Talk:Kiwi Farms

Following feedback from draft reviews by @Primefac and @Hurricane Wind and Fire, I propose merging Draft:CWCki into Kiwi Farms. While an insufficient amount of information could be sourced to avoid Draft:CWCki falling under WP:REDUNDANT, it still uses several independent, reliable, and secondary sources that attest to the notability of CWCki. These sources provide information about CWCki itself that does not violate WP:BLP, WP:HNE, or WP:NPOV. This information, and this information alone, is included in the current draft.

Currently, no information about CWCki's operation is included in the Kiwi Farms article, which provides only a brief description of the website's creation and no explanation as to how it relates to CWCki Forums. This is despite multiple sources providing information about CWCki and acting as evidence of CWCki's notability.

The status of CWCki in relation to Kiwi Farms is unclear. While Kiwi Farms was originally launched as CWCki Forums, which was created as a website to discuss the content of CWCki, neither CWCki Forums nor Kiwi Farms have ever fallen under CWCki's ownership. CWCki Forums was created by a third party as an unaffiliated replacement for CWCki's deprecated discussion forum. This is corroborated by the sources included in Draft:CWCki, which list CWCki's discussion forum launching in 2009 while CWCki Forums is stated to have launched in 2013. CWCki is currently owned by an individual who uses the pseudonym "Marvin."

Regardless, due to CWCki's role in the creation of CWCki Forums, merging the information from Draft:CWCki into Kiwi Farms seems to be the best option.

To disclose a conflict of interest, I have been targeted by Kiwi Farms within the past two years. The site does not have an active thread about me, but I have been discussed on another individual's thread.

Pinging frequent contributors for input:

@JeffSpaceman @Dr. Precursor @Alenoach @Catfurball @V. S. Video @1timeuse75

Alexishere13 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral per above 1timeuse75 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm very hesitant to incorporate much of any information about this individual beyond the pasing mention already on the page into the article (cf. WP:BLP, WP:HNE, and most especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM), but I'm willing to listen to the arguments of other editors to see what they have to say. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @JeffSpaceman. As usual, mind my conflict of interest. Also, I note the draft uses the word "document" which is, uh, probably not the right terminology for "stalking" or "harassing" when done unwanted with that level of intensity. lizthegrey (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have changed two uses of "documentation" in the draft to "harassment" to reflect what Lizthegrey points out above. There is no reason to even slightly indulge the idea that this is anything less than the outright stalking and harassment of a low-profile individual. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with the change, I was iffy on it myself. Alexishere13 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to establish that I'm aware of the risks associated with this topic and did my best to minimize them when writing the article. My goal when writing the draft was to only include information about CWCki while avoiding information about its subject, as well as any attempts by CWCki to whitewash its actions. Aside from two brief and anonymous descriptions of the subject which were absolutely necessary for context, the article only describes CWCki and actions taken by its users. As CWCki stands as the most notable and arguably most severe example of harassment associated with Kiwi Farms, I felt it would be equally irresponsible to whitewash Kiwi Farms' page by excluding it; as someone who's been personally targeted by the website, I thought I might be in the best position to do so without a conflict of interest. Alexishere13 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my personal judgment is that being targeted by the site makes one not impartial toward it and thus it is a conflict of interest that should be disclosed. lizthegrey (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for establishing. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I'll update the proposal. Alexishere13 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. if there is a "my life would be better or worse if [x] on Wikipedia were a more positive or negative depiction", it is best to err on the side of caution and disclose. Even if you are 100% sure what you're proposing to change is to make it more NPOV or policy-compliant. lizthegrey (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @1timeuse75 in case the previously undisclosed conflict of interest changes their response. Alexishere13 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alexishere13 i just realised, why was i pinged in the first place? i made one edit to this page. I agree with JeffSpaceman the most. 1timeuse75 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@1timeuse75: With your comment here, would you like to change your "merge" vote to "neutral" to reflect your comment here? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done! 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose full merge. The draft has too much detail about a peripheral topic to merit a full merge. It would be UNDUE coverage. Neutral on a limited merge of a small amount of the more relevant content. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@DanielRigal I've edited the draft to exclude all contextual information about the individual except for the person's status as a webcomic artist, which is necessary to describe the basic function and design of CWCki. Comparing with the previous revision, do you think the changes are sufficient to avoid UNDUE coverage? Alexishere13 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not my concern. My concern is that a full merge would be more coverage than we need. I don't see anything particularly egregious in the draft, otherwise I would be opposing this outright, I just think it is a bit too deep into the weeds. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the response! Alexishere13 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

