Talk:8chan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Interesting article

This Washington Post article discusses the use of the site by domestic terrorists (something that's barely in the article other than a list of related shootings), the legal and enforcement challenges, including monitoring by intelligence services. It also mentions recruitment to more private venues via 8chan. May be of interest to improve this article:

• Harwell, Drew; Timberg, Craig (March 22, 2019). "8chan looks like a terrorist recruiting site after the New Zealand shootings. Should the government treat it like one?". The Washington Post.

—PaleoNeonate – 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

8chan → 8kun – The article frequently calls the site 8kun, and "8kun" is the current name. —ÐW^(T·C) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The common name is 8chan. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common name is 8chan. I don't think we need to have this discussion again, so I will be happy if this snow closes.--Jorm (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 06:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. They ended up with the rather weird name 8kun because none of the major domains wanted to have them after the mass shooting controversies. They probably don't like having 8kun, but they are stuck with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 8chan is the most common name by far, and all plausible alternatives should be redirected here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category: AntiSemitism?

Why is this entry "Part of a series on Antisemitism"? It should also be "Part of a series on Islamophobia".

8kun is "Part of a series on Conspiracy Theories", or "Part of a series on child pornography". These are what it's best known for (due to QAnon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick, lazy, ctrl F shows up two mentions of antisemitism and one of Islamophobia (the latter is unsourced). I see no issue with the antisemitism sidebar being there if this site is explicitly described as being antisemitic. — Czello 13:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's one mention of anti-semitism. How does this make it part of a series on anti-semitisim? There's far more mentions of shootings. Does one mention of one thing now dictate how we categorise articles? Mongoletsi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a sidebar for child pornography. There is a {{conspiracy theories}} navbox, but it seems to be intended primarily for use on articles about specific conspiracy theories rather than on websites known for hosting conspiracy theory content. The Islamophobia one could potentially be added if there is sourcing noting that 8chan is a prominent source of Islamophobia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

8Chan is not a prominent source of anti-semitism. Why should it therefore be categorised as such? 8Chan is absolutely connected with child pornography. The article has many mentions of many shootings. Labelling the article as a piece on anti-semitism would be justified if there were a section named 'Anti Semitism'; which there isn't. There's one mention. Put simply, this article is not 'Part of a series on Antisemitism'. Mongoletsi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If no productive talk continues here, I will submit this for resolution via Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Mongoletsi (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI WP:ER in re "Hotwheels"

I must once again lodge my strong opposition to the inclusion of text which states as a fact that I ever used the alias "Hotwheels". The text I oppose I also emphasize below:

8chan was created in October 2013 by computer programmer Fredrick Brennan, then better known by his alias "Hotwheels".

This is cited to KnowYourMeme, which makes no reference to the fact and seems to serve to back up my foundation of 8chan, which I do not oppose as factual, and Daily Dot. Daily Dot does not state the fact either, rather quoting NY Mag, which, in the narration of a party scene, includes the text:

She placed the cake on a table in front of Frederick “Hotwheels” Brennan[.]

The quotation marks in this case are ambiguous and are not actively stating the source of the alias, therefore, there is no reliable source for the fact. My position has always been that this alias was given by 8chan's users, even in statements I made as early as 2014 and that that has never been a username of my choosing, as I told Ars Technica in 2015. I have lodged this opposition against reporters as well. My preferred replacement text is no text; failing that, an editor may explain the situation in more detail so that untrue information is not repeated. In line with Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, I declare that I have one and open this edit request therefore. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Jorm (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: Wow, that was fast given the backlog, but I suppose a lot of people watch this page. Thank you〜(ﾟ∀ﾟ)ｻﾝQ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries! This was open and shut. Jorm (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but this is once again relevant, please take a look at this thread[1] and if you agree with my assessment in it remove the name from Fredrick Brennan. Thanks! 🙏 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jorm and GorillaWarfare: It would probably help if I ping, huh. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made the change on that article but you should know that I have been on an extended Wikibreak. I will only see pings for things. Jorm (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I had put back this nickname in good faith (without having seen this discussion) in the Fredrick Brennan page because we have this source among others, which states that Brennan used "Hotwheels" as an online handle and as a nom de plume. Given Brennan's penchant for edgy humor I saw no reason to doubt that he had used this alias himself: my bad. So I guess the Wired article is mistaken about this detail ?

