Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Duckduckgo is cacheing the CWCki redirect as an article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gore and general private image leaks in the site

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

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

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

Edits removing "harassment" from lede on parallel project

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

In the sentence "Following Terryberry's death, Joshua Moon posted a note on the forum claiming that Kiwi Farms and its users had no responsibility for suicide.", I request a "the" be added before "suicide" because the source mentions specifically her suicide in the sentence, which I have read over to confirm.

Also, could a comma be added at "Near, who was non-binary, said that they had endured lifelong bullying but that the abuse had recently centralized around Kiwi Farms(right here ,) which had..." Lawn Turn Acoust (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove the word "CWCki" because it is a direct reference to the victim

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

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

Wikipedia is an uncensored site intended to inform and educate. I do not believe that trying to cover up the history of (Redacted)'s involvement with Kiwifarms would serve to protect (Redacted) nor would it assist the goal in educating people truthfully about the site. -- bonkmaykr.xyz _TALK 05:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have redacted one of the victims' deadnames from the comment above. Please do not attempt to use it again. Please do not revive months old discussions as a pretext for doing so. DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a 3 month old conversation which is not archived and is still relevant, I believe my response was appropriate. If you believe otherwise then please cite the wiki page that states so. I'm also confused as to why you want to censor the contents of other people's talk page comments. I do apologize for accidentally breaking Manual of Style but I would like if you would share your opinion on the matter at hand related to the article. -- bonkmaykr.xyz _TALK 09:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Someguywithamouse: This is not about censorship but about BLP. Users and sockpuppets have been arguing for including her in the article many times throughout the archives. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only redacted the deadname. I did not remove your comment or edit it in other ways. The comment remains completely clear and comprehensible without the deadname in it. That's not censorship. We have a very well established consensus not to include the initial victim's name, and policy would preclude us including her deadname.

As 0xDeadbeef says, this article is plagued by sockpuppets and trolls but it is also possible that sometimes somebody wanders in here by accident and asks the perennial questions without realising that these are long settled matters. One thing that might help here is a FAQ. It won't stop the trolls but it might help the genuinely curious and avoid us going round this loop as many times. DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. -- bonkmaykr.xyz _TALK 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Aztec & Halifax

I don't see how this is particularly relevant to Kiwi Farms as a whole. While it is a factually accurate description, it seems to be mostly superfluous. There's no insinuation in any source that they posted extremist content on this site, that the site radicalized them, or that it had any relevance to the shooting. It just seems, from all the sources linked in this article, that a bad person happened to use their site (out of 10s of thousands of users).

There are numerous examples of mass shooters having Wikipedia accounts, like Elliot Rodger, or even far-right terrorists like Anders Breivik or the 2022 Bratislava shooter. It seems just as relevant to include them on Wikipedia's article as it is to mention Atchison here.

Christchurch got them significant media attention from several sources for refusing to remove the terrorist video, while in Aztec it's mentioned by 1) one academic and a single other source, and with Halifax it is one offhand mention by the SPLC which uses Kiwi Farms itself as a source.

I don't think it's fair to have an entire subsection devoted to "a bad person happened to use this website" when there's no reliable sources that say anything about their presence on the website other than they used it. Langman citing them doesn't seem to be a particularly important accomplishment.

I guess it's an interesting piece of trivia but there's just not enough information from reliable sources to make this relevant for inclusion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of having Moon’s face on the article?

I don't know why having Moon's face plastered on the page makes sense, as the photo was uploaded by himself and to me this clearly violates WP:NAU. TheXuitts (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why he chose to upload it, or why he chose to upload such a bad picture. Quite possibly his intention was self-promotion but I don't think that automatically means that it violates WP:NAU for us to choose to use it so long as the use is valid for other reasons. It is not for him to make the article about himself but it is for us, collectively, to decide the extent to which the article is about him and, yes, to some extent it is. He is the guy behind this website and we cover that fact in the article. There is no harm in showing the world his face in illustration of that fact. The image is not "plastered" on the page. It is no larger than normal (i.e. the default thumbnail size) and it isn't right at the top, as it would be if the article were a biography. It is a good picture in the sense that it shows readers what he looks like (which might be helpful if they ever need to avoid him in the street) but it isn't a good picture in any aesthetic sense. I've seen better looking police mugshots. It doesn't enhance his prestige. Irrespective of his intentions, it doesn't actually serve to promote him in any way. DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

“Ever avoid him in the street” that made me smirk Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the image is well-placed and non-promotional. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedians frequently ask subjects of articles to upload photos that are Freely licenced, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lizthegrey&diff=prev&oldid=1111454349 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keffals&diff=prev&oldid=1119451124 for instance. It's an editorial decision as to how said images are used afterwards, but making them available is not a COI or self-promotion. lizthegrey (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: Harassment

Minor update, I'm not extended confirmed so I can't do it myself.