concur with danielrigal. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Same. Honestly, the current article already mentions the wiki and I don't really know how much in-depth detail we really need beyond that. For ease of reference, the content is this:

Eventually, an Encyclopedia Dramatica page was created about them. A dedicated wiki, titled "CWCki" based on their initials, was created by people who felt that the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry was not detailed or accurate enough. Kiwi Farms was originally called "CWCki Forums" before "Kiwi Farms" was coined in 2014 as a corruption of the original name.

I don't know how much more we really need to have beyond this. To be very honest, while I don't think that Alexishere13 is trying to get around what is effectively a ban on covering CWC in any depth on Wikipedia, I do think that going into more detail could be seen as encouragement to do just that - or be seen as such by existing editors. I really feel like this is something that should be brought up at ANI or BLP/N given the subject, because if we do agree that more info should be on the page we will need to be exceptionally careful about what exactly that looks like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: If you and others here think a discussion on these boards would be needed before we could reach any consensus on updating the Kiwi Farms page, I'd be happy to create them.

I understand where other users are coming from regarding the risks of adding more information about CWCki to the Kiwi Farms page, and I feel obliged to explain my perspective. My rationale for proposing the draft, and now the merge, is that I believe CWCki to be almost inarguably the most severe and most notable example of Kiwi Farms users' harassment outside of 2022.

I'm concerned that the current article gives UNDUE weight to the criminal activity and aggressive harassment of individuals by users of Kiwi Farms, when users more often utilize passive and willfully negligent methods of harassment. This behavior is often used as a shield from culpability by the website, and as someone who has been victim of these methods along with one of my friends (reminder of COI), I feel that glossing over it in favor of giving more coverage to brazen and uncontroversial examples of harassment risks validating that defense. I believe CWCki stands as the most notable and brazen example of this form of harassment, and I feel it highlights how harmful it can be, so I consider its inclusion is imperative to depict this aspect of the forum's existence. Alexishere13 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with the history behind Kiwi Farms and the CWCki. I also get what you're saying: that not completely covering the history of Kiwi Farms (and by extension CWC herself) reduces the visibility of their actions. At the same time, there are multiple reasons why CWC hasn't been covered on Wikipedia, which have been discussed extensively on here. Covering the CWCki would effectively be covering CWC herself, so any discussion about the CWCki should be treated as if we were going to cover CWC.

Wikipedia isn't meant to be used to right great wrongs. I fully agree, a great wrong has been done to CWC. I'm aware of her history and the various "sagas" and justifications that have been made throughout the years. She is a deeply flawed individual who has been severely failed by her family, as there were several points in her life where a different path or a better parent could have made a world of difference. But the coverage just isn't heavy enough in this situation and there's the chance that us covering her could make her situation so much worse.

