Talk:Keffals

Inclusion of the paragraph about another streamer being SWATed

Does this really need to be included? The source isn't clear on exactly what Keffal's did to help, besides "calling attention" to it, and it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. However, before removing, I'd like other editors opinions on this. JungleEntity (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing where it says "swated". This doesn't strike me as trivial. The source specifically mentions Keffals' involvement. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my early morning brain confused the ideas of being SWATed and having the police come to your house. I still think the source used is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS as it doesn't go into depth on what she did to help, besides "call attention to it", which could just mean putting a tweet out or mentioning it on her Twitch stream (again, the article doesn't say how). JungleEntity (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of info on Youtube channel

There is no info card for youtube information, nor does this page mention that she's a youtuber at all. Dovark (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While the Taylor Lorenz piece implies that she has a mention, and no other secondary source does, it's probably undue weight to call her a YouTuber. Her Twitch career was the whole thing about that article. I don't believe it's worth mentioning until that changes. SWinxy (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with linking her YouTube channel in the External Links but it's not something we should focus on. It looks like most of her YouTube content is clips from her Twitch streams anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox associated acts

Not sure if there is a guideline specifically on the associated acts parameter LightNightLights but WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose of infoboxes is "to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article". So I think inclusion should basically be about what can be sourced and integrated into the article. Alternatively, if an associated act is hard to integrate into the article, as long as it's sourced I think it should be ok. Not sure if anyone else has any opinion on this? Alduin2000 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no freaking clue the guideline for associated acts. I don't think there even is one. The documentation for {{Infobox YouTube personality}} says: Associated YouTube personalities, such as those that collaborate with the YouTube channel. There is a discussion proposing to remove it (I say no). The (now-removed) documentation for {{Infobox musical artist}} had more information (permalink): This field is for professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career. Going off that information, people who have amicable/professional relationships with other YouTubers and Twitch streamers. Voosh has a professional relationship with Keffals, but not Destiny. However, I still think that Destiny should appear on Vunch's page because for years they have had a professional relationship.

A greater discussion may be useful to bang out clear guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included in a field titled "Associated acts". SWinxy (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(For reference, Alduin2000 pinged me because I asked what the guideline is in this dummy edit's summary.) Thanks for the answers, Alduin2000 and SWinxy. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE might not apply here as the consensus of the discussion that replaced {{Ima}}'s associated_acts with *member_of parameters is that the prose allows to describe the association with nuance while the label "Associated acts" doesn't; INFOBOXPURPOSE implies that the AA label is present. A greater discussion would be nice but I might not be the one that starts it. LightNightLights ^(talk) 09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

career

stating Keffals is an advocate and reports online harassment is not a career move or relevant to her career. She makes money as a Twitch streamer, and has engaged in harassment as often as she gets it for reasons as silly as she is harassed. It adds no value to include any of that information regarding this person and if it did, then citing her advocacy of DIY HRT despite it's illegality would then also need inclusion if 'advocacy' is her career. don't make it a fan page, make it a fact page. 2603:6081:7340:7A57:75A4:C11D:77DE:EBF (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced to a Washington Post article. If you want to mention that she engages in harassment or that she advocates for DIY HRT, please supply a reliable source. Her being a trans activist is important to the biography. SWinxy (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"and has engaged in harassment as often as she gets it for reasons as silly as she is harassed" do not victim-blame her for the transphobic harassment she receives. And accusing people of making her article a fanpage despite you victim-blaming her for - according to you - advocating DIY HRT is WP:NPOV and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Stephanie921 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Keffals does indeed support DIY HRT, Keffals is stated as a sponsor on https://diyhrt.wiki/. https://diyhrt.wiki/transfem#sources. Therefore it is relevant to her career to put forward that she does indeed advocate for DIY HRT. Additionally any website advocating DIY-HRT from "homebrewing HRT sources" is advocating firms that appear to be in violation of 21 U.S.C 352(o); FDCA 503(o); 21 U.S.C. 331 (p) FDCA 301(p). The website https://diyhrt.wiki also includes homebrew source links to firms that produce and sell testosterone which requires a prescription in the US and therefore it is illegal to advertise or purchase testosterone from firms outside the USA, a fact the website admits that this is illegal. I think the relevant code is 21 U.S.C 352 (q) FDCA 502(q). I think that it is responsible and factual to make the edit that keffals supports a website illegally advertising testosterone to potential hormone seekers.Asmiov12345 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Asmiov12345 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondly keffals does indeed engage in harrassing other twitch streamers.. Unsubstantiated accusations should be considered harassment. Chudlogic also commented on the accusations Keffals donated to him but would not apologize to him suggesting contrition. In light of this I think it is responsible to put forward keffals engages in harassing other streamers pending the approval of these comments. Asmiov12345 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of the transphobic harassment she receives, it seems "She receives frequent harassment for being a trans person" is phrased imprecisely, at least based on the sources that are cited so far. The Washington Post article only mentions the subject extremely briefly (the article is about someone else,) and the substantiation for the subject being harassed for being trans is just a quote from the subject.

The Kotaku article has a similar problem; the source for the transphobic harassment is a quote from the subject. The article also includes a quote from the subject saying Twitch cited 'repeated hateful slurs or symbols' for the ban, and that she did display slurs on stream (presumably she didn't say them herself.) I'm not really sure what to make of this, but it doesn't seem to support the idea that she was banned from Twitch for being trans, and it doesn't appear to meet the standard of harassment.

Finally, the CBC article doesn't include any details about the motivation or reasoning behind the swatting. Even the subject doesn't appear to make that claim based on the quotes from her included in the article. It appears she believes the swatting was a response to her activism on behalf of trans people.