In the Harassment section, there's this sentence:

The incidents are being investigated as criminal harassment, and Sorrenti stated she intended to pursue legal action.

She has since filed a human rights complaint against the London Police Service so I propose the sentence be updated to:

The incidents are being investigated as criminal harassment, and Sorrenti stated she has filed a Human Rights Complaint against the police for their actions during and before the swatting.

Egefeyzi (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done with some copyedits. @Egefeyzi: In the future I'd recommend using {{edit extended-protected}} for similar requests. I saw this one because I'm watching this page, but other edit requests that you submit may not receive a prompt response to talk page watchers. The the template adds the talk page that it's on to Category:Wikipedia extended-protected redirects so that the request can be found and processed more easily. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There also an article about the aftermath, with the police saying the only deadnaming done was the label on her property bag, also from CTV News. I'm adding this after your edit. JungleEntity (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have removed the content. This is an issue that Sorrenti has against the police. This is not about Kiwi Farms. It would be appropriate on the London police page and Sorrenti’s page but not here. starship.paint (exalt) 23:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's not necessarily a bad change? To me, it reads as a logical continuation of the story. If the police's reaction to the swatting attempt is mentioned, it makes sense to me that the outcome resulting from that reaction is also discussed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think all of Sorrenti’s drama with the police are out of scope for this article. While Kiwi Farms may have helped instigate this, they aren’t responsible for the accusations Sorrenti has put on the police. JungleEntity (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: - we would require a reliable source connecting Kiwi Farms to the alleged human rights violation action. I believe the cited source does not even mention Kiwi Farms. starship.paint (exalt) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's a good point. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

"These actions have tied Kiwi Farms to the suicides of three people targeted by members of the forum."

What source do we have to corroborate this claim? It just seems like random assorted news articles that all got their claims from dubious sources. Toadguy64 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You see those little numbers in square brackets? Those are the sources. We already have way more of them than we actually need and I see no reason to add even more. The problem here is not that we lack sufficient valid sources, it is just that you don't believe them. That's your choice but it's not our problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any suggestions to improve this article? With reliable sources as listed in WP:RSP including the Washington Post and the Associated Press, I don't think we should remove this factual statement from the article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That particular statement appears to be backed up by a frankly unheard of ten separate reliable sources, which would indicate to me that this argument has been had before, and is probably not worth having again. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see it's that time again. I'll add a few more sources to the suggestion list now that it's been mentioned, mind my obvious big flashing lights WP:COI though. lizthegrey (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toadguy64: Random assorted news articles, as opposed to…what, exactly, which could be more reliable? [Which] all got their claims from dubious sources, like which? Not to mention that “tied Kiwifarms [to the suicides]” is hardly even a strong statement. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Most websites aren’t known for having a “kill count.” Kiwi Farms is. Its victims reportedly include Julie Terryberry, who in 2016 took her life after being targeted by users of the site. Two years later, after years of harassment from Kiwi Farms trolls, Chloe Sagal lit herself on fire in a public park. In June 2021, an American video game developer based in Japan, named David Ginder, took their life amid a campaign of Kiwi Farms abuse.

When Sagal posted about her suicidal thoughts, Kiwi Farms users sent private messages urging her to kill herself, a friend said. When posters learned that Terryberry, an 18-year-old with learning disabilities, used the internet to make friends, they worked to get her social media accounts shut down while mocking her mental health struggles. They relentlessly tormented Ginder for being nonbinary. One thread went on for more than a dozen pages.

“A thing that really stuck with me is that they said that I probably wasn’t a Lolcow because I have a car. That left no question in my mind that their primary target is impoverished people,” a friend of Sagal, one of the victims who killed herself, told me. “They try to harm people who are too weak to fight back. They don’t want their victims’ families going after them. They want people who already lack social stability.”

“I’ve been bullied, ridiculed, and humiliated my entire life,” Ginder explained in their online suicide note. “I could only just tolerate it with heavy depression when it was 4chan. But Kiwi Farms has made the harassment orders of magnitude worse.”

The Mother Jones article seems clear cut enough and cites the connection between each victim and that they experienced severe harassment by Kiwi Farms, citing either the words of the victim or their family/friends or both. lizthegrey (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

This article makes a direct mention to a libelous claim and such in the title of source 21: "The online history of creator of she who shall not be named, who was charged with incest after leaked audio was posted online about mom". It should be removed because there is no point of not mentioning you know who if a source title makes an erroneous claim that goes against why they are not mentioned, it makes no sense at all how this has slid for months unnoticed as such. Doesn't matter where they were first noticed online, as that feeds the idea of sensationalism around you know who. Instead it should say just say they were first mentioned on online forums and remove the source because there is not point in letting it stay there because something which would be considered "trolling" is in the source text of this article.

