Talk:Destiny (streamer)

link rot / unreliable or dead source

A lot of this article cites one source: a Wired article (https://www.wired.com/story/twitch-politics-online-debate/) which now requires a paid subscription to view. This needs to be addressed as this is effectively now a dead link. Rather than add [citation needed] to nearly every claim in this article, I'll just leave this note and ask whomever maintains this article to figure this out so this article complies with Wikipedia's Link Rot and Reliability policies. Asaturn (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That article was accessible to me just now, without a login or a subscription. It seems like Wired employs an "x free article views a month" type model, before insisting you subscribe to get unrestricted access: per their FAQ . Would that count as sufficiently inaccessible to say this link has rotted? I misread the date on this message, ignore me! Kdlev (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL there's nothing we have to do. Many sources used on Wikipedia, particularly academic sources, are behind paywalls. We don't reject them because they are harder for some to access. Also the source appears to have been archived in full anyway, so even if Wired suddenly went offline or the URL was to otherwise break, the information within is still verifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Bisexual person or bisexual man?

Back and forth on this article people have been replacing the "bisexual person" category with "bisexual man" and vice versa. So which is it? The implication is that it would be "people" because he's claimed to be non-binary in the past, but this has been removed from the article. It could be sourced again, and have an argument going for it, but for the most part, I think it should be bisexual man. Although he has claimed to be non-binary, he still goes by male pronouns most all of the time. Thoughts? ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-fascist?

Re this diff by LittleJerry: our policy on categories says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. and A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. If this category is to be included, we should have reliable sources referenced in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It supported in the article mentioning this debates with the alt-right and white nationalism. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

First, "arguing with fascists" does not make somebody an "anti-fascist" (many anti-fascists oppose giving fascists a platform - see No platform). Second, please re-read the policy above (I've added a link): we need independent reliable sources to commonly and consistently use this identification (and YouTube is not a reliable independent source - see WP:RSPYT). If RSs do do so, finding them should be easy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Infrared Channel Not Notable?

An edit which previously referred to Haz from Infrared's interaction with Double D Destiny was reverted as not being notable. This is typical nonsense by Wikipedia hall monitors. But if we look at the material reality of the current situation, we can see that the Infrared channel is continuously growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms. Infrahaz (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! First off, you reverted my reversion by calling it "vandalism", this can put a mark on someones reputation, and is putting out a fallacy that is not true. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to gain a better understanding on what vandalism is.

Anyways, this was one small incident, of one person insulting Destiny. I highly doubt this has enough of a long-term effect be placed on the article. Media outlets have covered Destiny before, as evident by his references, this falls very short of the precedent set by the incidents covered in the rest of the article. This is miniscule compared to all of the rest of the issues, where they mostly are not sourced from a single YouTube video. This YouTube video in question, is from a channel which has 33k subscribers, and 16k views on the specific video. It's not exactly a viral video, and the world does not seem to be responding to this en masse. You claim that "growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms", lets not use original research that we formulated ourselves for a argument. Instead, we can look at cold hard facts, which is that the Infared YouTube channel has 14k subscribers, which is miniscule to Destiny's following to be blunt. I am certain that Destiny has had this same caliber of insult, from many creators, large and small. But it's hardly groundbreaking, which is why I don't think it deserves to be in this article. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

On another note, you seem to have a serious POV issue with this, based on your username. I am concerned that you may be "Haz" from Infrared. If this is the case, I am afraid your edit could have serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. I would suggest you don't write content relating to yourself if this is the case. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your bean counting and semantics don't change the material reality of the fact that the Infrared channel is becoming one of the most discussed in the online politics world. What a feeble attempt to save Gynecomastia Steven's reputation. Infrahaz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You likely have a serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue based on your username. I have no hope of reaching Wikipedia:Consensus with you about this subject. I'm going to recommend you step away from this discussion based on your likely COI. I am not planning on further continuing this discussion. Regards - Sea Cow (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Cozy.tv Refideas

I haven't seen any reliable third party sources talk about Destiny's Cozy.tv channel, but I did find both of these primary sources. Beyond notability concerns, adding this info to the article might be run afoul of WP:BLP, as being associated with Cozy.tv could reasonably be considered defamatory. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

banned from Twitch

Destiny was banned from Twitch for transphobia as well as for repeated violations of hate speech (using the N word). Maybe this should be reflected in the article? His ban is permanent. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@69.127.80.46 We do not know the reason for the ban. It would be speculation to affirm a definitive answer and against the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality. Joacom14 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