These sources should be removed and replaced with credible examples of transphobia directed at her, citations as to the motivations of her detractors, or simply rephrase this statement so that it's more precise. EtchASketch (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Phrasing of being trans

There's a bit of contention how we should phrase that Sorrenti realized she is trans. I originally based the wording off of the WaPo article, which states: By the time she was 12, she realized she was trans. I'm indifferent to how it should be phrased, but a discussion to resolve this minor dispute should be made. Key points: 12 years old; she is trans. How do we phrase this? SWinxy (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording of "By the age of 12, she realised that she was transgender" is fine, and a large improvement from the older version of "By the age of 12, she identified as transgender". Like sexuality, discovering that you are trans is a realisation. For example, we don't ordinarily say "at the age of 42, they identified as gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc", we say "at the age of 42, they realised they were gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc", or "they came out as gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc". Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Fair points, and I'm not really passionate about this if everyone disagrees with me. Personally, I'd say that I "began to identify as bisexual" at a certain age rather than framing it as a "realization," and I feel like that wording is more neutral and broadly applicable, but I get that not everybody feels that way TimPerkin9 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy I also agree on using the "realized that she is transgender" phrasing on the grounds that it's the phrasing that WaPo used. For unspecified reasons, I don't really want to comment either way on whether gender identity and sexual orientation is an identification or a realization (a choice or not). LightNightLights ^(talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy I agree with @Sideswipe9th as well as their reasoning, and in this case I also agree that the phrasing of the source shouldn't be changed. Stephanie921 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

(Pinging TimPerkin9, since they made the most recent edit that changed "realized that she was" to "identified as".) LightNightLights ^(talk) 21:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy "identified as trans" removes any implicit philosophical statement about the possibly-inherent nature of trans identity. I think the "identified" wording is plainer and more matter of fact. TimPerkin9 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Identified" is more encyclopedic at least to my ears because it's not reporting about the internal psychological nature of her gender identity, which I don't think is really relevant in this context. I'm not really passionate about this change though. I just thought it read better TimPerkin9 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how u think it's not reporting her gender psychologically- or how it's irrelevant. I'm not upset at you ofc and ik u were editing in good faith - I'm just confused. To me, that's what the sentence is doing in the Wikipedia article and source regardless of either phrasing - and its whole purpose. Stephanie921 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921 Eh, seems people disagree with me, and I'm probably just off-base on this one + not communicating well, and I'm fine with being overruled here. I guess my thought was that the relevant information for an encyclopedia was the emergence of a trans identity, which is communicated really plainly by the language I used. "Realized" adds additional psychological detail about the nature of the emergence of that identity.

The "realized" language also possibly adds the implication that trans identity is inherent. I know that there is disagreement among trans people and gender theorists about the nature of gender identity and how trans identities emerge. I felt this article didn't need to make such a suggestion and that simply stating that she identified as a trans woman was more neutral and encyclopedic.

As an example, I've encountered furries who feel that they discovered their furry identity as children. I don't think their descriptions of their experiences are inaccurate, but I don't think an encyclopedia would usually say they "realized" that they were furries. I don't mean to say that being a furry is the same kind of thing as being trans, but I was using the same sort of reasoning.

But I do want to avoid inadvertantly minimizing trans experiences. I'll just say that in my view, the nature of the formation of non-cis gender identities isn't relevant to the necessity of securing liberation for trans people.

Hopefully that makes more sense, but also I'm fine with y'all reverting my edit. I didn't expect it to be controversial. TimPerkin9 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should follow the source on this and say "realized". There is a subtle distinction here. Realisation is an internal action and identification is generally an external action. A person may realise that they are some sort of LGBTQ years before they identify themselves as being so to anybody else. Indeed, in places where being LGBTQ is illegal or very dangerous they may never be able to identify themselves at all. I don't really understand the "implicit philosophical statement" argument here unless the "statement" is just using language that accepts that being trans is real, in which case I don't see that as controversial and I don't see a problem with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with @User:DanielRigal. Also being trans is factually, scientifically inherent - it's not a choice and trans women have always been female. This is an encyclopedia, and that applies to Keffals as well as every other trans woman or girl. Stephanie921 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921 I'm skeptical of the scientific certainty you're suggesting. I've encountered trans women who do not think of themselves as always having been female. I don't mean to suggest anything about choice TimPerkin9 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal I meant "identified" in the internal sense, but maybe that's confusing to people. The implied statement is that being trans is an inherent quality that must be discovered. I know that trans people and gender theorists have disagreements about the nature of gender identity, and I wanted to avoid implying a view without good reason.

Obviously being trans is very real and, in my opinion, entirely deserving of respect. TimPerkin9 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Combining sources that support full birthdate

WP:COMBINE doesn't give me much information on putting two sources into one citation. I'm saying this because I noticed that two sources that support Sorrenti's full birthdate have been combined into one citation. I followed WP:CREEP (as per my past mistakes) and searched for any guidelines pertaining to this, but none turned up. If anyone else here finds any, please let me know ASAP. Thank you all in advance. L337m4n (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's sort of a routine calculation moment. It's only as good, however, as the least good of the two sources. News media are regularly guilty of copying birthdates from Wikipedia or getting them wrong, so we should tread really carefully when making statements of birthdates. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