Honestly, this whole discussion has been brought up before to various degrees. It's usually about CWC herself, admittedly. At this point I think there needs to be a wider discussion about the topic elsewhere and an official decision made. I think everyone here has made a pretty definitive statement, so at this point we're just going around in circles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm one of the few editors around here who leans towards not being a fan of the current "she who shall not be named" policy (although I understand the reasoning), but I think what's in the draft CWCki article isn't much use to the KiwiFarms article. Constantly referring to CWC as "the individual" in more than one line of text is clunky and seems to only make the article a bit harder to read (and also entice readers to learn more about this unnamed individual), coupled with how I personally think that the CWCki is not notable enough for this to be merged at all. None of the sources present in the draft are about the CWCki itself, only mentions of CWCki in articles about CWC or Kiwifarms. I think at present moment, the small mention CWCki has in the present Kiwi Farms article is enough. JungleEntity (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I actually went to ANI to find the various different times people have brought up CWC. They've been brought up more times than I realized and the consensus has always been to not cover them. Here are the ones I found:

1. May 2009
2. August 2021
3. August 2021 (a few days later)
4. January 2022
5. June 2022
6. May 2023

I don't think there's been one since 2023 and there are a ton of references to her as an example of targeted harassment, but I think it's pretty definitive that we shouldn't have an article. I just don't know if there's been an official essay written about why. Might be worth having one since this discussion happens a few times a year. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

TBF I think an essay might be a little counterproductive given the consensus to kind of avoid talking about this person. There IS an FAQ section on the topic though --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I will note there is a consensus at Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 6#Is censoring you-know-who’s name really helpful, let alone necessary? that CWC may have gone from low-profile to high-profile individual through their own marketing efforts, and that a page could potentially be unsalted iff there were someone willing to step up and actually do the careful work of a NPOV article that did not reproduce the harassment campaign or give it fuel. Paging @Primefac who expressed said willingness to unsalt and @Aeschylus who expressed a willingness to write. lizthegrey (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia page would absolutely give fuel to the trolls. That's part of why so many people are against it. It would also be a constant vandalism magnet, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get an almost instant extended confirmed protection.

If you want a page, you will first need to create a list of sourcing. This would need to be exceptionally strong, as you would need to establish how she's so overwhelmingly notable that it would be a severe detriment for Wikipedia to not cover her. The coverage would also need to be specifically about her. Kiwi Farms could be mentioned, but the site shouldn't be the main focus of the article. So a source like this might not be strong enough because someone could easily argue that as the focus is about Kiwi Farms, the current coverage in the Kiwi Farms article is enough. You would also need to find coverage that wasn't centered on the legal charges, as those charges were ultimately dismissed. The coverage was also kind of around the same point in time, so it doesn't show a super depth of coverage. Another issue is that you'd have to make sure that the outlets are the strongest possible source. Even if the same outlet would be OK in another article, even the KF article, you'd have to be able to show where the outlet has an extremely strong editorial process and isn't just a tabloid. Again, the sourcing here would have to be exceptionally strong and heavy in order to show that an article is warranted.

After you have the sourcing, you'd have two choices on how to proceed. You can try creating a draft and take it to ANI to see if it passes muster, or you can take the list of sourcing to ANI. Both have their pros and cons. I keep emphasizing ANI because it's kind of inevitable that it would be discussed there. Even then, if you could find super good sourcing and even have a great draft there's still a strong chance that no article would get approved. Even if you argue that she's now high profile, someone could easily argue that her actions are a result of a severe mental illness and not a rational person. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No disagreement. There's a high bar to meet. But I also think we should not categorically rule it out as a matter of policy, and instead be clear on what the conditions are for it to be encyclopedic. lizthegrey (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... there's definite benefit in writing up a document/essay that would go over the requirements for the article as well as barriers to entry. I think we could do that without actually needing to discuss CWC much at all. At some point though, there would need to be some nod towards some of the arguments towards inclusion, both ones that have merit and ones that don't.

Want to work on that with me? Once we're done we can run it through ANI or BLP/N to see if they agree on the requirements, barriers, and so on, or if they have any suggestions. We have a bit of a brief blurb on this, but I think we could definitely benefit from a general document that takes all of that into consideration. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to sign myself up for being a primary author of that, but I'd certainly help review/contribute! Also, I might suggest AN rather than ANI, because it'd be a non-urgent matter. lizthegrey (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the draft that would improve this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)