List of games played

I think it would be useful to include full list of games Destiny plays in body of the article as opposed to sidebar. Sidebar is not very good for that because of the limited space. People could help identify them and add any missing entries. For one, I am looking for the game that he plays in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kobOnhKYHvQ If you know what it is, please tell me. 149.156.124.14 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Irresponsible edits

Enny43, if you would like to include allegations that Destiny is involved in the weaponization of both his audience, and Kiwi Farms in order to abuse a transgender streamer, then you need to wait until evidence emerges. One streamer claiming this happened while not having a single reliable source corroborating the accusations themselves is not evidence. Adding claims of targeted harassment to someone's Wikipedia article as soon as they are made, and before any evidence has come to light, is very irresponsible, and ripe for spreading misinformation. I hope you understand why I wish your edit to be reverted. Slybirdz (wowee) 23:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not attempt to compile evidence. We do not wait for evidence to emerge, instead we summarize reliable sources. These are the two cited sources:

• Gach, Ethan (July 21, 2022). "Trans Streamer Keffals Says Twitch Banned Her For 'Openly Talking' About Abuse She Receives". Kotaku. Retrieved July 25, 2022.
• Wolens, Joshua (July 22, 2022). "Trans Twitch streamer claims she was banned for showing examples of abuse". PC Gamer. Retrieved July 25, 2022.

An argument can be made that this is premature or undue weight, but this, too is decided by reliable sources instead of by editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Grayfell why is the PC Gamer source relevant for this article in regards to Keffals? There is no mention of Destiny at all. The only relevant source for these edits is the Kotaku one.

The allegations mentioned in that article are on the back of speculation on what Keffals' stream was going to be about before it happened, with no reference to where these allegations are coming from, or any reporting on any response from Destiny himself. The source doesn't seem to be very reliable, in that sense. No mention of who is making the allegation, and it is arguably on the back of speculation of what a stream was going to be about. There are no other sources mentioning allegations at all, unless I can see otherwise.

It doesn't seem impartial if one article can mention (speculate?) allegations, and for as long as no one else decides to write an article mentioning the allegations, those allegations can remain front and centre without any challenge. If I write an article making allegations against you, and there are no other sources corroborating it or commenting on them, is it impartial to mention the allegations made in that case, until another article is written about it? I don't think so. 202.65.91.28 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We don't make editorial decisions based on what we think reliable sources should be publishing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku article does not give any scrutiny to the allegation. Effectively, it is as reliable as Keffals' own claims. I would not say Kotaku is unreliable, but that the article in itself does not have very high reliability. Youngrubby (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't dismiss sources because editors personally disagree with an arbitrary level of "scrutiny" apparently unmet in their reporting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku article simply refers to Keffals' accusation. How does that lend any scrutiny? Youngrubby (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We're now having the same conversation in two places on this talk page. Please refer below to my comment beginning "Once again, this does not align with policy." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That post does refer to different articles. Those include numerous other references rather than one simple report, thereby providing a higher level of scrutiny. It is fine to include those, however the Kotaku article does not examine Keffals' report at all. Is that level of scrutiny (none at all) really arbitrary? Does this not somewhat clash with the policy around what counts as a reliable source under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources ? Youngrubby (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure I've been understanding you correctly—are you arguing that the content is fine to include, but just that the Kotaku source ought not to be used for it? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both Gach, Ethan (July 21, 2022) and Wolens, Joshua (July 22, 2022) with regards to reliability. Some of the other sources seem to go further into the matter, so I think it is fine to include those as reliable. Regarding guidelines on whether to include this for celebrities I am not sure. Youngrubby (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy to add the other sources in addition to the two sources described above if that helps assuage your concerns, though I maintain that we don't dismiss sources because editors personally disagree with an arbitrary level of "scrutiny" apparently unmet in their reporting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So to get this straight for me, would you say the Kotaku article is reliable because Kotaku is reliable? Because I am trying to see the distinction and whether it matters. Youngrubby (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:SOURCE:

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am actually familiar with our reliable sourcing policy. That doesn't change that you're trying to dismiss a perfectly usable source based on an arbitrary metric. Might be a moot point now, though—see [1]. If a second high-quality RS is found it can be paired with the Kotaku source which—I maintain—is perfectly adequate for the sentence in question. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not perfectly usable. If you find yourself repeating yourself, it's because you aren't responding to what is being put on the talk page. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I propose to use the Mary Sue article primarily https://www.themarysue.com/twitch-bans-its-biggest-trans-streamer-after-discussing-harassment-she-endured/ because it goes into more detail about what exactly Keffals accuses Destiny of compared to the Kotaku article https://kotaku.com/twitch-ban-keffals-destiny-trans-hate-speech-slur-1849315462 Youngrubby (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Does it? Here's the full on Destiny/Bonnell:

