Draft talk:CWCki

Since the website's logo and homepage both violate WP:BLP and WP:HNE and therefore can't be included, I've been trying to figure out a potential image to include that would be especially relevant to the website without violating these rules. It might not be possible to find one, but if anyone has any suggestions, feel free to share them in the replies. Alexishere13 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a version of the logo that follows the rules. MakerJulian (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Removed per WP:IAR. I don't see any reason to include an image that features a depiction of this person, censorship notwithstanding. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If there is any information I missed about CWCki (NOT the individual discussed by CWCki) that can be backed up with reliable sources, and that is both relevant and significant enough to include, please share it in the replies. Please ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP, WP:HNE, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOTPROMO. Information about the individual in question may only be included if it provides necessary context to explain CWCki's function, and no identifying information may be included. Alexishere13 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

CWCki Forums was a third-party website unaffiliated with CWCki. Both websites are, and always have been, under separate ownership, as clarified both in this article and in the section about CWCki Forums from its article. CWCki was launched in 2008 and is currently owned and operated by an individual who uses the pseudonym "Marvin" (see sources), while CWCki Forums was launched in 2013 by Joshua Conner Moon and is still operated by him under the name Kiwi Farms today. CWCki did not request the creation of CWCki Forums and had no role in building or managing the website at any time. Because of this, no information about CWCki Forums, outside of the sentence acknowledging its creation in the "History" section, should be included in this article. This information instead belongs on the Kiwi Farms article. This has been confirmed by editors who reviewed this draft.

Information about the discussion forum run by CWCki that was deprecated in 2013, which CWCki Forums was created by an unaffiliated third party to replace, may be included in this article as it was directly owned and operated by CWCki. This forum was also sometimes labeled as the "CWCki Forums" by CWCki, but as the page for the unaffiliated CWCki Forums website is titled Kiwi Farms (per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL), and this page is already disambiguated by referring to the wiki per the same policies, a qualifier in the title of this page is unnecessary. Alexishere13 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Chris has been documented so much online so much, including reliable sources, that it is a mistake not to mention them. Why should we give leniency to someone who raped their mother? The harassment has stopped. That stopped a decade ago. We can't censor things. ~2025-39420-46 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-39420-46, please read Talk:Kiwi Farms/FAQ. win8x (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. ~2025-39420-46 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Two rebuttals: (1) Wikipedia does not, and should not, publish information about individual charged but not convicted of crimes, unless the charges themselves become WP:N for some encyclopedic reason. Wikipedia is not the tabloids. (2) CWC as recently as 2024 has posted appeals for individuals to not stalk or surreptitiously photograph, see for instance https://x.com/CPU_CWCSonichu/status/1796358759897289121, indicating this remains a persistent and ongoing problem. Note: I do have a COI wrt Kiwi Farms the site overall, but I feel perfectly qualified to discuss whether CWC is being harassed or not, separate from the forum. lizthegrey (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Without going into a ton of detail about her current life and past legal issues, the harassment hasn't stopped. CWC has just stopped feeding the trolls at the level she once did and it's more difficult for them to get to her. With Wikipedia, there's a huge fear that covering her on Wikipedia would have a hugely detrimental impact on her life, particularly if the trolls were to try and use Wikipedia as a way to lure her out of hiding.

CWC may be an infamous person, but she is not a famous person. As evidenced by the KiwiFarms article, Wikipedia does not require in-depth coverage of someone who has been harassed online for 15+ years. No laws have been made as a result of her, nor has anyone made anything particularly noteworthy about her. The closest is Kiwi Farms and they're not notable because of their origins but rather what they did after they moved on from her. The only time she really gained media coverage in reputable sources was for the legal issues, which ultimately didn't go anywhere. Even then, the coverage for that was pretty much limited to tabloids and places Wikipedia doesn't really consider reliable.

As far as her doing terrible things, doing awful things does not mean that one should have an article. If anything, that's a moment when we need to more heavily evaluate whether or not the person merits an article. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's also not meant to be a proxy to name, shame, and punish. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It's really hard to try and explain why this article feels odd to me, but i'll try my best to put it in to words. As user JeffSpaceman said, i am very very hesitant to add any information about this individual on Wikipedia in general, as per the Kiwi Farms FAQ and the whole harassment campaign. But putting that aside i'll try to read from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about CWCki or the individual. Here all the things i find odd:

CWC is named four times in the References. I don't know how to go about this. As stated here in the part about if the individual's name be omitted from references: Primefac said "we do not necessarily pretend that [the individual] doesn't exist." with Dronebogus putting it best "If I understand correctly consensus is not to include her name in the article, not “censor every possible mention”."

"CWCki received considerable media attention in 2021 following the arrest of the individual in question" Should this be mentioned? If yes, should the crime be added too? Same with their comic. For an article about a website that harass an individual, why does it randomly mention some comic they made? Finally does it have to say they're transgender. The whole point of the harassment campaign is put personal details about their life in more public spaces. which i would put as a "personal detail".

Overall i think this article should be deleted. Yeah it doesn't say their name or have any personal details about them, but i still think this could be harmful to the individual. This should just be a passing mention in the Kiwi Farms "history" section. This is way too long, am sorry... 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

This draft should be rejected as it’s just a stealth article about CWC that clumsily avoids talking about its subject because of the current taboo on using her real name. If CWC isn’t notable (debatable but status quo is no) the CWCki certainly isn’t notable. It’s also just a bad draft that basically just describes the Cwcki when it was synonymous with Kiwi Farms (in other words, just describing Kiwi Farms). It’s additionally worth pointing out that “overview” section reads like an essay on “why this site is bad” by describing incidents of harassment that once again occurred when the wiki was part of Kiwi Farms and thus not independently notable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree with both 1timeuse75 and Dronebogus. I personally don't believe this person is notable enough to warrant an article (their notability may be existent, but it is certainly not enough to warrant the type of BLP and HNE-violating content that it would no doubt open the floodgates for immediately upon its creation), and by extension a wiki about them is not notable. This is just such a clearly non-notable topic, though given this draft's avoidance of outright BLP and HNE violations in its current state I don't see its continued existence here as something that needs to stop. But in the end, this is just clearly not article-worthy, and no amount of attempts to conform to policy can get around the clear lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)