Since this alias seems to be rather well known I think we could perhaps mention it in a contextualized manner, somewhere in the page about Brennan; however, in the light of this discussion, I agree that it's better not to mention it here, nor in the lead section of the Brennan page. Psychloppos (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: Wow, I never noticed that line in that article. Actually, The Daily Stormer wrote the headline, as is common in publications. Wired is assuming something that they have no way of knowing. I know the author well, I will ask for a very late amendment, I don't know if I can get it, but that's what happened here. Could also be part-WP:CITOGENESIS on their part. I challenge anyone to show me where I used the name hotwheels on an online account. The best, earliest sources, my interviews c. 2014, tell a different story. As do my WP:ABOUTSELF tweets clarifying, including the best one from 2014. I have no reason to lie about this, and have been fighting this problem for years. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: This definitely looks like a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. It's typically the kind of thing that can mislead editors into thinking they have credible info. It would be great if Wired could correct their article, maybe specifying that while "Hotwheels" has stuck as a nickname it has never been used by the interested party. This would settle the matter in the Fredrick Brennan page. Psychloppos (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

OR - and hear me out here - OR we could just chalk it up to a tiny detail that they got wrong and then just ignore it because the importance of this in the history of the universe is negligible and you have the PRIMARY telling you right here what the truth is, with enough evidence to back up the claim.

We could just drop the stick forever and let the man stop having anxiety about having to prove his identity. Jorm (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jorm: well of course; I don't even care that much about that little piece of trivia and I have no intention to put it back. I'm just annoyed to have been misled by some inaccurate info in an otherwise good source. What I mean is that if the Wired article were corrected, that would settle the matter and other editors wouldn't be misled in the future. So I just hope Brennan can get them to do it. Psychloppos (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Website link

Hi - I managed to find this website (currently @ https://8kun.top ) but don't see why it isn't linked in the article. There didn't appear to be anything obviously illegal about the content there. Can it please be added to the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.223.70 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Top of the page: #Inclusion_of_the_link_to_8chan. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; I, too, would like to know why 8kun's website isn't linked in the article. 4chan's '/pol/' board -- known for hosting similar content as 8kun -- has its website linked in its Wikipedia article. The same is true for 'The Daily Stormer'. Why is 8kun any different? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Current consensus, as linked by GorillaWarfare above (thread currently archived here), is against providing a link, so I've reverted your edit. Isabelle ^🔔 23:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and reverting my edit. I must have glanced over GorillaWarfare's link; I had no idea that 8kun's administrators were so lackadaisical at removing child pornography or other items that will get you a visit from the FBI in short order. It isn't worth directly exposing curious people to a website that is more-or-less ambivalent about child porn. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, rather, GorillaWarfare's link to the 8kun inclusion debate is broken. Yours isn't. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123: I have both added a FAQ to the top of the page as it's the most common question from new editors, and also edited GorillaWarfare's link. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything of substance to add to the 8kun page (or this discussion); however, I really appreciate you doing your due diligence as it appertains here. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Link re-added since there is clearly nothing even remotely close to a consensus on this so WP:ELOFFICIAL rules. —suriv (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... no, that's not how that works. You can't simply claim there's "no consensus" on something when there clearly is, and you can't just ignore the consensus if you think otherwise. And if you do think otherwise (ergo, the discussion was closed incorrectly and there really was no consensus), then there are proper methods of challenging the close; ignoring the close is not one of them. SkyWarrior 23:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, @Compassionate727 you closed this discussion claiming there was a consensus to exclude the URL. I see no such consensus. There is plenty of opposition to removing the URL. Note that since this decision goes directly against WP:ELOFFICIAL there needs to be an overwhelming consensus to remove the URL, not just an iffy rough so-called "consensus". —suriv (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Let the power mods have their little trip.

All the other language wikipedia's have the link up.

It's a great idea to read any article in multiple languages with google translate anyway. 175.39.18.209 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