"The worst part? The ban was handed out moments before a tell-all stream where she would go into the harassment she received from another streamer known as Destiny, “who lied about me and weaponized a hate forum [Kiwifarms] that is implicated in multiple suicides against me in an attempt to ruin my life.” Destiny has since been permanently banned from the platform, but the harassment of Keffals continues, as she reports that her “account got mass reported before [she] even started,” thereby silencing her callout stream. She also reported that harassers spurred on by Destiny followed her onto her YouTube stream and forced her to turn the chat off."

This "lied about me and weaponized a hate forum" quote has been used in several sources. I have a major issue with reporting this accusation in an encyclopedia because there's no details into what the lie was, when Bonnell lied, what forum Bonnell lied on, etc. Same with weaponization. I guess the part about getting harassers is more context that I'm not sure exists elsewhere.

I think it's important that an accusation be included on a Wikipedia article even if it isn't the most sound from reporting. For instance, if somebody is accused of sexual assault, it isn't necessary for sources to explain the precise time or precise location or other details. But I'd find it spurious if there are several sources that simply regurgitate a quote and there's no reporting or investigating into whether it happened yesterday or a month ago or a year ago, what the action even was, etc. There is a difference between noteworthy accusations and gossip and the fact that there is such a shallow explanation of this accusation is why I think myself and other editors are concerned that this is gossip that happens to be reported by questionably reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a catalogue of gossip, and I can't seem to say this enough on this talk page but the fact that a tweet can be included in an article does not make that tweet newsworthy or reliable. Grenvilledodge (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely do make those decisions. As you said, Wikipedia's role requires us to determine the reliability of sources. We must make the decision what is a reliable source and what is not a reliable source. For instance, WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We do discuss the reliability of publications, yes. Kotaku is a widely-used source on Wikipedia that is generally considered to be reliable. But if all it took to dispute a given ref on Wikipedia was one editor going "I don't think they did a good enough job with this specific article", we'd have no usable references left. If you want to go begin another discussion about Kotaku's reliability, be my guest. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you do not need to blacklist an entire publication in order to question the reliability of a singular article which has no research into a claim except for reusing the original allegation. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

People should never take Wikipedia seriously then. If an article can be used as a source - even if it doesn't contain content that supports a claim, or contains provably false information to support a claim - then Wikipedia itself is fundamentally unreliable as a source of information too. People shouldn't have to prove an entire publication as unreliable to state a given source as bad to use.

Also the statement "If all it took to dispute a given ref on Wikipedia was one editor going 'I don't think they did a good enough job with this specific article', we'd have no usable references left." seems totally out there. This is assuming that a claim against a source is always valid and should be taken seriously. No, if the source is proven to be valid it should stay. If it very obviously doesn't prove a claim from a 5 minute reading of it, then it should be gotten rid of. CoffeeBrakes (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah wikipedia, you've gotten yourself into a catch-22 because of your inconsistent and biased application of policy. Kotaku proved itself a wholly unreliable source during Gamergate, but you wanted their slander on your website so you gave them a pass. Now that the same mob of misfits is going after your own do you have a *slight* problem with the BLP issues it presents. You've made your bed; now sleep in it.63.155.103.206 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that you think it's a bad source, but you think it's good to keep because it acts as good revenge? CoffeeBrakes (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

lol no, I think it should've been tossed as a source during Gamergate, but the people here kept an obviously bad source because they wanted to keep the Gamergate narrative. We basically have a situation where Keffals is quoting herself (quoting wikipedia, which is quoting Kotaku, which is quoting her), in order for her to keep up her slander. The same thing happened with Gamergate. I love it. More people should realize wikipedia is garbage. BLP? LOL. Their supposed "holy grail" of policy means nothing compared to their real policy - anything to promote the hyper-progressive narrative. 63.155.103.206 (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Instead of edit warring to remove sourced content, can those of you repeatedly removing the content pertaining to Keffals please explain your reasoning? 2600:1700:31f4:2140:fd81:8871:b432:474, Grenvilledodge. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes.

Firstly, I did not remove "content pertaining to Keffals". I removed 1,000 bites of text which was to "Avoid passive voice". If you wanted to add "content pertaining to Keffals" and wanted editors to consider "content pertaining to Keffals", then you should have labeled it as such.

