Talk:Destiny (streamer)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Isn't Destiny a self described progressive? The article gets used as a reference it's promoting a hyper-progressive narrative, It doesn't get used it's still promoting a hyper-progressive narrative. It's really hyper-progressives all the way down. So at the end of the day who really cares? Just put a "disputed" tag or something on that specific part of the article and call it a day. As far as the BLP thing specifically, I agree associating Destiny with The Farm and their harassment of Keffals based on Keffals quoting herself (quoting Wikipedia, and so on and so forth) isn't great optically, but then again the connection is something being talked about in reliable sources and it's not completely spurious. So whatever. This whole thing is a lose lose either way. Might as well just include it take the proper precautions to make sure people reading the article know it's questionable. It's not like you can't say "alleged." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah he's progressive. Unfortunately he also tends to use his brain and come up with his own opinions. It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on with the Destiny article; we can look at the twitter accounts of people involved in the edits here. KF was taken down because of a comical "threat" by a revived necro-account that was deleted within 14 minutes after being reported by a dozen KF users. No website can get rid of every single threat faster than that. How did Keffals get that screenshot btw? For crying out loud, you can look up video of Keffals showing how to fake DM's on her own stream, that's on Destiny's subreddit, and the tweeting out a screenshot of her fake DM in order to "own" someone.

She isn't a reliable source and any journalist who reports what she says is also unreliable. That isn't the only example of her being unreliable. Look at her constantly changing story of being "swatted" and then how the Canadian police contradicted her story. So yeah, obviously she wants to get rid of any community or person that is critical of her. Vandalizing this article is the next step. 63.155.103.206 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

She isn't a reliable source I don't disagree that's she an unreliable person, but at the same time it's ridiculous to use her past dishonesty as some kind of purity test to determine if a news outlet reporting on her is a reliable source or not. If that were the standard then most articles about people on the right wouldn't exist, since a lot of them self admittedly fabricate information all the time. Didn't Tucker Carlson say recently that he is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses? I'm sure you'd agree that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about him or any of the other people on the right who aren't stating facts either.

she wants to get rid of any community or person that is critical of her. Vandalizing this article is the next step. Is Keffals involved in this discussion or has she even mentioned it anywhere? From what I've seen Destiny and people in his community are the only ones that are making any kind of hay about it. Personally, I'm a long time Destiny viewer and could really care less about Keffals. I actually found out about this discussion while reading his Reddit page. I'm just not a Destiny simp. Nor do I think including information about this in his article will do anything except maybe make Keffals look bad. It's laughable to make this out as some kind of attempt on Keffals' part to get rid of Destiny when people from his community are the ones talking about it off Wikipedia and are also the main participants in this discussion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if a news source is reliable, it doesn't mean that every piece they publish is. Especially in the article there are several passages that make the reliability questionable. Notworthy would be

1) the sentance that Twitch didn't immediatly reply.

2) Mentioning Destiny, then quoteing her statement in WAPO that "“I don’t think civility politics works when I’m engaging with people who don’t even view me as human,” and then immediatly leading to Destiny being banned from Twitch. This heavily implies that Destiny was meant with this quote, but reading the WAPO article, this doesn't seem to be the case.

3) The last sentance of the article mentions that "Bonell also speculated that his indefinite ban might have also been related to his transphobic views against trans women competing in sports.". The fact from what I can tell is that Destiny claimed that the regulation would disadvantage cis women in certain sports categories and there probably should be a seperate league at the competitive level where this is the case. This is the current stance from FINA too. Destiny didn't mention that this stance is transphobic, so for Kotaku to call it that seems to be overtly biased in that regard. Rqewt (talk) 14:00, 8 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)

