Sanctioned Suicide meat preservative overdose cult & whitewashing by Wikipedians (general thread, Kevinsanc, Freedom4U)

[journo]

The last few SanctionedSuicide threads on Sucks ran stale because a singular Wikipedia article was created, which wasn't anticipated. So starting a containment thread on the topic as it is notable.

Relevant Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctioned_Suicide (the topic is often abbreviated "SS")

A more accurate summary of the cult by Tantacrul with 3+ million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3y6SsGAWks

Sanctioned Suicide is a user-account forum, sometimes wiki, and informational website founded by self-described 'blackpilled incels' and has been reported as facilitating the suicide of a broad population with curable conditions, including minors and without a license. Some Wikipedians (including Wikipedia admins) have been ruthlessly trying to whitewash the site and it's 'blackpilled incel' founders/owners through various hijinks, mostly unsuccessfully, but sometimes successfully.

The most commonly cited suicide method in, "goodbye threads", on Sanctioned Suicide is the meat preservative sodium nitrite, according to an investigative article by a few Pultizer Prize winning journalists. They did statistical analysis on all the goodbye threads.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... og-on.html

'Serge' was reportedly the Sanctioned Suicide co-founder named, 'Diego Galante' and is seemingly aware that the most common suicide method on the site is painful. It was the most common method on his forum before and after he claimed to resign in 2021.


https://archive.is/CXjWv

Galante might have actually left in 2021. The other founder, named Small, probably didn't. The social media for his site has recently promoted the chemical.


https://archive.is/v6JsH

Galante and Small also started a body dysmorphia discussion forum called Looksmax, as well as a blackpill incel forum called incels(dot)is. Small still openly runs incels(dot)is as "Master". Accounts from the body dysmorphia forum and blackpill incel forum are reportedly encouraged to take their lives and funneled to the SanctionedSuicide forum with the same server admin. I have almost two dozen archives of this happening, and can post it if people want. Went far beyond the joking that was seen on Wizchan. Was fine with the prior Usenet SS forum, but no one really is fine with this current one except some on Wikipedia of course.

In case you think these are innocent and clueless SS founders, held captive by their community, here is Small's other social media



https://archive.is/hOTqb https://archive.is/s1yZR https://archive.vn/Xh7xj https://archive.is/OX5A6#selection-256.0-258.0 https://archive.is/TM0h3 https://archive.is/V6K9p https://archive.is/2tX76 https://archive.is/1gblV https://archive.is/Y2m83
https://archive.is/oekrT https://archive.is/5TO5F

Wikipedians

I'll list off the supporters and half-defenders of this forum on Wikipedida

Supporters of SS on Wikipedia

1) Kevinsanc was an account that was active in daily deletions of the SS founders activities on the site, and introduced many dishonest edit summaries, even to the point of a half-defender of the site, named Freedom4U trying to sanction them for it. The Wikipedia admins mostly ignored the relevant COI board debate and didn't sanction KevinSanc. This Kevinsanc account is inactive after they were threatened to be reported to law enforcement for dishonest edit summaries involving dead children. Wikipedia admins were notified off-wiki of this account, and as mentioned earlier, they still did nothing to sanction Kevinsanc.

Wikipedia admins didn't even sanction him after he lied that the main minor death subject of multiple, properly cited articles, weren't in the articles. (They are, it takes 5 seconds to find it)

They claimed they couldn't find it after an hour of looking!, Also their recommendation for the IP to edit himself was done in bad faith as the article was clearly locked at the time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanc ... st_edits_2

Here's an excerpt about this particular minor death Kevinc and Freedom4U have been rigorously reverting, and who Kevinsanc says he can't find in cited articles in the sentence which used to be in mainspace.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-a ... ins-active
That death is also a main subject of two NYTimes pieces, including the one he said he read for an hour.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... og-on.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podc ... ation.html

2) Nikados, who bothered to register a whole account just to change the accent direction in Diego's name to the wrong direction with a false edit summary

3) Various IP editors from SS, who have been posting suicideality in edit summaries, along with provably false information about the site, etc. WIkipedia admins, many who patrol the page, did not ban any meaningful amount of these IPs inserting false edit summaries or generic vandalism. Virtually all of this occured the first few weeks of the page and so are buried in the history, but can be found. Now IPs are mostly detractors of SS instead.