Secondly, I looked into your source and looked to see if it met the standards for allegations of biographies of living persons, which says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article[...]If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Here is the entirety of sourcing for the allegation against Bonnell: "According to Sorrenti, the Twitch ban was for “repeated hateful slurs or symbols.” She said the slurs existed in a thumbnail for the livestream, and depicted past comments made about her. Before the channel was suspended, the planned Twitch stream was seemingly going to be about how controversial political streamer Steven “Destiny” Bonnell was allegedly weaponizing his own fans and users on the hate forum Kiwi Farms to heap harassment on her. She is now re-editing that stream to appear on YouTube."

So this source is simply a restatement of one singular person who is the person making the accusation. There is no difference from citing this article and citing them saying this on their own platform. It is not noteworthy because as your own source says, the person making the allegation is anticipating uploading the evidence for their allegation--why is this in an encyclopedia when you can wait until that evidence is presented? It is not well documented, because it is simply saying what their accusation is. The fact that a website will say what somebody claims does not make that claim any more substantiated. There are not multiple source and there are no third-party sources because, again, this source is literally just reporting what their claim is.

For these two reasons, I will undo the edit made again for violation of biographies of living persons. Grenvilledodge (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the WP:ABF claims about my edit summary, please see my explanation in my most recent edit summary or User talk:GorillaWarfare#Misleading edit on Stephen Bonnell: I'm glad you at least recognize what happened with the edit conflict due to rapid edits to the page—I clicked save after resolving the conflict without fixing the summary, which can't be edited after the fact. You might check out WP:AGF rather than leaping to "maliciously, purposefully misleading" and threats to report vandalism—it's a pretty common issue with MediaWiki software.

I'm not sure why you are claiming there aren't multiple RS to support the claim; the original editor supported it with both Kotaku and PC Gamer sources, and there are other sources available that refer to their clash, such as:

• The Mary Sue
• Dexterto
• SVG
• The Gamer
• Washington Post (briefer mention without detail on the conflict)

Given that the section was properly worded to attribute the claims to Keffals, it seems perfectly reasonable to include it. The suggestion that There is no difference from citing this article and citing them saying this on their own platform. is plainly untrue.

Regarding off-wiki canvassing, looks like this large account kicked it off also mentioned this dispute. (Note: this was responding to a now-deleted comment).) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are citing multiple sources that are reciting the same claim by the same interested party. You are not citing multiple sources substantiating the claim or multiple parties reciting the claim.

The Mary Sue: "The worst part? The ban was handed out moments before a tell-all stream where she would go into the harassment she received from another streamer known as Destiny, “who lied about me and weaponized a hate forum [Kiwifarms] that is implicated in multiple suicides against me in an attempt to ruin my life.” Destiny has since been permanently banned from the platform, but the harassment of Keffals continues, as she reports that her “account got mass reported before [she] even started,” thereby silencing her callout stream. She also reported that harassers spurred on by Destiny followed her onto her YouTube stream and forced her to turn the chat off." This is no different than somebody publishing an article with somebody's tweet on it: there is no research, no reporting into the claim, etc.

Dexterto: "However, just before she was meant to go live to talk about “how Destiny lied about me and weaponized a hate forum [Kiwifarms] that is implicated in multiple suicides against me in an attempt to ruin my life”, her Twitch account was banned. Keffals originally stated: “My account got mass reported before I even started and I am banned from Twitch.” She then went on to continue streaming on YouTube, going through the details of alleged targeted harassment from Destiny and his community." Same thing, same quotes.

SVG: "On July 18, trans Twitch streamer Clara "Keffals" Sorrenti posted on Twitter that she had been banned from Twitch after being raided by a large group of viewers — allegedly fans of controversial streamer Destiny — who proceeded to hurl hate speech in her direction and mass report her." This source literally says there's an allegation and doesn't even say from who.

The Gamer: "Earlier this week, Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel over the thumbnail in question." This might be a good source! It isn't just regurgitating what the alleger says... except when you go to the chatlogs, it links to the alleger's own tweet.

Washington Post: "Sorrenti has openly clashed with Destiny, another politics-focused streamer who was recently banned from Twitch, and Tim Pool, a right-wing YouTuber." This is not a source for anything in the edit being made.