I'd agree that the Mary Sue article is extremely hyperbolic. According to The Gamer article she has chat logs showing Destiny planning to falsely report her channel. So I assume that and/or other evidence we aren't privy to is what The Mary Sue is basing their claims on. I don't think it's super important that The Mary Sue does a line by line analysis of every single facet of the evidence if we already have references to it from less hyperbolic news outlets. Just use the Mary Sue as a supporting reference without directly citing their exaggerated nonsense. It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems very weird to make an assumption like that in a forum such as this, but since you mentioned it - please be aware there are videos of Keffals fabricating DM's live on stream. See for yourself here: https://streamable.com/5lqcni I would be very, very cautious with any source that uses chat logs provided by her as the basis of any evidence of anything, unless they've been able to independently verify them somehow. --Gill is trash (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

An assumption like what? That news outlets vet facts for accuracy before they publish them? I think that's a pretty fine assumption to make in a forum like this. Otherwise, there'd zero point in doing this. Can there be rare cases where maybe someone fabricates information down the line and slips it through the vetting process? Sure, but there's zero evidence that The Gamer has an issue with printing false information, at least not that I'm aware of. Otherwise your free to present some evidence that they do. As a side to that, I'm aware that Keffels has fabricated DMs in the past, but it's not super hard to find out if DMs are faked or not. Like The Gamer wouldn't spend the five minutes it would take to make sure the DMs were real before going with her story. Sure dude. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Bold assumption that simply because a source vaguely is a "news outlet" it is automatically assumed to be true and free of errors. Surely. 2601:249:8F00:5DF0:91E7:C73F:CCFE:3DA7 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I'm not automatically assuming it's free of errors. I don't really care if they miss-spell a word once in awhile though. That's not how Wikipedia determines the reliability of sources since nothing is going to be completely error free all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Did everyone read the articles being discussed? The Mary Sue is just quoting Keffals, they're not even making a factual claim about Destiny. There doesn't appear to be any evidence we're not privy to. The logs are public and Keffals tweeted a screenshot of them and that tweet is linked in The Gamer article as the source. I'm a little skeptical of how much investigating they did considering I just verified they're real in 5 minutes and the author of The Gamer article didn't report anything about verifying them. Regardless, it doesn't even seem like TG is reporting as fact that Destiny weaponized his community (there's no mention of Kiwi Farms btw), seems like they're hedging their bets quite a bit. EtchASketch (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your technically correct, but it's a distinction without a purpose because what The Gamer article said is "Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel over the thumbnail in question." Which both isn't a quote from Keffals and is also just factually correct. There seems to be chatlogs which appear to show Destiny planning to falsely report her channel. It might be on us to make sure the reader knows it's just the "appearance" of chatlogs that "seem" to show he was planning to report her channel, but that's about it. We aren't journalists or fact checkers. That's what the news outlet itself is for. The fact that she posted in image of the supposed chatlogs on her Twitter account in the meantime doesn't really matter because we aren't citing the chatlogs or her Twitter account. Otherwise I'd agree the information shouldn't be in the article. It's perfectly fine to cite a news outlet saying there appears to be evidence of something if that evidence of something was posted on Twitter though. Just like it's perfectly fine to say in the article that Destiny was fired from his restaurant position since it was mentioned in a Wire article even though he's said as much himself on video multiple times. Otherwise you could justify deleting most of the article since I guarantee 99% of it came directly from Destiny originally and is stuff he's repeated on stream multiple times before. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Which both isn't a quote from Keffals and is also just factually correct. There seems to be chatlogs which appear to show Destiny planning to falsely report her channel." The problem here is that it is against Twitch ToS to use slurs and feature banned streamers on your stream, both of which Keffals did. That means this isn't a false report, it is would be a justified one. Additionally, mass reporting does not automatically trigger a ban according to Jason Maestas, Twitch's former head of influencer marketing. (source). But none of this is the actual problem in the case of this entire suggestion. It is impossible to dispute the fact that Keffals made the allegations.

The question that needs to be answered is: does this allegation by Keffals belong on Destiny's Wikipedia article?