This page has been the target of vandalism recently (someone recently added "Keffals Trooner", and ruined a section of this page regarding the election results when Keffals ran for the Communist Party of Canada), so I think that this page should be switched to semi-protected/verified users only. Ironicnamejpg (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection should be enforced ImStevan (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This page was semi-protected on August 25, set to expire September 8. But the editor who vandalized this page on August 29 (edits now redacted) had no visible edits before doing so. I don't understand how they were able to edit this page without autoconfirmed (or higher) status... Funcrunch (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Answering myself - looks like they made several edits to a since-deleted page before vandalizing this one. Funcrunch (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Requests to increase/decrease page protections go to WP:RFPP. Further disruption while semi protected will lead to it being ecp'd. SWinxy (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Query

Is it appropriate to mention someone's original born name? Like a woman who has gotten married and changed her name or is it different for those who transitioned? My tightness (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I think it also deserves to be mentioned in the first line that she has run for political office. --My tightness (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@My tightness Per MOS:DEADNAME, we mention a transgender person's name only if they were notable under their former name. I (and whoever added the comment on the infobox) don't think Keffals was. On the topic of her Communist Party of Canada candidacy, the first sentence used to include it but I WP:BOLD-ly removed it (with this edit) as she seems to be currently more notable on her transgender activism, on her Twitch streaming, and on the harassment campaign targeting her. LightNightLights ^(talk) 02:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What LNL said. The lead section is there to summarize the article's body and its most important points, and her political career might not be the most important bits of her. I'd say maybe it should be included, but I'm not too pushy on that. SWinxy (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The political affiliations/career are notable and should be included in the lede. Joe (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin While I think those details are notable to some extent, my argument is that adding them to the first sentence of the lead isn't due (per MOS:LEADBIO). In retrospect, the lead section in general needs updating – possibly to include the swatting and doxxings – but I think those things are more due for mention than her current political ideology (a socialist) or her political career (candidate for the Communist Party of Canada). LightNightLights ^(talk) 03:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I have to agree with User SWinxy that this material should be included in the lede. It's perfectly standard to mention a political commentator's former political career in the lede of their article (see Carl Benjamin and Cenk Uygur for some examples). Further, since the material was notable once, it remains notable per WP:NTEMP. I doubt there are any political candidates (failed or otherwise) whose political careers are not mentioned in the lede of their article, even if they're no longer in politics. The fact that Sorrenti is still involved in politics through commentary only makes this more notable. Joe (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin My argument never was that it wasn't notable but that it (subjectively) wasn't notable enough. I'm not sure about Uygur, but I would say that Benjamin is well-known in politics (egregious case, for reference), unlike Sorrenti. LightNightLights ^(talk) 16:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Keffals is less well-known in politics than Benjamin (I think anyway). Therefore, we should be careful not to give her candidacy too much weight. However, giving it a brief mention at some point in the lead doesn't seem to me to be massively undue as long as we don't dwell on it or go into any detail. What I think is more important at this point though is expanding on information that should be in the lead but currently isn't. The lead is quite short atm so expanding it makes sense to me. Then it'll be easier to give everything the appropriate weight too. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, there's an unambiguous consensus that we should include material about Sorrenti's political career in the lede, though some are in favor of more material and some are in favor of less. I'll go ahead and add a brief mention, and if we expand other topics in the lede at some later date, perhaps we should also expound more on her political career then, too. Joe (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Twitch location?

The location listed in the infobox under 'twitch information' is "London, Ontario", but the last RS we're using states that she relocated to Northern Ireland. Is the twitch information outdated, or is the twitch 'location' still London, Ontario, for some kind of logistical reason? (I don't know). If someone knows one way or the other, please update it, if necessary. Cheers. Joe (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I just removed the location for now. Since it's an online platform, I don't think having a location in the infobox is really necessary anyway, especially as some streamers may broadcast from more than one location. Funcrunch (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me to just leave it blank, as you say, not really necessary for an online activity. Joe (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Listing it as London Ontario made sense at the time because of her political activity there (and because it was mentioned in the WaPo article). Since she's gone abroad, it should be removed (at least for the time being), and we can revisit it if need be. SWinxy (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Not only do I agree that it's unnecessary, but I think it's a good idea to not have a location bit to protect her privacy, considering how she's received death threats Stephanie921 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment campaign

This section should be updated with the police department's response. Also important to note they dispute the claims of a dynamic entry into the subject's home and dispute the claims of officers deadnaming the subject while in custody. EtchASketch (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a third party reliable source linking to this statement? Funcrunch (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Heres a statement from the police on this: https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/news/statement-from-police-chief-williams-august-2022.aspx

Quote: "Responding officers conducted the initial inquiries which culminated in their attendance at Ms. Sorrenti’s residence. Officers did not conduct what is sometimes referred to as a “dynamic entry” into Ms. Sorrenti’s residence. Rather, they knocked on the door, announced themselves as police officers, and occupants answered."

Here's an article on this: https://globalnews.ca/news/9055466/london-ont-police-chief-apologizes-after-trans-activist-was-victim-of-swatting/

It also quotes London Police Chief Steve Williams disupting any deadnaming.

Quote: "This brings me to allegations as to how Ms. Sorrenti was addressed during her time in London police custody, using an incorrect name (her “deadname”) and gender. While I cannot confirm any conversations which might have transpired during Ms. Sorrenti’s initial arrest, activity in our holding cells is monitored by audio and video equipment. At no time while she was in our holding cells did members of our police service address Ms. Sorrenti by her deadname and gender. I have personally reviewed the recordings and found our officers were polite, respectful, and professional. The reference to Ms. Sorrenti’s former name appears to stem from the existence of prior police reports. When an individual comes into contact with police for whatever reason, an entry is made into our records management system using the name provided at that time. That report is merged with prior reports, if any, involving the same person with the same date of birth. Where an individual has a change of name, or has a nickname or alias, those would be linked with the primary name on file. Police are not normally notified when someone legally changes their name. It appears the bag in which Ms. Sorrenti’s personal property was held was labelled with her deadname, for tracking purposes."