It is important to understand what the point of sourcing is. A source does not in and of itself constitute a section on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia isn't a Google search list and everything with the words "Stephen Bonnell", "Destiny", and "Keffals" is not an inherently reliable source, or third-party source, or significant to add. For instance, Mary Sue reports says "We promote, watchdog, extoll, and celebrate diversity, inclusion, and women’s representation in all of these areas (and more!) and work to make geekdom safe and open for everyone." The fact that an allegation is run by a second party does not mean it is well documented: across the relevant sources you gave, there is two quotes from the alleger and then their tweets linked. Two quotes does not make a claim well-documented, whether it's two quotes from Twitter or two quotes from an article relying on two quotes from Twitter. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the PC Gamer source supports the contentious claim about weaponizing KiwiFarms? I have rewritten my comment below. Given the new sources provided, it appears notable enough that Keffals made the claim about Destiny - it shoud be clear, however, that the claim is a claim by Keffals, not a true-fact in Wikipedia's voice. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"...looks like this large account kicked it off"

And what might this be? 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional evidence that this discussion is being canvassed? I'm not sure what your point is here, I was not trying to make a "they started it" sort of allegation here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying it *really* came off as a "they started it" sort of thing. 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of arguing that would be (it makes no difference in a content dispute), but I've edited my above comment lest others interpret it that way. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the statement "trans activist streamer Keffals alleged in a livestream that Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass her," is insufficiently notable vis the article "Destiny (streamer)," to include here. I note further that the statement "According to Keffals, Twitch banned her for 28 days as a result of the stream in which she made the allegations, which she said was because she showed examples of the abuse that had been directed at her," has nothing to do with "Destiny (streamer)," and is using this article as a WP:COATRACK to include irrelevent information (referring specifically to the section "All About George," where XYZ is Destiny, and George Washington is Keffal's ban.)

Focusing on my first, more debatable point, I would consider the statement "Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass," to be contentious. As such, if it were included clean, per BLP, it should be removed if it "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." In this case, however, it's not stated as fact, but rather coatracked in because it is true that Keffals did in, fact, say the thing. I believe it is essentially a BLP violation to include "according to source A person X said Y about person Z" when the saying of the thing is not notable enough to be documented by multiple high-quality sources, when Y is deeply contentious, and when source A does not state that Y is, in fact, true.

Having done additional research, it appears that Destiny denies the statement made - calling it "false" and essentially linking to this article here, noting additionally, that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.".

Note - I was made aware of this discussion off of wikipedia by a side that would almost certainly prefer I take the other opinion here. (the twitter feed of @enny43, which I follow because of the righteous crusade to get rid of KiwiFarms from the clearweb). I note for the record that "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I considered removing the second statement as well (regarding Keffals' ban) for the same reason, so I think that's fine to do. But I disagree that the statement hasn't been documented by multiple RS. Are there RS that cover Destiny's denial (or even describe that Twitter account as belonging to him)? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Time order in replies here is confusing - I agree it is well documented with the additional sources you provided above. I do not see good third-party sourcing for the denial. Having reviewed, the source certainly claims to be Destiny (streamer) (the linked tweet says "harassing me"). I think it generally passes BLP:SPS to use the tweet as a denial of the accusation. Perhaps someone with a large twitter platform who I also follow twice on twitter because of their impeciable Web3 coverage could reach out to Destiny to confirm? Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to contact Destiny even if I wanted to, but I also don't think an editor saying "I promise Destiny told me this unverified account belongs to him" would be adequate. Has he made the denial somewhere else (stream maybe)? Otherwise I don't think it can be included without a secondary source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't watch twitch streams. Given the prominence of this talk page, one assumes he'll make the denial publically and verifiably somewhere shortly and then we can include it - I see he has a reddit account, a youtube account, facebook account, an instagram account, a website, a discord server, and like you said, a stream. He is, of course, welcome to comment on this talk page and point to a location where the denial was made publicly. I am concerned about including the claim without the denial when we likley believe the denial is real and expect it to be verifiable sooner rather than later. Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Me neither. A denial can be added if and when a suitably verifiable one is made, but I don't think we should omit content because we expect it might later be verifiably denied... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem excluding the Twitter account - it's quite clearly him, but apparently, according to his stream chat which I'm struggling with, he's not able to admit it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's the first I've heard of the account so I can't really evaluate if it's quite clearly him or not, but it makes me nervous to attribute statements to a social media account that can't be verified to belong to an individual. That he's not able to admit it likely refers to the fact that he's been banned from Twitter—if it is him behind the account, he'd be ban evading and could potentially be banned again. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I am just as nervous to leave a statement up stating that the subject has done a bad thing up according so someone they dislike, when we believe that they have denied doing the bad thing. Are you also concerned about that aspect, or am I talking to myself here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat, but I have no idea how we can include the rebuttal when we can't verify the account even belongs to him, it just seems to. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have verified his claim on the twitter account. https://www.youtube.com/user/destiny/about has a twitter link which links to https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal. Those links are maintained by the owner of the page.Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh nice, that should do it. Although see below, I'm now leaning towards omitting this until a second quality RS is found. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Has any source stated they reached out to Bonnell for a counterclaim? Because if yes and he hasn't responded, then okay, and if they haven't, then I question their reliability. They are not presenting the allegation in an unbiased manner. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be coming up with completely arbitrary arguments to discount a source. Per my above comment, We don't make editorial decisions based on what we think reliable sources should be publishing, we reflect what is published in the sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I am questioning they are reliable sources. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, based on arbitrary arguments that boil down to "I don't like it". There are lots of sources used in Wikipedia that say things I disagree with or that engage in reporting that I would do differently if I were them; that doesn't make them unreliable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith. Please feel free to reply when you want to respond to what I said. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The verifiability policy very specifically includes a 'degree of scrutiny' involved in determining the reliability of a source (with the original 4 meanings). If there is any unclarity here, or you think I am misinterpreting the policy, please do say so. But nowhere am I relying on my personal judgment. Youngrubby (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Bonnell's own tweet would be on the same grounds of substantiation as Keffals's because they are both going off of the primary source. The fact that Bonnell does not have their rebuttal cited in articles which are quoting Keffals is not evidence against the RS for Bonnell's refuting, it is evidence against the RS of the sources you're providing.