I would say no for the following reasons:

- The allegations, being one of many controversies in Destiny's career, do not stand up to the WP:10YEARTEST . Biographies on Living Persons will exist for decades. This individual event will not be relevant for long.

- The articles cited appear to be yellow journalism due to their dramatic sympathy for the underdog with little or no research done into the events. They seek only to appeal to the current social tide to bring in more revenue.

- Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous.

- The initial revision was posted 22 July 22. This has only just now become a hot topic because Keffals herself is using that since-reverted revision to attack Destiny. Source Backup. This would be in violation of WP:HARASS

As an aside, I would remind Wikipedians that Editors with a Conflict of Interest should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly

Babyblasphemy (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why the in and outs of Twitch policy is relevant here. All Keffals claimed on her Twitter account is that the Destiny told his community to mass report her twitch account. No one, including her, stated in any of the news stories that her ban was a direct result of the mass reporting by Destiny's community. Let alone is anyone claiming it was a false report or whatever. Their just saying he supposedly told his community to mass report her and then she was banned later. Which is factually correct.

The allegations do not stand up to the WP:10YEARTEST True, but then something doesn't usually have to stand up to a self proclaimed "thought experiment" in an essay for it to be included in an article. A more relevant thing to cite might be WP:NSUSTAINED since an argument could be made that this whole thing is to new to have enough sustained coverage over time for it to be notable, but there's different opinions on what constitutes sustained coverage and what doesn't. For me personally coverage would have occur over at least a period of several months for it to be "sustained." This has been in the news for at least 3 months so I think it qualifies as "sustained coverage." I think you could make just as valid a case that the coverage isn't sustained enough yet to warrant covering it in the article though.

The articles cited appear to be yellow journalism due to their dramatic sympathy for the underdog. You could probably say that about the Mary Sue article. In no way does this hinge on the Mary Sue article though and the other references aren't nearly as sympathetic toward her as it is. Like the The Gamer article goes out of its way to frame what she's saying as just "claims" and "allegations." So in no way are they being "dramatically sympathetic for the underdog" or whatever. If anything they make her look bad. Same goes for the Dextro.com article. "She then went on to continue streaming on YouTube, going through the details of alleged targeted harassment from Destiny and his community." "The streamer also alleged Destiny’s community continued their “brigade” on YouTube." Both of those quotes seem pretty neutral if not slightly negative towards Keffals to me. -Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Your technically correct, but it's a distinction without a purpose"

It's not without a purpose, there's a very important distinction between The Gamer reporting something as fact and The Gamer reporting as fact that someone said something. My comment wasn't even about whether or not this should be in the article, it was about how the information ought to be presented assuming it is included in the article. Although I think someone else in this thread was correct to suggest that this belongs in a Controversies section of some sort, not in a Career section.

"Which both isn't a quote from Keffals and is also just factually correct."

Yep, I said The Mary Sue article is just quoting Keffals in response to the idea that we should assume there is evidence they're withholding. Not The Gamer. Maybe this was unclear, but I only mentioned Keffals tweeting them because there was a lot of speculation in this thread about what evidence The Gamer/The Mary Sue were basing their claims on. I wasn't saying that this Wikipedia article revision was sourcing her Twitter.

"It might be on us to make sure the reader knows it's just the 'appearance' of chatlogs"

Yes. I believe it is. EtchASketch (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

{{|tq|My comment wasn't even about whether or not this should be in the article}} OK. I might have miss-read your comment. I agree that it probably shouldn't be in the career section but someone created a separate section for controversies and it was reverted. So....I guess we could just recreate it after things have calmed down a little and see what happens. Although I don't know if a single controversy that we don't even have that much information about to begin with really warrants it's own section. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it warrants its own section. If a controversies section was already shot down, I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. I think this controversy (to be generous) pales in comparison to some other parts of Destiny's history though, a different section seems overdue. EtchASketch (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Now now, knowing that you're operating in bad faith, don't you feel a little silly acting like the quote "truthful and free of errors" was referring to spelling errors? I don't know who you talk to on an average day or how you talk to them, but if you assume that everyone is so crass and willing to bend meanings as you are, you'll run out of conversation partners very quickly.