Can find more articles if global news isn't sufficient. Ashton of the Stars (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we add a controversies section?

For example, when Keffals indicated that she woke up with a gun to her face and then the police report disagreed with that.

Example: https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/news/statement-from-police-chief-williams-august-2022.aspx Responding officers conducted the initial inquiries which culminated in their attendance at Ms. Sorrenti’s residence. Officers did not conduct what is sometimes referred to as a “dynamic entry” into Ms. Sorrenti’s residence. Rather, they knocked on the door, announced themselves as police officers, and occupants answered. Compared to her original statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzOwDuazF2w On August 5th, I was woken up by London Police services, pointing an assault rifle in my face at my home. Ashton of the Stars (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A) a contention in events is not a controversy, B) neither claim is in the article, and C) both are primary sources. See WP:CSECTION. SWinxy (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Controversies sections are discouraged and this doesn't seem to be a controversy anyway. DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated Activist

This page is, perhaps predictably, sympathetic to its subject. Nonetheless I feel like Clara's initiative is being sold short here. This information is highly relevant to the activism section: https://web.archive.org/web/20220819105926/https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1541238183039569920 . As this page is protected, would someone please do the honors of adding an appropriate blurb? Would be a shame to ignore such commitment to a cause. Thanks! Blindedtruth (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that asserts this information. Adding an archive of a Twitter post, as you have proposed, with related text on Keffal's activism would be original research, and wholly improper for a Wikipedia article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate further, her sponsoring of this website can't be cited to herself, because it would violate WP:ABOUTSELF (part of the Verifiability policy): the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. SWinxy (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

| Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities

Appears to state the complete opposite of this argument. ~ Eidako (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, earlier I was viewing this on a smaller monitor and missed that SWinxy was referencing a specific exception to WP:ABOUTSELF. For clarification, are you claiming the tweet is self-serving, exceptional, or both? ~ Eidako (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's see.

self-serving: "having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others"

To the contrary, Keffals is (from Keffals's viewpoint) acting on the behalf of minors and making claims afoul of US state law, to Keffal's own detriment.

exceptional: "something...to an unusually high degree"

claim: "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof"

The tweet in question has a large screenshot of a website with Keffals's name on it, which if I google immediately comes up in the top search results. I see no reason to doubt it. It certainly isn't an extraordinary feat to sponsor a website in any case.

Seems fine to me. ~ Eidako (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with Eidako. I also think you're understating the weight of the tweet considering it was not merely "related text", but a factual statement about the subject directly from the subject. Awful shame that no "reliable sources" are reporting on this heroic dedication, isn't it? Fortunately, it looks like tweets are a permitted source in this context, as I don't see how this tweet is either "unduly self-serving" or "an exceptional claim". So I'll ask again, would someone with authority be so kind as to add this to the article? Thanks! Blindedtruth (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly verifiable that Keffals sponsors an informational resource for DIY hormone therapy, but unless a secondary source draws attention that fact, it probably isn't due WP:DUE for mention in her biography.

My loose understanding of the situation is that trolls (hello!) are mainly interested in pushing a narrative that Keffals' involvement in this resource is criminal, or otherwise suggests wrongdoing somehow, as part of the wider harassment campaign against her. Based on that, I'd err on the side of exclusion until a better source arises. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a violation of WP:AGF and should be deleted as such. Asmiov12345 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to AGF when the editor in question has already been indefed for bad behaviour. DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Asmiov12345: I felt comfortable at the time concluding solely from their sarcastic tone that Blindedtruth was not honestly representing their intentions, and that has seemingly been confirmed by their subsequent remarks. Nonetheless, I recognize how "troll" was a tactless insult, and I've struck the portion of my comment in which I addressed them as such. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not an important part of Keffals' notability or career, it is a minor, trivial detail that mainstream publications haven't even bothered to mention. Keffals has hours and hours and hours of self-published content, not to mention tweets, we can't include everything she's ever said or supported in the article. If other reliable sources don't care, why should Wikipedia? We're not in the business of promoting or detracting her profile, we're in the business of neutrally summarising information that reliable sources have deemed important about her. (For more info see WP:DUE) Alduin2000 (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the context of what's going on right now, and considerable justification for why this article exists:

Keffals is engaged in a back-and-forth with the website Kiwi Farms and its owner Joshua Moon, a spat which has reached international mainstream attention. The position of Keffals and party is Kiwi Farms is (self-redacted so a moderator doesn't take this as an excuse to delete my reply). If one exams the self-published content of Keffals, it is evident Keffals is guilty of many of the same accusions and more, some of which are definitely not legally sound. It is therefore only fair to display these aspects of Keffals's character in the context of the dispute. Failing that, the content of this article is so white-washed it's laughable. Keffals grew up playing Team Fortress? Do you have a source for that? Why do we care about Keffals political career where Keffals won less than 0.02% of the vote in both cases? Accusations of editors having an agenda fall on deaf ears when it's evident there is clearly an agenda to keep certain information, despite being verifiably sound, out of this article.