Consider WP:UBO. "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." This is a contentious claim and the editor presenting the section is only relying on outside citations (not to substantiate the allegation but to substantiate that the claim is being made). We are walking into problems of bias where the fact that somebody can have their allegation quoted in articles is being conflated with the reliability of said allegation. It calls into question the reliability of these outside sources that they are quoting verbatim tweets from the alleger and not quoting the tweets of the alleged. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this does not align with policy. Reliable sources deciding to cover a claim absolutely distinguishes that claim from other tweets as far as suitability for inclusion. To clarify: the content that we are discussing adding is something along the lines of On July 18, 2022, trans activist streamer Keffals alleged in a livestream that Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass her. We are reporting that Keffals has made this allegation; we are not putting into wikivoice that Bonnell weaponized his audience (which I would oppose doing with the given sourcing). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Which sources are you saying are reliable? (adding with edit) In the case that you simply want to add that somebody has made an allegation, refer to the COATRACK conversation. An encyclopedia entry, for instance, Donald Trump should not be a laundry list of every single allegation and claim about Donald Trump. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above (the one with the bulleted list). Five sources describe the allegation, plus another referring more vaguely to the dispute. That is a large number of sources for the level of coverage Destiny tends to enjoy. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Do you believe all five of these sources present the allegation responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone? Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting guidance on the tone of Wikipedia articles to suggest it applies to the tone of sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, my apologies for misreading.

The Overview on reliable sources says "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So do these five sources meet those criteria? Because I would say The Mary Sue's About page has already been mentioned as being purposefully biased, I think even you are agreeing that the Washington Post article doesn't say anything about this accusation, and the other three sources are all just saying what Keffals said as a quote or linked to their tweets. None of them seem to have even reached out to Bonnell for a response. I question the fact-checking nature of articles which are providing only one side of an accusation. Just because a source is published does not mean it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and even if they have that reputation, it does not translate to every single piece put out by that source. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the text we are discussing adding here is that Keffals alleges that Destiny did this. We are not stating as fact that Destiny encouraged his fans to harass her. The sources listed here both verify that she made this allegation, and provide the evidence that this is noteworthy. We're going in circles here with you trying to discount the sources based on your belief that they didn't contact Destiny. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article"

The allegation is noteworthy, because it's been reported.

The allegation is relevant, because it is about Bonnell.

The allegation is not well documented.

If it was well documented, we could add who, what, where, when, why, how, etc. about this allegation. We can't. It is malicious to include an allegation that somebody did actions which resulted in what the alleger believes is an attempted murder with absolutely no further information. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The allegation is well documented, not well-substantiated. 96.245.234.222 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Without taking a position on whether the "keffals" allegations are substantiated, the quotes don't belong in the career section. If anywhere, they belong in a separate "controversies" or "conflicts with other live streamers" section like we see on other celebrity wikis. The allegations are not a significant milestone or event in his career. 58.234.106.98 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point.