Half-defenders of SS on Wikipedia

1) Freedom4U, who has stated on the talk page dishonestly that they don't think the news reporting of the deaths disparage the site. They use that opinion to establish whitewashing verbiage on the article throughout. For reference, here are some deaths referenced in RS news articles which are solely on Sanctioned Suicide, which Freedom4U doesn't consider disparaging, only 'controversial'. They are often the top Google results for the forum.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podc ... ation.html

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01 ... es-caution

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/2021/0 ... a3e93.html

Thankfully, they are not always a supporter because they tried to sanction Kevinsanc and refused to let the SS IPs remove all references to encouragement.

Although this was good, they are not an overall an honest person on the topic. They've have removed references to the most systemic examples of suicide encouragement on the site, particularly by removing sentences reinforcing the journalists statements that the site facilitates suicide.

Conveniently, Freedom4U has repeatedly removing a sourced sentence pointing out Diego (a founder) refused to let members post their contact info, so as to commit suicide more efficiently. They also removed a cited sentence where an Australian esafety commissioner was explicitly saying the site itself incites suicide. They also removed cited sentence where multiple journalists are referenced as saying the site facilitates suicide in RS.

Freedom4U has repeatedly refused to acknowledge on talk that the site itself ever facilitated suicide. Nevermind that the journalists explicitly state that in RS as linked above, here's Diego doing exactly that, facilitating suicide by running a huge pact thread and telling people not to post contact info in it.


https://archive.md/cPIz1#selection-599.84-599.85

Freedom4U has said in at least one edit summary that their initial draft of the page was inspired by someone they initially took as honest and reliable on 8chan.

2) At least 5 coordinated Wikipedia admins Not sure if worth naming them at this point, as their involvement was brief. They refused to sanction a wide array of people putting in false or legally concerning edit summaries, sometimes instead preferring to revdelete rather than sanction the user or IP. Additionally multiple Wikipedia administrators have removed the topic wholesale from relevant pages before, by secretly coordinating with other admins. On one page they reverted an IP coming from a US Fed office.

Detractors of SS on Wikipedia

1) Fredrick Brennan. He started 8chan, but it was stolen from him by some deranged right-winger. He's known for his role in internet cultlure and condemnation of toxic elements of it, has re-opened a GA review of the page after Freedom4U's latest whitewashing of SanctionedSuicide. He has also seemingly been distancing the site from the Usenet one.

He appears to have created his GA-review unprompted.

In his re-opened GA review Brennan states the article is "too sympathetic to the viewpoints of Galante and Small"

https://archive.is/kc71F

2) DFlhb A wikipedian who challenged Freedom4U's framing of the site, just to be randomly reverted. So far, DFlhb has totally given up, handing control over to someone who disagrees with them.

3) At least 6-7 good-standing Wikipedia veterans who posted in the SS URL RFC along with two or three IP ranges, and also alleged banned editors

All the SS detractors are actually the majority, and why the URL RFC to censor the domain succeeded. Although some SS detractors, like Brennan arrived after the RFC and can't say what their opinion on the URL RFC Is.

So why does so much of the article look like it was written by supporters when they are inactive? Two reasons: Wikipedia admins refusing to sanction the dishonest people who Freedom4U took to the COI board. And the second reason being Freedom4U, who seems to have just wanted to whitewash the site in a less obvious or accountable way.

[journo]

Most recent hijinks

I'll start with hijinks from today. Wikipedia veteran Etrius has falsely implied an IP range was trying to state Small didn't own SanctionedSuicide in 2022/2023. Basically they are lying about both vandalism and what transpired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Suicide/1

When actually it was Etrius who told the IP editor that mentioning Small's 2022/2023 ownership of SanctionedSuicide would be violating Wikipedia policy through WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, essentially trying to discourage their mainspace edits. And it was the IP Etruis falsely accused, who was pushing, directly to Etrius, mention of Small's 2022 and 2023 ownership in mainspace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... :2B06:EC1F
https://archive.is/wip/btuEr

[journo]

Wikipedians on forum ownership

As of mid-2023 the Wikipedia page implies Small fully resigned in 2021. Soetermans, Freedom4U and various Wikipedians have fought to keep this there. Anyone even remotely tracking the site knows this is false.

As mentioned in OP, a skeptical Wikipedia user, Fredrick Brennan, was skeptical about Small having resigned in 2021. He opened up a debate on 2022/2023 ownership of the site. As the Wikipedia article says Small/Galante resigned in 2021.

Brennan was implying they didn't fully resign.

He is right about Small.