~ Eidako (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that mentions this Eidako? You can accuse Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors of having some kind of spooky agenda all you like, the plain fact is that this place only works if we trust other reliable sources to get this stuff right and weight things appropriately, we can't just add anything and everything just because somebody thinks it's important, otherwise every page would be crammed full of useless nonsense (half of which or more would be dubious at best). Alduin2000 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The tweets of Keffals are reliable per the above discussion concerning WP:ABOUTSELF. Quite a few people seem to be interested in the topics in question, and again I ask, what does Team Fortress and running for a minor office in Canada have to do with main concept of this article (an individual at the center of a wide-spanning dispute)? Eidako (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more strongly, I'd like to suggest: Supply some reliable secondary sources or drop it. The horse is dead, no one is going to add this without a reliable source. The original decline of this edit request was spot on. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Spot on mate Stephanie921 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there isn't actual reliable source coverage, then there's no due weight for adding it. Only basic biographical details are exceptions, such as birth date. Silverseren^C 01:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

and considerable justification for why this article exists. The closure of the deletion discussion happened 30 days before her swatting. Only now, it'll be harder to argue for a second deletion. SWinxy (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"If one exams the self-published content of Keffals, it is evident Keffals is guilty of many of the same accusions and more, some of which are definitely not legally sound. It is therefore only fair to display these aspects of Keffals's character in the context of the dispute. Failing that, the content of this article is so white-washed it's laughable."

You don't say. Keffals has directed her audience to mass flag a number of people she doesn't like, including most recently Nick Rekieta. Then threatening in person at Twitchcon to get Destiny's online accounts banned.

Poemisaglock (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. LightNightLights ^(talk) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how to add things correctly, but this Wiki page erroneously says Kiwifarms was offline as of September 5th, but the Daily Dot says it was back online. Can we adjust this? https://www.dailydot.com/debug/kiwi-farms-back-online-vanwatech/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.151.148 (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That DailyDot article is dated 6 September, and a lot has happened in the last 24 days. At the present time the site seems to be incredibly unreliable, going up and down frequently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This page is in desperate need of NPOV tag

WP:DROPTHESTICK Dronebogus (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Needs discussion Note: I have removed the repeated discussion closure as this is a separate request. Please stop trying to minimize these important discussions regarding the questionable neutrality of this page. What is the purpose of wikipedia? Is it to document reality, or to broadcast political biases of ideologically aligned sources? It is awfully convenient to one party that there are no "reliable" secondary sources documenting the original reason that kiwifarms targeted keffals, which is the ENTIRE reason this article is noteworthy in the first place. Wouldn't it be responsible to report such information if you were a neutral "NPOV" third party? And conveniently enough, here we have the subject of the article, in their own words, publicly acknowledging the source of the controversy. Captured by a truly neutral third party. It is yet to be explained why including reference to https://web.archive.org/web/20220819105926/https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1541238183039569920 is either self-serving or an exceptional claim. Satisfying these two tests, the archived tweet is a valid reference as per WP:ABOUTSELF (part of the Verifiability policy): the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim This only scratches the surface of the POV problem in this article. It is pathetically white washed. I implore those of you who are knowingly engaging in image-crafting to recognize that this sort of behavior is undermining faith in all of our institutions. CNN is lauding this person as some sort of hero, but denying the populace of the full story is a denial of agency writ large. Blindedtruth (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Asked and answered in your edit request above. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Can you explain how it was answered exactly? Because it clearly was not. This source clearly meets wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Blindedtruth (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC) The purpose of Wikipedia is to represent what reliable sources cover on a subject. Not to represent whatever "truth" you feel needs to be represented. It is your stance that is the biased one. And, no, every random thing a subject has said on social media does not constitute the requirements of due weight. SilverserenC 03:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC) What is a more reliable source than a tweet from the subject of the article about themself? How can you possibly call that biased? That's about as close to the truth as one could get, I'm not sure you understand the definition of bias, particularly if you honestly don't see the bias in the page as it currently is written. Blindedtruth (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources that are independent of the topic say about the topic. Tweets by the article subject are obviously not independent. Cherrypicking and highlighting a single tweet without it being discussed by independent, reliable sources is a violation of No original research, which is a core content policy. Individual Wikipedia editors are simply not permitted to decide that "this tweet is important and so I will add it to the article, but all these other tweets are unimportant and should not be mentioned". We do not advance the agenda of harassers on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the very important policy on Biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Cullen explained what's needed, so as above in the other section, let me add something more strongly and more blunt: Provide the requested reliable secondary source or drop it. If not, I can assist with you dropping it with an indef block, as this POV pushing and repeated BLP claims without reliable sourcing is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC) there are no "reliable" secondary sources documenting the original reason that kiwifarms targeted keffals And what would that be? SWinxy (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Add to section: Online Career

Content:

On October 1, 2022, Youtube streamer Destiny posted a video labelled "Keffals Manifesto", linking to a Substack post documenting his history with and allegations against Keffals. WhoIsNoble (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We need reliable, secondary sourcing to implement this change. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

How come? From Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, it says:

"2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

I don't believe that it is interpretation to state that a resource was created while linking directly to it. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding citations? WhoIsNoble (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources would show that this "manifesto" is encyclopedically important. Currently we have no reason to think including this would constitute due weight. We can't include every possible fact about Keffals or everything that anyone has ever said about her. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Quite agreeable. WhoIsNoble (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Clear Conflict of Interest Between User and the subject of the page

The following discussion 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.