You might be able to give context since you talked about celebrity wikis: for a claim like this, is this something that could live on the Keffals page but not here? For instance, if there is somebody who makes a claim of impropriety against a politician or celebrity but there isn't further substantiation, I could see that existing on the alleger's but not alleged's page. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding the allegations to the wiki for keffals. if the allegations aren't significant enough to be on her page, then they don't belong on this one at all. 58.234.106.98 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is could they be significant enough to be on their page but not this one? I think the COATRACK argument comes in here and I'm leaning on saying yes. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reasonable to add to Keffals' page as well, I think, but I do think it ought to be included here. It seems reasonable for it to go in the "Career" section given that's the section that discusses his streaming (which is his career). It shouldn't go into a "controversies" section, and I don't think there's enough content to warrant a separate "conflicts with other streamers" section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to use the logic that everything that discusses Bonnell's streaming is a part of his career section, the entire "Political views and activism" needs to be absorbed into his career page. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, but that seems like a separate discussion unless you are suggesting the material about Keffals ought to go into that section instead? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a "Conflict with Keffals (streamer)" section would be most in line with wikipedia's policy. This wiki article in general lacks substance, which makes it feel like adding a section for conflict with an individual streamer assigns it too much weight. But the solution is probably to fix the lack of substance in the rest of the article, not to exclude conflict. 58.234.106.98 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Given his extensive history of conflict with other streamers, there should be enough content for this most recent conflict to become a small part of a much larger "Conflicts with other streamers" section. Frog Bat Good (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, haven't read through all of this, but just wanted to point out that some of the sources listed above are not really reliable for serious allegations. Dexerto and SVG are terrible, low-quality sources that are probably not useful for anything here on Wikipedia (both are listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S). The Mary Sue is listed at WP:RSP which states that there is no consensus on its reliability and it is generally only used for reviews and attributed opinions, not statements of fact. The Gamer is probably ok for game-related content but I'm worried it probably doesn't reach the higher bar of reliability required for controversial claims in BLPs. The Washington Post is a reliable source and would definitely be good enough if paired with some other sources, but it doesn't mention the specific claim about Kiwi Farms that is being disputed. Kotaku is also reliable and does mention the specific claim so that's good, but per WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple sources are required for allegations like this. Are there any other sources on this? I had a quick look but couldn't find anything. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dang, I thought The Mary Sue was WP:GREL but I think I might have been confusing it with Mother Jones. I thought we were working with two solid sources but you're right that it may just be one at this point (discounting WaPo for the same reason). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, to be fair I had to check up to make sure I was remembering right. I'm not necessarily outright opposed to inclusion, but probably we should make sure that there are multiple solid sources for this before we include. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am surprised that The Mary Sue is not considered generally reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It was last discussed in 2016, maybe another discussion at RSN would be useful? Alduin2000 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

From their about page, "We promote, watchdog, extoll, and celebrate diversity, inclusion, and women’s representation in all of these areas (and more!) and work to make geekdom safe and open for everyone." I don't think a source calling itself a watchdog or that it is purposefully promoting, extolling, or celebrating certain area to be a reliable source, but especially in this situation (and sources are context dependent), I think that a feminist outlet reporting on somebody about a situation which is being regarded as a feminist issue is not reliable. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Their about page would potentially make them a biased source, but biased sources are by policy not inherently unreliable. Based on the other comments here, this seems more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation with regards to the source than one actually founded in policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just letting others here know that I've started a section on the Mary Sue at WP:RSN to gather some other opinions/perspectives. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

While that will be helpful for others who know the source better, it's still important to tell whether the source is reliable for this specific edit. WaPo, for instance, is probably a reliable source for most things, but WaPo reporting on a whistleblower who works there would not be a reliable source. I question Mary Sue's biasness here because Keffals claims to be specifically targeted for being trans and Mary Sue has a bias specifically in promoting, extolling, and celebrating trans women. Grenvilledodge (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, biased sources are not inherently unreliable, and biased sources can be the best possible source for supporting information. In this circumstance, I do not find your argumentation to dismiss the Mary Sue as a source convincing, and when used with the Kotaku source I would say that it should be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

They aren't inherently unreliable, you're right. Sometimes, a biased source might be the only source to report on something because they try to give a voice to a minority/underprivileged group or issue or because they are the quickest to pick up on a story of their expertise.

In this instance, they are unreliable because there is no further research than Keffals's own tweets. This is a source that is parroting a primary source verbatim. There is no reliable sourcing for this allegation that could not be gotten from reading Keffals's tweets and therefore that is the reason the biasedness of the source comes in to play, because it is apparent that this story was reported because of biased reasons.