Knowing that you're not interested in having a good faith conversation, I'll just reiterate what I said for others: When an "article" from a "news outlet" is linked here, the existence of the link does not verify the claims within. Engaging in obvious verbal runarounds doesn't change that. Here is a reminder for (but a few) of the violations that you trying to use what is supposed to be an encyclopedia as another backpage for whatever garbage gossip you are a part of elsewhere. The fact that the discussion page of an article is several lengths longer than the article itself because of people trying to add an accusation, from one person, is telling of the motives here.

Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions for dealing with recentism

Wikipedia:Harassment

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

In the end, it'll all be for naught. This isn't another social media discussion space. There are well established rules on what to do here, and what to add, and when. 2601:249:8F00:5DF0:C02E:7D6:1057:D33C (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

an assumption like "I assume that and/or other evidence we aren't privy to is what The Mary Sue is basing their claims on" Gill is trash (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"An assumption like what? That news outlets vet facts for accuracy before they publish them?"

It seems clear they didn't do that when they state "Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel over the thumbnail in question."

What SEEM TO BE chat logs?? Which APPEAR TO SHOW Destiny planning to falsely report her channel?? Gee, what a high level of conviction they show in their journalism. What stringent ethics they adhere to. My god man, I've never felt so sure of anything in my entire life! This DEFINITELY happened! Gill is trash (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is inaccurate about the sentence "Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel"? That's literally what happened. She revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel. From what I can tell the news outlets never claimed "there are chatlogs that show Destiny planned to falsely report Keffals." Just that there seems to be chatlogs So I don't really don't get what the issue is here or what we supposedly need evidence of. Just don't phrase the sentence in the article about it to make it seem like people are saying there's 100% solid, irrefutable proof that the chatlogs are authentic since no one is claiming there is and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The inaccurate part is the parts you skipped over emphasizing. "Falsely accuse." If the report is justified in accordance with Twitch Terms of Service, then the report is not false. Destiny should not be painted in a negative light for reporting someone that was contrary to the rules. One could criticize the rules themselves, but destiny did not create the rules, Twitch did. Babyblasphemy (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about this, but we aren't here to litigate the veracity of the claims being made by Keffals. Let alone is it our job to settle-the-matter of if the report was in accordance with Twitch's TOS or not before we can add anything about this to Destiny's article. This isn't an article about Twitch, it's policies, or a "Twitch TOS debate forum." Obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely have a responsibility to verify the legitimacy before publishing potentially libelous claims against living person's using the voice of Wikipedia. Babyblasphemy (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but we do that by of the news stories and what they say about the allegations. None of which out right say the accusations are false (or even true for that matter). Otherwise what's your suggestion, that one of us just reads Twitches TOS and we go with whatever that person says? I'm sure you know that's not how this works. Our personal opinions don't really matter here. Otherwise it's original research. Whatever we put in the article has to be backed up by reliable, published sources. If you can find any that say the accusations are false then cool, but I haven't seen anyone present any. So there's really only two options here, we put in the article that ""Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel" or we put your version of events if someone can find sources to back it up with. What we aren't going to do is default to not putting anything in the article about it just because some Destiny fan's think it would be unflattering to his reputation. So which one is it? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Just don't post false, unprovable nonsense out of a phony sense of activism. That would be fine.

2603:7081:3446:7100:6D69:B15E:3DD5:EC52 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not trying to do activism for anything. In fact I've gone out of my way to say I watch Destiny and am neutral (if not negative) on Sorrenti. My only aim here is to put in the article what the news outlets have said about incident. Anyway, I haven't seen the video yet but according to people on Destiny's Reddit page he admitted that the chatlogs are real. So at least we can put that whole side of this nonsense to sleep. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your aim shouldn't be to put that in there, it should be to determine whether it is worth including.

