whether or not you think it’s ''good'' that she is any of those things. We aren’t “defending” her “privacy” when she makes zero effort to lay low anyway. We’re just patronizing our readers, who weren’t born yesterday and probably have heard of CWC at least in passing. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:I don't mean to imply that these are your motives, Dronebogus, but the argument here does boil down to me as being "the harassment was so successful that we should allow it to continue on Wikipedia."  I tend to agree that the possible harms are quite low.  But for me, the benefit to the encyclopedia is nil.  As such, the balance (for me, anyway) is an easy one.  As ever, happy to go wherever consensus leads, but akin to Loki, I don't see myself as easily persuadable.  Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::That’s not really what I was arguing; my case was the harassment is almost entirely in the past, they’re widely known as part of internet popular culture (not to mention the fact that their legal problems were covered on ''national news''), and the article dances around mentioning them in such a clumsy way it’s almost patronizing. I’m not arguing for any change in their notability status; I’m arguing it’s bizarre we’re going out of the way to symbolically “protect” the privacy of a well-known individual by not mentioning their name, once, in an appropriate context, in a largely unrelated article. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 10:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Please no. Can we all find better things to do in life than talk about this all over again? <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::This is what I mean by “Inevitably gets shot down”. I don’t like it when old consensus gets treated as gospel even when there’s valid reasons to reconsider something. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 15:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you are going to suggest that there is encyclopedic value in naming this person, that's pretty much subjective judgement. If you believe it is worth it despite the BLP issues and implications people have suggested countless times, that is also subjective judgement. The consensus, as far as I know, is against inclusion. [[WP:CCC]] applies, but I just don't agree with your points and I don't think it is really worth our time to discuss this again. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 09:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Dronebogus, I apologize for my clumsy wording.  I know that's not your argument, and I don't doubt the good faith of your motives.  But I do feel like it ends up being the practical upshot here.  This person is notable only because of a harassment campaign.  I see absolutely no benefit in using the name, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 12:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::The harassment I would not say is a thing of the past given KF's and other sites' habit of paparazzi photo snapping of her every time they encounter her in public. [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:I do get the feeling that it is sort of a fossilized consensus from many years ago, when the person who shall not be named was basically an obscure crackpot known for drawing a strange webcomic and occasionally delivering homophobic rants on YouTube. At this point, it seems like they are quite well-known basically everywhere on the web except Wikipedia. It does not seem plausible to me that we are actually doing much in the way of protection by maintaining this omission.
:It is probably relevant that most the people who come to argue for the inclusion of the name are farmsers, and that farmsers are generally execrable morons (they invented the term "A-logging" but somehow failed to realize this describes nearly every post made on their site for the last decade). It is indeed hard to see ''that'' much benefit from mentioning CWC, especially since so many people will become extremely rankled at the idea of doing so. I regard the issue as mostly a minor curiosity emerging from Wikipedian idiosyncrasies -- e.g. Daniel Brandt may, by now, clear the notability guidelines, but we sure as hell do not have an article on him. Maybe this is just the price we pay for having a project that works well most of the time. I think it is probably not worth arguing about it too much.