---

"No, the file you uploaded was not released under CC. *I* asked her to reply to the tweet to release the photo uploaded to commons under CC-BY-4.0. She tweeted that after or at the same time I uploaded the file"

The person uploaded the picture and content under the request of the subject of the article and has a connection to the subject, which is a clear violation of the rules. That is not allowed, I personally don't buy the story that it was just by happenstance that it supposedly happened after or the same time. However SWinxy I would warn against continuing an edit war and it would be much rather better servered to discuss it here. I would also recommend reading WP:COI HeinzMaster (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Subject of the article is now trying to hide the evidence by deleting the said tweets. Proof: [1] [2] HeinzMaster (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? As long as it's properly licensed for Commons. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, also I find it very strange that suddenly the tweets are deleted after I started this discussion on here, mere minutes actually. Calling into question if SWinxy is actually more connected to the subject of the page then they are letting on. Whatever you think of the platform of Wikipedia, it is not for the purpose of posting your newest selfie or getting your fans to do it at your request. HeinzMaster (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an article subject suggesting changes to their article. And there is nothing wrong with an editor making those changes if they believe it improves the article. In fact this a relatively common way for biographies to get images when they had previously had none or had an image of poor quality. It would be absurd for us to refuse to use an appropriated licensed image simply because the subject suggested it. The conflict of interest policy does not say what you think it does. CIreland (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree that photos are commonly added to make them better and I have no issue with that. However, the issue comes with the advocating your fans and posting on social media to have them post the content that's the issue. Unironically, if Keffals didn't post those tweets, I would have had no issue since I can't assume stuff like that, but if you provide proof of it.... Also "here is nothing wrong with an article subject suggesting changes to their article" is definitely an issue. There is much examples of it in the past, for example, Andrew Tate got his fans to brigade his Wikipedia page to try to remove negative content. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

A biographical subject providing a properly-licensed photo of themself for their Wikipedia article is perfectly fine. It's not violating any rules and it's not a conflict of interest. Funcrunch (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If one of those fans believes in good faith that the suggested changes improve the article and makes the edits then that is fine. If someone wants to contest the changes it must be on the merits, not simply because a fan made the edits at the suggestion of the subject. CIreland (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But then it comes with the issue if someone wants to post another image to replace this one, will it just become a rotation of glamour shots that the subject wants? What if a more unflattering image is posted? Will people revert it and decide which one is more worthy based on how good the subject looks in them? I can revert it to the subject approved image or just leave it pictureless, however I would like for someone to answer the question if the subject asking for content to be posted to their article is alright and fair? HeinzMaster (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the two (or more) images get discussed on their merits and the image to be used is determined by consensus. Same as how all contested content decisions are made. CIreland (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There's absolutely no conflict of interest here, and it's perfectly normal for editors to contact article subjects to get them to submit a photo they'd like to be used on their biography. If Keffals in the future would prefer a different image, then unless there's a particularly good reason to not use it, it would make sense to use that different image instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's say Keffals doesn't like a picture and requests that it get taken down, is that also fine? So if you want me to understand, the subject of conflict of interest only applies to the words on the page, but the images on it are fair game? Seems like a strange system. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's fine for them to ask, yes. Sometimes the request will end up being honoured, sometimes it won't. It depends on the merits of the proposed changes (although the wishes of article subjects are often given extra consideration - since we don't want to be arseholes about it). CIreland (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So just clarification, this applies to the content (words) on the page as well? I would also prefer for any Keffals fans on here to refrain from sending hateful messages on my other social media as I have started getting. Thanks, Already deactivated the account. The twitter has nothing to do with me as well. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it applies to the words as well. We have a whole system set up to facilitate it, if the subject wants to participate on-wiki. See WP:EDITREQ. CIreland (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any COI here. Contacting an article subject for permission to include a better or more recent image for their article is fine. That's something that many editors do. And even by a strict reading, I don't think COI covers parasocial relationships of Wikipedia editors who may be a fan of a BLP subject, or media franchise.

I'm also not seeing any evidence in the two screenshots linked of advocating your fans and posting on social media to have them post the content that's the issue. Screenshot 1 is Keffals saying that the image is licensed under CC-BY-4.0, and that it is licensed to allow it to be used on Wikipedia. Screenshot 2 is Keffals expressing excitement/satisfaction at the image becoming the one in her infobox. In neither screenshot does Keffals even come close to saying something like "any Wikipedia editing followers want to change the image on my Wikipedia page?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean the person who posted it literally admitted to talking to Keffals directly, but it's already a closed deal. Leave it alone, I don't need more harassment on my other social media accounts from Keffals fans. I regret even posting on this page. HeinzMaster (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2022 (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.

Infobox image

• 
  Original
• 
  Crop

There are currently two photos of Keffals on Commons; both are the same photograph, but one is a crop. I'm inclined to use the cropped image in the infobox, as it centers Keffals' face in the image, but I wanted to open a discussion for more general feedback. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm down for either. There's also an option to crop the sides only to make the photo landscape as opposed to square. iirc she jokingly tweeted about being 1984'd because the crop obscured her breasts lmao. My opinion shouldn't count since I talked with her about the crop. SWinxy (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What does "being 1984'd" mean? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A humorous way to refer to being censored. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I vote for the uncropped. 128.6.37.92 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer the uncropped. The cropped one feels a bit claustrophobic to me. Plus, a Wikipedia page image isn't a profile photo, we're trying to get people to have a general sense of what she looks like and not specifically just her face. Loki (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

The passage "Sorrenti has received criticism from The Mary Sue for statements that have been perceived as racist, including encouraging her followers to impersonate queer people of color on Twitter.[26]" has been added by a targeted hate campaign against Sorrenti trying to discredit and harass her. This has no place on Wikipedia. NikolaiPrime (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The content does not meet the WP:NPOV standard, as it does not even attempt to fairly or proportionately represent all the significant points of view regarding the topic of the opinion piece:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Opinion pieces aren't necessarily reliable just because they're included in some reliable source, as the opinion of one person provides no evidence that this is a majority or significant minority view. From WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

In short, with regard to opinions, Wikipedia wants you to report all the relatively notable opinions to get an idea of what people in general think, not list a bunch of one-sided opinions that some Wikipedia editor or another happens to like.