It was suggested almost a year ago by a user who is now globally banned, that should be enough grounds to dispel the mention of a seriously libelous claim in the source text of this article. My suggestion is to remove the source and change "...harass a webcomic artist who was first noticed in 2007 on the Something Awful forums." to "...harass a webcomic artist who was first noticed in 2007 on various internet forums." That actually fits the bell better because without diving too deep into the topic which remains off-grounds for discussion, the subject had no real central place of discussion and various websites are among which individuals made note of their presence. 8ID (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Chris could potentially get an article, but the only mainstream information from reliable sources that isn’t from somewhere like the CWCki (which is user generated and therefore against Wikipedia policy) is about Chris’ discovery and the incest charge. The article would probably be very focused on just that if it existed. CharlieEdited (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit-but-I-can’t-edit-so-it’s-a-reply: The page would probably get vandalized to oblivion. Nevermind. CharlieEdited (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed the name from your comment. The BLP rules do extend to the talk pages, in this particular case. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your redaction. She exists, we just do not (and likely will never) have an article on her. We should not pretend that she does not exist and/or her name is anathema. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was that she's not to be named on this page for harassment reasons, but I'll defer to your experience --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

I've been seeing Kiwi Farms as a breeding ground for right-wing politics. This is evidenced by the following:

David Hill Jr. / Olivia Hill / MachineIV | Kiwi Farms (says "anarchist" in a negative tone, makes fun of his "SJW" status)

Stinkditch | Kiwi Farms (this lambasts transgender people for "their Ls online")

Social Justice Warriors | Kiwi Farms (shut down due to "feminist sperging")

ANTIFA / Antifascist Action / Antifaschistische Aktion | Kiwi Farms (they hate this group)

So, based on this, I say we ought to put this place as a right-wing community. ManOfDirt (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

See no original research. Are there reliable, secondary sources that call the site "a breeding ground for right-wing politics"? If not, then it shouldn't be added. Mind my conflict of interest, as usual. lizthegrey (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Research is research. This should simply be stated explicitly. ManOfDirt (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not our policy here. We don't accept editors compiling their own primary research. Find a secondary source (doubtless there are some, if it's that obvious), or I guess you can try to make the WP:SKYBLUE argument but I suspect it won't fly. Here's a hint for you for inclusion rationale: the WP:MOTHERJONES article already cites says When journalists have covered Kiwi Farms, they’ve tended to label it a far-right forum, which is true but incomplete. Find the other sources that Mother Jones is referring to, and cite those. lizthegrey (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Misapplication of Le Monde article

This article by Le Monde is being used to argue that the site inherently targets far-right personalities based off of this paragraph:

Kiwi Farms is a discussion forum dedicated to online harassment. Its members – there are 16,000 daily logins according to its administrators – meet there to plan, organize and coordinate targeted harassment operations against Internet celebrities, mainly feminists or trans rights activists, people suffering from psychological problems, journalists, people from the world of video games or comics, and even some personalities from the American far right.

Yet a following sentence says:

Kiwi Farms was created in 2013, before taking its current name in 2014. Its creator, Joshua Moon, nicknamed "Null," is a former administrator of the unmoderated forum 8chan. This alternative to the 4chan forum is considered one of the most extremist, racist and hateful online forums. "Null created Kiwi Farms with the clear purpose of harassing an online comic book author, who had already been the subject of an intense harassment campaign on 4chan for several years.

Clearly, the idea that KiwiFarms goes out of its way to target "far-right individuals" wasn't intended by Le Monde. To anyone with knowledge of the terrain, this shouldn't be surprising, as infighting is remarkably common among groups such as this. It would be like saying that James Allsup "targets" far-right influencers such as Nick Fuentes because there was a falling out. This clearly shouldn't be stated without context in the article. KlayCax (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Firefangledfeathers:, @Lizthegrey:, @ManOfDirt:. KlayCax (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by inherently. Our article currently states "It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including ... far-right personalities". This is supported by the source. If there's a source that frames this as infighting, I would support adding that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I'm seeing you've re-reverted saying that Le Monde supports the targeting of far-right individuals being infighting. Where are you seeing that in the source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the previous phrasing @Firefangledfeathers: is that it implies that KiwiFarms inherently goes after people that it sees as far-right. I think the citations clearly contradict this or at least don't support it. It's very common for far-right influencers, websites, and personalities to deeply dislike one another, so the SPLC + Le Monde articles shouldn't come as a surprise. In fact, Le Monde specifically notes that "even" and "some" far-right personalities have been targeted by it.