2022 and early 2023 SS DNS records show Vokl LLC as registrant of SS. https://archive.ph/khkIx (if scroll down to bottom)

The Vokl LLC 2022 annual report with Small's full name as the owner is publicly available on a government website,
https://wyobiz.wyo.gov/Business/FilingD ... 3175085164

The Wikipedians are mostly ignoring Brennan or slightly misquoting the relevant sources. The relevant sources were only written shortly after they claimed to resign so there's been no RS investigation on this. Notably, Wikipedians prior to Brennan, including Freedom4U, used WP:IAR and WP:BLUE to get around rule-limiting factors, but not when it comes to the owner? Fishy....

[rubricatedseedpod]

1) Freedom4U, who has stated on the thread repeatedly and dishonestly they do not think the media is disparaging of the site, and uses that to establish whitwashing verbiage of the article throughout. They are not a full supporter because they tried to sanction Kevinsanc and refused to let the SS IPs remove references to encouragement. Although this was good, they are not an overall an honest person on the topic, and have removed references to the most systemic examples of suicide encouragement on the site. Including removing a source sentence pointing out Diego refused to let members post their contact info, so as to commit suicide more efficiently. They want to describe the board as a 'generic suicide discussion site'. Which virtually every major commentator on the forum outside Wikipedia has forcefully rejected as a predatory framing of the site.

Freedom4U seems fairly sensible to me, but they also seem to be invested in such 20th-century mostly-French brainrot as Tiqqun, Deleuze, and (ugh) Agamben, through which they might have developed some confused anti-natalist sympathies. Whatever about the nature of the site is scandalous will of course be the most notable, so it makes sense that commentators have focused on the site's capacity for suicide encouragement; In fact it is divided into two subforums: Suicide Discussion handles "thoughts or feelings you may have regarding suicide" and "questions you can't ask anywhere else." Recovery is meant for "healing and overcoming suicidal thoughts." So, I suppose the site operators can pretend that they're providing honest coverage of the options that appear in a suicidal person's mind, but probably due to supply and demand for fora, the recovery section has about a tenth of the activity of the suicide forum, and the actual function of the place is very skewed.

[journo]

Freedom4U [...] might have developed some confused anti-natalist sympathies.

Who knows, but that's a good guess. For any uninformed lurkers, 'anti-natalism' is often a form of extreme misanthropy where you try to stop all adults from having children with other adults.

About the token recovery subforum. The main investigative article on this subject, written by multiple Pulitzer Prize winning journalists, has established that section as a reactive response to criticism, and as a token and fake subforum.

To quote it directly

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... og-on.html
https://archive.is/sya31

Links to a suicide hotline and other mental health resources appeared on the site, as did a new public forum focusing on recovery from suicidal thoughts. But Marquis [real name: Small, reported founder/owner] also noted that people who registered only to use the recovery forum “will be denied most likely.”

I can also personally vouch that this website only put up that subforum after moms of dead children yelling at them. Have been watching the drama of this site since 2018.

Here is their first domain created by Small/Galante.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180826123 ... icide.net/

Notably without that recovery subforum, and filled to the brim with self-described teens. And people encouraging the teens in the same threads mods post in. How is this site still up? Who knows. It's clearnet and public. I was personally and recently told that DHS is monitoring it and was coordinating with UK authorities about it. But they haven't shut it down yet. Maybe at some point they or other feds will. The owners have now sticked they will ignore most law enforcement requests after getting some from NZ and Australia.

The bit about Small discouraging people from joining to use the token recovery board was new to me, but I believe it.

On a separate topic, would also like to note that Freedom4U and Etriusus are still misleading people about the activity of blocked IP ranges. In the case of Etriusus, they are transparently lying as talked about in second post.

[journo]

Freedom4U has recently reverted User:Justanotherguy54 pointing out the investigators want accountability from staff and the forum. (The investigators explicitly state this in the KVPR article)

Justanotherguy54's edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1156361126
Freedom4U reverting and additions
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1168274937

Freedom4U has also been active in reverting all references to Twohey, Dance, and an Australian esafety commissioner calling the forum itself a vehicle for suicide facilitation rather than just encouragement. They have been doing this for months. It doesn't have to do with socks as most of the structure of the SS article came from alleged socks, so they pick and choose want they wanted gone. Just seems Freedom4U really doesn't want the staff of the most predatory incel and suicide forums to be shown as being held for accountability in the news.

[ericbarbour]

First, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for posting this material. The constant editwarring over the SS article and related content is 1000% pure cringe AND difficult to parse. And not only is most of this being done by a small number of bastard-boys, they have supporters on WP.