— Chai T. Rex (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the Mary Sue piece an opinion? It's not labeled as one. It's definitely WP:FRINGE, though. (I find strange that Mary Sue considered reliable at WP:RSP, when that article has factual errors and misrepresentations...) SWinxy (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@SWinxy: I don't see how FRINGE applies here? That article is definitely an opinion piece, and should be attributed if used here (which it was). I also don't see any issue with The Mary Sue's listing at RSP as the listing makes it clear that their articles are often opinionated. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My issue with it is that it's presented as a news article, rather than labeled anywhere as an opinion, making it indistinguishable from the actual news content on the site. If it was an actual article, then I call into question the fact-checking standards at the site. The whole thing about FRINGE I find in the piece is that it's a far-out accusation, and I think including that in Sorrenti's article would be undue. SWinxy (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The title ("Framing Keffals as the Face of Trans Resistance Has Allowed Her Racism To Stay Unchallenged") alone is an opinion. If it was a fact, it's contradicted by the text ("After a year of people calling out Sorrenti’s racism for referring to an Asian woman as 'noodles' her friend and fellow white woman Brianna Wu used the 'pass' theory with Sorrenti."). Obviously, the supposed racism has been challenged. The title is saying that it's not challenged widely enough or something similar, which is an opinion.

Characterizing her statements as racist when there are other reasonable interpretations of those statements is an opinion. If the article were factual, the claims are unsupported by evidence. The claim is made that Sorrenti called someone 'noodles', yet there's no supporting quote from Sorrenti. The quotes actually provided have obvious interpretations where noodles refers to literal noodles rather than a person. Without evidence, the characterization of the statements Sorrenti made about noodles as somehow calling a person 'noodles' is an opinion. Chai T. Rex (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Not done for now"? But someone else did it already [3]. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Rape Allegations

Keffals is says she was raped by another trans activist. I don’t know if charges were filed, but you might want to include it. 2601:600:C580:31C0:8F8:2AAE:4E94:8CA (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably not based on a video but maybe keep an eye out for any coverage from RS sources. DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

care to add on?

surely being called a fraud by The Young Turks when it comes to retracting their coverage of keffals merits a mention for a page that hasnt mentioned anything past the year 2022 Wikidude10000 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure you can add it yourself if you have the reliable sources. The editing lock on this article doesn't affect you since you've been around for over a decade. Yue🌙 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP on this matter, as we anything controversial or involving accusations of fraud absolutely needs to be have high-quality sources: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This generally means independent reliable sources, typically secondary sources, such as those in WP:RSP. Wikipedia is not a tabloid where we drag in accusations from YouTube opinion news videos. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Hist9600 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hist9600: Wikipedia certainly isn't a tabloid, but highly publicized retractions on stories from major sources are worth mentioning. The Young Turks is a source whose neutral reporting hasn't been challenged at WP:RSP. BOTTO _(T•C) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In order to verify the soundness of this argument, I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. BOTTO _(T•C) 10:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems your discussion was removed.

But a New York Post article pointed out that Ana Kasparian, a co-host of TYT has been criticised for targeting transmasc inclusive language.

I believe that such a prominent figure in the company attacking trans inclusive language makes the company as a whole - which is very small - biased against reporting on an incredibly small transgender content creator. "Birthing-person" being referred to as an attack on women, and Ana believing that only women can give birth shows a clear bias.

There are also similar but less severe claims against co-host Cenk Uygur, but I won't list these as they don't have any reputable sources claiming so, at least not any journalists writing it in a journal, as I've only seen them do so on personal blogs or sites like Twitter.

I would not consider TYT to have the ability to be unbiased in reporting on such a small trans creator any more than I'd trust J.K. Rowling to give her opinion. EnbyEditor (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the discussion on the BLP noticeboard about Keffals, it was archived here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Keffals. Basically, it boils down to: Commentary channels are not reliable sources for statements about living people. Hist9600 (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominate this Page for Deletion

There is a vast disconnect between the presentation of Keffals online and the presentation within this article. Because Wiki editors never accept video investigations into Keffal's lies about her lawsuit against London PD, this page will never accurately represent reality or the online perception (including by trans persons themselves) against Keffals. Keffals is also too irrelevant for further articles by the Washington Post or any reputable news org to correct her claims about the lawsuit against the London PD. This page serves no purpose but to document internet drama between a streamer and a website.

I cite precedent in the form of Ethan Ralph, a far-right political streamer who had his page deleted for irrelevance in 2022. Pages that are both out of touch or out of date should be corrected and if that is not possible, removed. Anononmos (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate this article for deletion at Articles for deletion, though I would strongly advise against doing so. Keffals is a notable figure, regardless of the validity of her words. If you read the discussion directly above, you will see that content casting serious light on her allegations was removed, due to it being only available from a talk show. If we can get reliable sources, then absolutely; I'll be the first to reimplement it. In the meantime, if you have suggestions for how we may improve this page, please let us know. Reading the article, it seems like it's improved somewhat with taking into account Keffals' claims vs. what the opposition, such as the London Police, have stated. BOTTO _(T•C) 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you would not consider YouTube videos as correct sourcing. However, by neglecting such sources this article fails at capturing an accurate picture of Keffals. Reading this article fails to answer why Keffals is hated within the trans community.

I would also argue that Keffals is no longer a notable person and is unable to be featured in the mainstream press. Recently, she resurfaced on twitter claiming that she was still facing harassment, yet the news only stayed within her circle of detractors. The issue is that Keffals is too irrelevant to have the mainstream press issue corrections.