(Implying that this is not done to all or most.)

KiwiFarms has been alleged by some news organizations to be far-right itself. KlayCax (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the previous phrasing implies that KF inherently goes after anybody. It just lists the types of people it has gone after. The site doesn't go after all or most of any of the groups listed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All the others are simply listed without any prefixes: (e.g. Feminists, mentally ill, internet celebrates, transgender rights activists, et al.)

In contrast, when it cites the fact that "far-right" personalities have been targeted by the group, it is always prefaced (in every article as well) with "some" or a "few" or what not. That seems to be talking about infighting.

Claiming that KiwiFarms isn't hard right on social issues — at least in the Western World — seems a bit disingenuous. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that, and I don't think the article was either. Would you be ok with restoring it as "and some far-right personalities"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with it being mentioned somewhere, @Firefangledfeathers:. However, I think additional context would be necessary if we decide to leave the statement in. KlayCax (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What @Firefangledfeathers said. The current article text names accurately which groups the site has gone after. I think perhaps there is a false cognate here of "target" that can be used to mean both happening to "go after" opportunistically and "strategically pursuing". It may be worth trying to differentiate these. My understanding is that the site does not go out of its way to stalk far-right personalities unless they fall under its "drama" or "grift" sections, but does have an entire section devoted to finding and going after transgender folks. But, of course, the encyclopedia should follow what the secondary sourcing says and not my own quite possibly biased original research. (mind my conflict of interest as usual) lizthegrey (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I, mean. They've certainly have gone after far-right personalities. But mostly in the sense of finding them "hilarious" rather than targeting them on the basis of their position on LGBT rights, feminism, or anything like that.

Again, it would be like saying that James Allsup on Fash The Nation "targeted" ethnic nationalist personalities. It's technically true. Yet without context it becomes de facto misleading. KlayCax (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, let's find better wording then to differentiate "targeting" singular people, vs systematically "targeting" groups of people. lizthegrey (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'd be opposed to mentioning the far-right in this way regardless of the language; there's just not enough sources covering it as a meaningful way to characterize the site's activities. I think that when covering the infighting aspect, it would make more sense to look for sources covering it in-depth and to put that elsewhere as individual people who were targeted. In particular, the SPLC (which was used for this before) focused on two people: Nick Fuentes and another individual who was a previous member of the forum. We could just cover those individually (or perhaps just Fuentes, since the other one seems to fall under WP:BLP1E and may not be worth mentioning.) But using the SPLC to imply that they have "gone after" people on the far right, regardless of phrasing, is WP:SYNTH; we could just as easily say that they have "gone after" men, or people who eat meat, or people with dark hair. Lumping them into a category requires better sourcing, and I don't think Le Monde's passing mention is enough when we weigh it against the quality of sourcing for everything else. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Persuasive enough, I'm with @Aquillion now given the WP:SYNTH argument. Fine to mention individual cases, but we cannot extrapolate a pattern. lizthegrey (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more disingenuous to not mention the far-right personalities, because they most certainly do. I don't think this is a sourcing problem - sourcing for this article is going to be tricky, it always has been and probably always will be. We gotta use what we got. It's reasonable to say sources will focus on more "higher-profile" streamers who usually lean left, as far-right streamers are either not as popular or are banned for things usually associated wit the far-right (racism, anti-LGBTQ, etc). I think the Le Monde source is perfectly fine.

I don't doubt that Kiwi Farms has systemically targeted people who aren't far-right, especially those who are disenfranchised in one way or another, but there is a substantial amount of far-right personalities that have been targeted on the sites, too much for a list in my opinion, especially because we probably won't find a source claiming Kiwi Farms specifically targeted specifics such as Fuentes or Ethan Ralph or whatever.

I know WP:NOR, but a simple visit to the site confirms there are plenty of threads about far-right online personalities, some who's whole online identity is about being far-right. This supports the Le Monde source and I think the original wording is just fine. I'll concede that changing "targeted" to something else might be warranted. JungleEntity (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think that we should put far-right in that list - not in any context, not with any phrasing or wording. Le Monde says ...and even some personalities from the American far right which clearly treats it differently. Other sources don't emphasize it at all. And the difference in quality between the sources for this and everything else in the list is stark - every other point is cited to academic research and / or to in-depth coverage that extensively discusses how Kiwifarms systematically targets that group. This was previously cited in an WP:OR-ish way using two SPLC pieces, which was definitely unacceptable; without that we have brief one half-sentence in Le Monde, which is starkly WP:UNDUE relative to the other sources and has wording that sets that point besides. Based on current sources, I'd oppose any attempt to include it in any form. If it is worth including, we should be able to find sources with a weight at least somewhat more comparable to the other entries on the list. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)