after reading the long discussion in the archive and the comments here. My turn to weigh in.
Linking policy prohibits intentionally hosted illegal content. Which this site doesn’t do. It actively removes illegal content. Policy prohibits linking to malicious hosts. Also not a case here.
so we are left with “morality” as a motive. And here I must disagree. No law exists that requires prior active moderation, and such a law would be contrary to the ideas of free speech and 230 protections. On the topic or morality: I’d say nobody here making such a claim has spent any time actually researching the site itself. By looking at the source!
In less than 60 seconds a visitor can come to an easy conclusion set.
A) there is a lot of thumb-your-nose to the law on porn. I have no intention of spending time reviewing but their policy rule is clear, no illegal content. They are recorded by third parties, including links in the article, as actively responding to notifications and removing content.
B) they appear to be at first glance on the main page, very much free speech when it comes to hosting alternative topics. A quick look and you can surely find neo-nazi content. And Islamic extremism. And pro-Israeli content. Looks to me to be quite the melting pot. Of sorts. Not any specific view but all of them.
C) they appear to be in full compliance with US law by various means.
So that leaves us with two ideas. We make an exception to Wikipedia policy and remove the link because some people don’t like some aspects of the site. Which goes against the very concept of freedom and openness. Or we set a one or the other policy. We post the link because that’s what Wikipedia does. Post the link for notable sites. Or remove all direct-site-links. I’ll leave the action up to others. But I’ll leave you with this thought. The site is clearly legal under US law. The only extremity being that it is willing to host ALL levels of legal and protected speech regardless of beliefs.Lostinlodos (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the TOR link:

jthnx5wyvjvzsxtu.onion

The URL is unchanged as of August 25, 2022: https://8kun.top/ and visible on international Wikipedia pages. Only the English wiki version is censoring it. And all this crap about "consensus" is just astroturfing. ANY so called "consensus" should be backed by a published transparent poll vote. Xythraguptor (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you try to implement a poll voting process for every "consensus" on wikipedia. This way all the sock puppets will have to vote against the normal unbiased users. Would be interesting to see the outcome of such votes and the ensuing "consensus". Xythraguptor (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of 8chan.moe in this article.

Following 8kun's rebranding, the owner of 8chan's /v/ board, GunbusterX (Mark Mann) created an offshoot of the site called 8chan.moe which included updates to the site's rules. I feel it should be included somewhere in this article if possible. Nawmdie074 (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I sent you a twitter message, but I figured I'd might as well reply here. My name is Mark Mann and I helped put 8chan on the map back in 2014 and control the biggest video games board on what was 8ch.net and now the founder of 8chan.moe. As seen here 8chan.moe has overtaken 8kun in popularity. Fredrick Brennan can also vouch for me if needed. I feel that while I am no longer part of the 8chan administrative team, that I DO owe the responsibility to accurately show off information. While I detest the handling of wikipedia's GamerGate article, I think that it's important that everyone gets all the facts behind what we wanted to do with 8chan, what went wrong, and that 8chan.moe was formed as a response to 8kun abandoning it's original MO by banning anime loli content. While I personally don't care for anime loli content, it is legal, and all depictions of fictitious characters posted on the site are 18+ years of age regardless of any contradicting textual description(s). You should be able to read the global rules when you first launch 8chan.moe. If you have any issues feel free to reach out on twitter and I'll answer it the best I can. Thank you.

https://www.similarweb.com/website/8kun.top/vs/8chan.moe/#overview

https://8chan.moe/ TheJohnCenaCrashAttack (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate the removal of the anti-semitic tag since 8chan is a site where everyone is anonymous and everyone is equally mocked. Although I understand the site has a heavy left wing bias, so I'm not gonna fight and die on this hill, despite being Jewish myself. Still, at the very least I think the logo and the name of the article should be updated in addition to the history of 8chan.moe and the webring sites that followed after the community decided to leave 8kun due to its heavy political biases, QAnon pandering, and failure to keep its original MO. TheJohnCenaCrashAttack (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheJohnCenaCrashAttack: Again, this would need reliable sources. It also sounds like this is a totally separate topic from 8chan (the site described at this page), just with the same name, which would generally be described in a separate article and disambiguated. However, from what I'm seeing, there's nowhere near adequate coverage in RS — by which I mean I'm not even able to find a single mention. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

fair enough, I just had a conversation about it with Fredrick on Twitter. I'm not sure if this counts but we had Kotaku reach out to us and put down our statement on the buffalo shooting as seen here. Still I understand that you guys have a system and we haven't really had any media coverage other than when the buffalo shooter tried to get us in trouble. It's not something I feel super strongly about, but at the same time I think the header should be "8kun" instead of "8chan" since "8kun" is more like a reboot according to a quote made by Jim Watkins. Still, I understand if the wikipedia staff disagrees with me, I just think that 8kun has an unfair advantage in terms of SEO and would like to help balance things out since 8kun is more like a reboot of the original 8chan, and 8chan.moe while not the original 8chan is more like a spiritual successor. Either way I'll respect the teams decision, despite disagreeing with it.

https://kotaku.com/twitch-discord-4chan-shooting-buffalo-tops-jimboboiii-m-1848927240 TheJohnCenaCrashAttack (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)