The fact of the matter is that inclusions to the biographies of a living person need to be verifiable to the highest standard, every source provided links back to a single article that did not verify those chat logs, with the article only supported by the primary source that Keffals claimed this. I believe this fails the guidelines for a biography of a living person on at least two counts.

The first is that the guidelines for a public figure specifically say that "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There is 1 source documenting the allegation with no investigation, and many repeating what that source said. So it fails along these lines.

Second, I believe this fails verifiability on multiple levels, as keffals has an alleged history editing messages, she as the primary source is questionable, and any secondary source that publishes the allegation of messages without investigation would be relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip in that article. Now, as this deals with the support of kiwifarms and weaponisation of his audience, this aught to fall under an extraordinary claim, which requires more than a primary source with a conflict of interest.

As to his reddit, they largely aren't a reliable source, but if a reliable news organisation can find these logs, verify them, and publishes them in an article, we can move from the verifiability to if this notable enough to be included in a BOI that already does not include many allegations.

Now, I do believe this allegation should be on wikipedia, however it should not be on the Destiny page in the current state, but should be included on the Keffals page that already mentions conflict with Destiny.

In the interest of reporting COI, I am a member of a couple of Destiny's communities, however I also largely supported Keffals efforts to take down Kiwifarms. If this allegation became proven and notable I would absolutely be in favour of including it. Gladfire (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your on about. Multiple sources have "documented the allegations." No one anywhere is disputing that Keffals made the allegations. As far as if the "this" fails verifiability on multiple levels since keffals has an alleged history editing messages, the messages aren't what's being put in the article, but the accusation about the messages. It's really baffling to me how people can't seem to get the distinction here between "an allegation of there being chatlogs" and "the actual chatlogs." At the end of the day claims people make are included in articles all the time regardless of what evidence we have as to the truthfulness of said claims being real or not. None of us (including the reporters who have done stories about it) needed to be in the room at the time when Bill Clinton supposedly sexually assaulted a bunch of women. Yet there's still Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations. Same goes for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and theories about it's disappearance. The Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The many Lists of people who disappeared and articles about people who have disappeared Etc. Etc. Etc. This is whole thing is actually pretty routine. Someone makes an allegation, multiple sources report on it, it's included in a relevant article. Period. No one cares how honest Bill Clinton's accusers where in the past, if flight 370 actually went down in the Indian ocean or not, how exactly the PC repairman got Hunter Biden's laptop, or anything else along those lines. That said, I'm fine with it being mentioned in Keffals article, but only putting in her article when it relates to Destiny and he was mentioned in the articles as a potential major cause of her problems is just bias. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We have 1 source, maybe 2, then a bunch of sources repeating the claim that those original sources said. I would argue the Leslie Millwee section shouldn't be in there in it's current state because it is business insider repeating a report from brietbart that is deprecated source on Wikipedia. AS for the rest of your comment, these have multiple people backing it up, and are reports that were major news. This is not major news, it is mentioned that she made an accusation that the news orgs were not even confident enough in to show the logs, and specifically said they appeared to show something not that did show something. Now if keffals goes to multiple news orgs and they all report this, it might cross it verifiability because instead of 10 sources confirming that 1 source claims that another source said this, you now have 5 sources saying that 1 sources said this, the former is effectively a form of circular reporting which the guidelines specifically warn against. I would strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the biography of a living person guidelines in this regard.

Even if granted verifiability, we then move onto other issues that have already been pointed out by other editors such as recentism. Consider whether this allegation will be noteworthy in 10 years. If the accusation is true, even at this stage it will probably not be notable to the Destiny page in 10 years. Compare this to the other accusations you mentioned that are notable scandals. Hunter Biden's laptop is a scandal politically whether it is true or not, Clinton's sexual misconduct received international news because he was the leader of the USA and will follow him for the rest of his life. This will be among the many controversies and accusations that we don't have listed about Destiny, while to Keffals, this media tour is notable in her career and will likely continue to be notable, it is not biased to include in one and not the other.