Second, many of them are also regulars on Kiwi Farms. Predictably. So much toxic shit points right back at Null and company. He's like Weev but with a much bigger cult following. And no real sense of humor.

Third, there are rumors that Wikipedia insiders have been hanging out on SS and KF in order to "spy on" their activities, and sometimes try to disrupt their operations. Both forums are regularly subjected to DDOS attacks (KF is currently still TOR-only because the attacks were constant) and sysop account intrusion attempts. The people doing this, illegal though it usually is, have good reasons for killing off the forums. But there are so damned many incel manchildren....support, both monetary and emotional, are always readily available.

[journo]

First, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for posting this material.

No problem

The constant editwarring over the SS article and related content is 1000% pure cringe AND difficult to parse.

The most active Wikipedians involved are purposefully making it difficult to parse. Their obfuscation on talk about what is happening on history, for example, is getting out of hand to the point that unrelated Wikipedians are pointing it out.

Second, many of them are also regulars on Kiwi Farms. Predictably. So much toxic shit points right back at Null and company. He's like Weev but with a much bigger cult following. And no real sense of humor.

The article was started and is currently controlled by Freedom4U. The kiwifarmers on this topic are about 5 people and their socks. The likely-Kiwifarms-associated-account on Wikipedia, Kevinsanc, had taken over the Wikipedia article for a few weeks but was mostly reverted. Then Freedom4U started veering in Kevinsancs direction for unknown reasons. Then after pushback, Freedom4U is veering in random directions, which caused the recent chaos on the article.

The Wikipedia consensus before Freedom4U was to never comment on the site. Freedom4U wanted an article to paint the site as a generic suicide discussion forum, when most of the articles they use reject that framing, so inevitably, they were edit warred by both veterans and IPs, especially during the first few months.

And not only is most of this being done by a small number of bastard-boys, they have supporters on WP.

The thing that confuses me is why Wikipedia invests so much effort in exposing blackpilled incels, but when the same blackpilled incels run a meat preservative overdose forum with hundreds of dual-gender deaths, Wikipedia utilizes everything they can from sockpuppet allegations and pre-investigative articles to whitewash the site. I'm not really anti-suicide forums, but this one smells weird. And with Wikipedians continuously refusing to source that the forum is reported as engaging in facilitation, something is fishy.

[rubricatedseedpod]

The thing that confuses me is why Wikipedia invests so much effort in exposing blackpilled incels, but when the same blackpilled incels run a meat preservative overdose forum with hundreds of dual-gender deaths, Wikipedia utilizes everything they can from sockpuppet allegations and pre-investigative articles to whitewash the site. I'm not really anti-suicide forums, but this one smells weird. And with Wikipedians continuously refusing to source that the forum is reported as engaging in facilitation, something is fishy.

They don't really know what they want, but when they start doing something, they get very stubborn about it. It takes them a long time to realise that their treatment of one thing doesn't line up at all with another. Most of the people involved here are either dodgy SPAs, or careerists just looking to look like they're doing the right thing. But F4U seems to be a wildcard because they have some mysterious inner disagreement about their attitude towards the site, which makes enough sense: suicide is a sensitive topic and it can bring up unpredictable personal associations and investments.

[journo]

They don't really know what they want, but when they start doing something, they get very stubborn about it. It takes them a long time to realise that their treatment of one thing doesn't line up at all with another.

The result of this week's GA-review was to completely ignore Brennan's main complaint about the article being too sympathetic to the owners of largest predatory incel forum, then try to blame it on IPs, before taking back accusations toward IPs through self-edits days later, and having a random person close the discussion

Then Freedom4U put in the lede that the forum is a successor of alt.suicide.holiday. I'm sure there's a source somewhere at least impliying that, but well it's not. The successor to alt.suicide.holiday is #alt.suicide.holiday on Dalnet.... which is still up.

I know, because I went on Dalnet and asked them, they can give an exact lineage, all the intermediate forums and chats of the same name etc. SS can't establish such a lineage, they're a bunch of young guys who were just vultering a subreddit

Would also like to note that some of the recent NZ legal action directed at SS is stuff that could also be directed at Wikimedia itself.
https://sanctioned-suicide.net/169427_N ... _FINAL.pdf
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/pub ... 13407.html
Specifically the hosting of instructions of barely effective suicide instructions. Much of the suicide instructions on Wikimedia owned sites, which were not revdeleted, and still somewhat in mainspace, were written BY Nathan Larson (now deceased after accused of kidnapping) on Wikimedia owned sites, which is clear to anyone reading the usernames on the respective pages.