If you have a reason for why this biased source is the best possible source for supporting information, provide it. But "I do not find your argumentation to dismiss... convincing" is not a response to anything I said. Grenvilledodge (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear Grenvilledodge, I asked whether the Mary Sue is reliable for this specific claim. This is generally how RSN works as the reliability of sources is generally context-dependent, pretty much no source is reliable for absolutely everything. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. We can verify that both Kotaku and The Mary Sue have published commentary from Keffals. In doing so, they will have weighed those statements against their respective content and editorial policies, and decided which statements they could or could not publish. I've just finished writing a comment about The Mary Sue over at WP:RSN#Mary Sue, where I detailed the issues with the previous discussions on the publication, and why I believe it is currently a reliable source.

The use of a quotation or quotations, from an individual making an accusation against another, or a denial of an accusation, is pretty standard in the media. If a media publication feels as though the statements by the accuser, or the accused, meet their own criteria for publishing, then I am usually satisfied that it is in order for our purposes. There are some exceptions of course, particularly when it comes to denials of well sourced allegations as those are often unduly self serving, but this is not that circumstance. I am satisfied that both the Kotaku and The Mary Sue sources can be used disputed content in a way that is compliant with the relevant policies.

Saying "I do not find your argumentation to dismiss... convincing" is a response to everything you've said. At the time of writing this reply, you have made 21 contributions to this discussion, which is entering WP:BLUDGEON territory. I made my comment on argumentation with respect to everything you have said, not a specific thing you have said. When taken as a whole, I do not find your argument for exclusion of this content convincing. Per how we find consensus in discussions, no-one here is required to satisfy your own arguments. As other users have already tried and failed to discuss with you the specifics of your argument, in particular GorillaWarfare who has a lot of experience both in this specific content area and elsewhere on enwiki, I see no reason to repeat that discussion again and add to an already substantial wall of text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to hearing about how people weigh in on that thread in the coming days and revisiting this edit after that discussion. Grenvilledodge (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the well made points just made by User:Alduin2000 about the reliability of the sources used so far, I too would like to voice my concern that both statements on this article and the Keffals article seem to lean heavily on restating quotations by Keffals verbatim, rather than seeking to strike a more balanced, overarching encyclopedic tone. As I don't use or have twitter, I wasn't aware of any of the controversy brewing there about these two articles when I made my own edits last night, however now that I see both have rally their fandoms to "examine" these articles, I think there might need be an emphasis on removing any potential POV pushing. I'm not accusing anyone here on the talk page of that, but now that I'm aware that both are tweeting about the Wikipedia article, I'll be looking critically at edits made to both over the last month. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As somebody who has no stake in this controversy, the sourcing for the claim makes me uneasy. For example Dexerto is only really marginally reliable, and not really for BLP claims, see past discussions at RSN (full disclosure, I have participated in some of them)[2]. The other sources that GorrilaWarfare cites also have the same issues. Given the weak sourcing, I err on the side of exclusion for the claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The sealioning and facetious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works by some editors in this conversation should be disregarded and a stop should have been put to it many talk page messages ago. It makes it prohibitively difficult for editors to participate in consensus building.

I gather that The Mary Sue and Kotaku are the sources put forward here. Though I'm generally in favour of The Mary Sue, this particular article seems to exaggerate their worst tabloid-style aspects and is not good enough for highly BLP sensitive claims, which accusing a living person of serious misconduct (possibly even illegal activity) counts as, even for attributed opinion. Kotaku does not go hugely in depth and is on its own not enough for due weight. The content seems too speculative and should be omitted at this time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikibox photo

Should be changed to something that doesn't have a weird filter applied to it. DeKrypT (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of a freely-licensed alternative that could be used? It seems to be the best available option compared to its alternatives. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have preferred to have added a genuine "IRL" photograph from somewhere like flickr, but since there doesn't seem to be any freely available photographs of Destiny online, I had to use a screenshot from a freely available video on youtube. Because he was in a box relegated to 1/4 of the screen, I had to upscale the image so that it wasn't a low resolution mess. If someone can find a better, high resolution image of Destiny they should go ahead and add it; what's there now can be thought of for the moment as a stopgap measure. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Career

"Justin.tv (which later merged with Twitch)" does not match the description of events on the justin.tv and twitch pages. 2601:84:C802:5DF0:45C3:4BE9:174A:D6F4 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)