:Food for thought: has anyone actually asked CWC for an opinion on this? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::I think if anything she’d appreciate the publicity for her cult (yes she’s running a cult now) [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::That is a relevant thing I think, now that she's out of custody; it's possible to discern whether she is a [[WP:LOWPROFILE]] individual of her own choosing. [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::But in all seriousness as much as I’d ''like'' to know her opinion, the inevitable unwanted publicity it would attract to both us and CWC far outweighs any microscopic benefit. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::cwc has made a wikipedia page on them self before so I don't think they are against it [[User:Tankfarter|Tankfarter]] ([[User talk:Tankfarter|talk]]) 22:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:Let me turn the question around. Is reopening this can of worms really helpful, let alone necessary? Naming her would only cause a whole heap of trouble. People would try to use it as a bridgehead to introduce more content about her, to distract from the actual subject of this article and generally to be disruptive. So, why bother? It really doesn't add anything meaningful to our coverage of the actual topic here. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 10:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::That’s what is known as the slippery slope fallacy. When that happens anywhere else we protect pages, block trolls, and revert vandalism. There is nothing so special about CWC that her name represents a class-5 security threat. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't see how that last addition is in any way helpful to this discussion. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::@Dronebogus, that last comment is Exhibit A for why this is a problem. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I did not mean to offend anyone, I thought it was just a joke. Anyway removed now. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Dronebogus, I can't speak for anyone else, but that sense of "this is a person about whom it is safe to make jokes" is part of what makes me resist directing any attention their way.  That said, I absolutely understand how that sense develops.  Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 20:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::There’s a difference between poking fun at someone, stalking/harassing them in the sense of paparazzi/[[Stan (song)|stanning]], organized trolling/harassment, and an organized hate campaign. I think they’re all kind of being conflated here. Once again I’m sorry if I accidentally offended anyone by making an arguably insensitive joke but it’s not because I hold ill will or prejudice against CWC or think it’s “safe” to make fun of her any more than I think it’s “safe” to make fun of anybody else. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::I feel like the literal use of the term "[[bridgehead]]" is a good illustration of the distance between the factors in play here and the task of writing an encyclopedia article. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 20:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JPxG}} I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::A bridgehead is literally a fortification used by invading military forces to secure passage across a difficult terrain feature (i.e. a river or marsh) -- even if it is "just" an analogy, it still makes no sense outside the context of treating [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|Wikipedia as a battleground]]. The purpose of the website is not to build fortifications -- it's to build an encyclopedia. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::With all due respect JPxG (and I do, in fact, respect you!), this reads a bit like "no one around here knows how to build an encyclopedia but me."  Reasonable minds can differ on a great many topics, and we can still have the same goal in mind.  Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 00:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think it would be fair to say kiwifarmers are more likely than not to have a battleground mentality regarding wikipedia, if I'm being honest, so it's not that danielrigal sees it as a bridgehead, it's that other people would use it that way, regardless of how we see it. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes. Thank you. I wasn't aware of any potential ambiguity in what I said but I am happy to confirm that this is what I meant. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::To spell things out based on policy: I think there is growing evidence now that CWC has been released from custody that they are behaving in a [[WP:LOWPROFILE|high-profile]] way, actively seeking media attention. This potentially means they are notable in their own right and not subject to [[WP:1E]] (counting the harassment and "documenting" as one ongoing event for these purposes). As @[[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] says, there are tools for dealing with pages that are frequently vandalised because the individual ''also'' happens to be the subject of a harassment campaign (see for instance [[Brianna Wu]] which is goldlocked). Yes, it creates work and is a pain, and inevitably will be used to further harass them, but we don't avoid creating pages entirely because of the heckler's veto.
::The argument against is that even if they are behaving in a high-profile way, we owe a duty of care to avoid endangering people who are [[WP:INCOMPETENTS]] and are behaving in a high-profile way due to exploitation of their mental incapacity. There is also another argument regarding [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]] harm reduction: if we view it as suitable to include their full name in an article relating to harassment of them, does that present a neutral view of them in the totality of the circumstances? Or is it necessary also to create a dedicated BLP for a fuller presentation pursuant to NPOV? [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 02:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:I heavily doubt many people visiting the article for Kiwi Farms of all things will not already know who Chris is. At this point, mentioning her name is only disallowed because ''that's already how it is.'' [[User:Gumbod|Gumbod]] ([[User talk:Gumbod|talk]]) 13:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::A lot of people on Wikipedia seem to conflate “old consensus” with “policy”. Consensus can, and should, change. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Consensus ''can'' change, but that's a bad argument when it isn't changing. The reason this consensus remains is that lots of editors support it. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Or a bunch of editors just happen to hold a lot of sway on one or more pages and they’re unwilling to change their minds. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I fail to see how {{tq|[people] unwilling to change their minds}} is a problem. People exist, all you need to do is convince them. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--color-emphasized,#000)">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 15:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Slighly related topic: should the individual's name be omitted from reference 21? <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:No. If I understand correctly consensus is not to include her name in the article, not “censor every possible mention”. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::But then I don't see the point of omitting her name in the prose. I can just click reference 21 and her name is right there, ''in the article'' (as references are part of the article). I think if the name is omitted from the prose, then it should also be omitted from that reference, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::One could reasonably make the argument that with two other references provided as verification for that particular sentence, it is not necessary and could be removed. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:Just as a general note, we do not necessarily pretend that Chris-chan doesn't exist; I have declined more than a few [[WP:RD2|RD2]] requests where her name appears in various locations. The long-standing consensus is that including her name in articles (here or elsewhere) will just serve to prolong the harassment. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::Finally someone breaks the taboo on actually using her name. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I will happily type her name one thousand times per day if it helps to prevent Wikipedia from being dragged into "lolcow" bullshit. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
::::same [[User:Tankfarter|Tankfarter]] ([[User talk:Tankfarter|talk]]) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