My solution is to delete this article and summarize in detail, the situation between Keffals and KiwiFarms as its own controversy on the KiwiFarms page. Her feud with KiwiFarms is the most notable thing she has done and I suspect that it will be the most notable thing she will ever do. Anononmos (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The page has already been nominated for deletion and consensus was found that she is notable and the page should be kept; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keffals for more. You're welcome to nominate it for deletion again but I suspect you will get the same result. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the nomination should be reassessed given that the most notable thing Keffals has done was feud with a website. Such a feud could be summarized in detail on the KiwiFarms wikipedia page. In 2024, Keffals has lost all relevance and I doubt new news articles would ever be made on her. Given that she has came out about the harassment she's still facing on Twitter and only gotten ~200 likes and made no news outside her detractors, I can argue that she has entered into irrelevancy.

Ralph and his show the killstream, received wide attention in 2015 where the host had his own article on the SPLC and I recall, that his show getting banned on YouTube for hate speech made the news. Nowadays, Ralph is no more than a footnote in the wider history of the online far-right. I argue the same for Keffals but on the history of KiwiFarms.

To summarize, this article and the nomination for deletion you linked are out of date and do not present an accurate view on Keffals. Two years later, I suggest that there is a stronger case to delete this page. Anononmos (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NTEMP. In short, if she was ever notable, which she was based on the myriad of coverage in reliable secondary sources over an extended period of time and which is why the AfD discussion ended in a Keep decision, then notability is not removed just because there is no coverage past that. Notable once means notable forever. Silverseren^C 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why was Ethan Ralph's page deleted? From what I could discern, he stopped making mainstream news after the revenge porn case. Keffals stopped making mainstream news after Cloudflare dropped KiwiFarms. Anononmos (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell from Ralph's AfD Discussion, there are two main reasons it was deleted. First, it was the person who created his article in the first place that requested the deletion, so the request was given stronger weight. And, second, it was argued by the creator and agreed upon by others in the discussion that there wasn't proper secondary coverage of Ralph himself in the sources. The discussion of him in the sources was either trivial or was only included as an example when the coverage was really about the #Healstream controversy instead of Ralph himself. Silverseren^C 22:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion request

It seems as though people have edited the article regarding Keffals to omit notable information of widely circulated information, which Keffals has endeavoured to respond to, specifically the thumbnail. This has, concerningly, also led to the eradication of several necessary pieces of context and understanding of Clara Sorrenti as well as her career. Is anyone able to revert this to before "Hisk" made their edits regarding "Tabloid concerns"? I don't believe that their worries over tabloids is reflected in their changes, which simply omits negative information about Clara Sorrenti, rather than auditing or adding new sources, or removing ineligible ones. Politicized tabloids such as Pink News, which Hist upheld as a source while removing others, are something we can, mostly, agree are not as relevant to discussion in contrast to major political platforms such as The Young Turks, yet The Young Turks was omitted when it was critical of Clara Sorrenti. This shows a concern with informational bias. 2607:FEA8:51E0:2E0:80F8:C952:2C15:FC2E (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This has already been addressed at the BLP noticeboards. The Young Turks video clips, as well as video essays on YouTube, cannot be used in a biography of a living person. The Young Turks is not a "major political platform". It is a YouTube opinion news channel. Not a reliable source for a BLP. This has already been addressed specifically for the Keffals article. See: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Keffals

PinkNews, on the other hand, is considered not only a reliable source, but a perennial reliable source (WP:RSP) that has been judged to be "generally reliable". That means that it is generally a good source for Wikipedia articles. Hist9600 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The greater whole of the page is Keffals' [conflicting] personal testimony, which is refuted by police reports and other witness testimony. It is absolutely keeping with a biography that "controversies" be listed and personal testimony be questioned when its validity is refuted. PinkNews, too, was reporting on Keffals' personal testimony as it was presented at the time, via Keffals (which may or may not have been completely factual to their understanding but rather a personal recollection of events). That is the process of reporting current events. I don't understand these mental gymnastics to keep Keffals' controversies off the page when they are worth noting and, for the most part, confirmed by Keffals herself, personal messages, witness testimony, and related police reports. What exactly qualifies PinkNews as a major political platform and not The Young Turks? Whatever the answer, it changes nothing about the questionable revisions that completely omit the controversy, and verifiable facts, regarding Keffals' behavior. Mutahar's investigation, whether you trust its sourcing or not, is part of Keffals' story. 98.43.193.98 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

From the noticeboard discussion about this: Commentary channels are not reliable sources for statements about living people. TYT is just a news opinion channel on YouTube. It is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source for factual statements about living people. Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for tabloid junk and social media controversies playing out on YouTube. Hist9600 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not every controversy is worth mentioning. Only the ones sourced to reliable sources discuss may be deemed allowable. This isn't a one-off to protect one former livestreamer; all living people receive the same treatment in avoiding dubious sourcing for contentious claims. We want things from newspapers and magazines, their credibility long-established. As Hist says, Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for tabloid junk and social media controversies playing out on YouTube. SWinxy (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would hardly call police reports and personal interviews tabloid junk when/if a page contributor is willing to provide them. This is an event that has greatly affected Keffals's platform and community. How is that not a controversy worth noting? For anyone who doesn't know Keffals, a look at this Wiki page would paint a very rose-colored picture of someone we now understand to be a fraud who personally admitted to misappropriating charity funds and whose recorded testimony changes drastically from interview to interview. If anyone is willing to provide those direct sources for a controversy section, I believe they should be published and left published. 98.43.193.98 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources. As a matter of site-wide policy, Wikipedia articles on living people only include material that is verifiable by high-quality reliable secondary sources. If you want to right great wrongs and expose The Truth about subjects, you are going to have to do it on a different website. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)