As it stands, the inclusion of this is at best unnotable, and at worse furthering harrassment given that the subject making the claims has repeatedly claimed to have gotten Destiny banned through organised mass reporting efforts, and the initial editor is someone profiting of her and other people who claim to be opposition to destiny, and that Keffals and this editor have taken to twitter to celebrate this addition indicating that this is further harrassment. Given this as well as the argumentation of other editors, I am both confident that on the face of it this is not worthy of inclusion and uncomfortable that it's inclusion is weaponizing this platform in a way that editors over the last 20 years have specifically warned and fought against. Gladfire (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not major news I don't really feel like beating a dead horse about this, but you could say the same thing for most of the stuff in his article. The fact that he lived with his grandmother until he was 18 clearly isn't major news but it's still in the article. Same goes for the fact that he was fired at his restaurant job and worked as a carpet cleaner. The same could goes for your whole "this doesn't matter because it won't be in the article in 10 years." I can almost guarantee minutia about the couple of years his parents took care of an aging relative won't be in the article in ten years either. At the end of the day 99% of his article is referenced to primary sources and is only of interest to a particular small subset of Destiny fans. So it just seems weird and arbitrary to draw at the Keffals stuff all of the sudden. I don't see anything about this that obviously violates WP:BLP in the meantime either. It's being stated from a neutral point of view, it's not original research, and it's Verifiable that she made the allegations. So I don't really see what the particular issue there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you comparing the validity of including details of his early life in the Early Life section with the validity of including the allegations in the career session? The justifications are totally different.

Additionally, the statement that the article is referenced to 99% primary sources seems false. Most of the article is referenced to secondary sources, and the parts that aren't are statements about his own beliefs that don't require vetting.

I honestly think it'd be fine to include the allegation as long as one also includes a response from Destiny on the allegation. Babyblasphemy (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, how about 90% then? We can nitpick about the actual percentage but most of what's in the article comes from interviews or are otherwise sourced directly from Destiny. I can almost guarantee there wasn't any investigative journalism done to find out if he was actually fired from his restaurant position or just quit. Same goes for the claim that he lived with his grandmother until he was 18. The news outlet didn't personally send someone out to his grandmothers house to find out if he actually lived with her or not.

Anyway, I'm fine with including a response from Destiny, but there is no response from him that is published in a reputable. We could use the post on his Twitter account, but then he's said multiple times it's not his account. Plus if it is his account he's using it for the purposes of block evasion. Both of which just undermines it's creditability as a source for anything. It would be ridiculous to not to include anything about the Kiwi Farms allegations in the article simply because Destiny has zero ability to get ahead of the controversies he's involved in and can't seem to follow Twitter's guidelines. Otherwise your kind of creating a standard where Destiny gets to not have the allegations added to his article simply because he's incompetent at handling controversies and miss-used Twitter in the meantime. That really shouldn't be the bar for inclusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

His Twitter doesn't have to be the source, he streams all day and has commented on this issue.

Also, it's interesting that you don't want to talk about Twitch's ToS when it comes to keffals, but will cite Twitter's as a reason to Discount Destiny's statements.

Both can violate the terms, and both companies can decide to enforce them however they wish. Babyblasphemy (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've struck comments above made by a globally locked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 9 September 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)

Follower counts are being listed for platforms on which he has been permanently suspended (and as such has zero actual followers). This is highly eroneous information to list in the infobpx since it is totally fictional. Inarius (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"(before his indefinite suspension)" is on both that I see. The information is relevant and accurately described/sourced. Twitch does indefinite bans not permanent bans. His current ban isn't even his longest. For clarity it appears to me we are discussing total twitch channel view count(who's relevance isn't greatly impacted by a ban) and twitch channel follower counts(which while arguably less relevant while banned would still be relevant for an encyclopedia) for twitch. COI: Destiny Stan 68.102.82.98 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)