== Copyright lawsuit ==
Under "Harassment", below the defamation lawsuit section, should we include a section about the five-year ''pro se'' copyright lawsuit filed by Russell Greer? It's arguably the litigation surrounding this website that has received the most attention, as - aside from the default judgment concerning Liz-Fong Jones - represents the furthest that a court battle has endured against Lolcow, LLC. '''[[User:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">BOTTO</span>]]'''<sub>&nbsp;([[User talk:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">C</span>]])</sub> 20:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

== Edit request ==

{{edit extended-protected|answered=y}}

In subsection ''[[Kiwi_Farms#Defamation_lawsuit | Defamation lawsuit]]'', it is stated that the lawsuit alleged that KiwiFarms "doxxed and targeted [Liz Fong-Jones] and other LGBTQ people". This may well be true, but it is unsupported by the cited source, which only mentions allegations of defamation.

'''Original text:''' {{blockquote|The lawsuit alleged that the company was helping to keep Kiwi Farms, which has doxxed and targeted her and other LGBTQ people, online.}}

'''Suggested replacement:''' {{blockquote|The lawsuit alleged that the company was helping to keep Kiwi Farms online, and that the site's users had defamed Fong-Jones by claiming that she had sexually abused and threatened her subordinates at Google.}}

[[User:Dieknon|Dieknon]] ([[User talk:Dieknon|talk]]) 09:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{nd}} Looks supported. Per source, KF has "history of sparking campaigns of relentless doxing, often targeting LBGTQ+ people" and "discussed information about [Fong-Jones's] work, her partner and her family". [[User:Hyphenation Expert|Hyphenation Expert]] ([[User talk:Hyphenation Expert|talk]]) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

== Dubious Claims ==

I think it's disingenuous to uncritically link all 3 suicides to Kiwi Farms without nuance (such as Chloe Sagal, who proclaimed during her suicide it was politically motivated) as well as taking Keffals at face value and not taking into consideration outside sources that were also heavily taking part in her swatting/doxxing. I'm not a fan of Kiwi Farms or any of its associates, but I worry biased and leading claims will lead readers to distrust this article (and Wikipedia as a whole) and therefore more susceptible to sympathizing with Kiwi Farms. I believe a more nuanced and neutral article would already do a sufficient job at giving most readers a negative impression of the site, especially now that the dust has settled around #DropKiwiFarms. [[User:Oranguru765|Oranguru765]] ([[User talk:Oranguru765|talk]]) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I second this, this article has so much false information just because a majority of the press surrounding the Kiwi Farms has severe errors. [[User:MakerJulian|MakerJulian]] ([[User talk:MakerJulian|talk]]) 20:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you have a problem with the sources then you can take it up with them. That is not a problem for Wikipedia. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 23:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*We say what the sources do. If you have sources contradicting them, go ahead and add them, but simply disagreeing with the sources isn't enough. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 01:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)