Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link ERROR[edit]

Hi, in the part on the left where you click to check the page in different languages, the Japanese one doesn't link to the Japanese 2chn Wiki article. It instead links to a murder case ( Idk how to correct that myself, if anybody could, that'd be cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:103E:1A:2C77:8162:6AD9:53BF:8838 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Severe neutrality problems, Nishimura's claims not being given enough weight[edit]

  • We are not giving Hiroyuki Nishimura's claims enough, or any, weight. ja:2ちゃんねる is more neutral, which is really saying something. Even to say that the site has been rebranded as 5channel without further context is, in and of itself, WP:POV-pushy in my humble opinion.
  • The only mention to Nishimura's [], the other claimant to the "2channel" name, is in § History. It was later revealed that 2channel was suffering from financial setbacks prior to the takeover.—Nishimura specifically denies this in his legal briefs, and our citation here is a WP:SPS, a messageboard post by Watkins.
  • It is very unclear which parts of the article are historical, pre-succession controversy, and no longer apply.
  • § Impact on the Internet is laughable. Jim Watkins and co. are horrible at internet security, this I know from personal experience, but I have no idea how we could in any good conscience write that in wiki voice.

And here are some possible solutions:

  • Limit the scope of the 2channel article to pre-2014, pre-succession controversy only. 2channel is a historical, defunct message board. Create new articles, 5channel and, or perhaps one for both, perhaps 2channel succession controversy.
  • Give and Hiroyuki's claims to legitimacy much more weight, but allow the article to be about all three messageboards, viz., the defunct historical 2channel, 5channel, and

I might have a WP:COI, so am holding off on fixing it (at least for the moment), as I wrote at User talk:GRuban. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting critiques, if they are well-sourced and you clear CoI I would be very pleased to see them implemented (this article, like you mentioned, has been neglected on the English Wiki, I suspect mostly due to difficulty finding accessible sources). I support the second solution you listed, as I think those splits in the first option would be excessive and spreading the material too thin. — Goszei (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Goszei: I guess the best way for me to get started on this is to start a user-space draft, then open a WP:ER? This is going to be a major change to the article, I want to change almost every section, and the lead. A lot needs to be removed IMO as well. Especially § "Impact on the Internet" and § "Impact on the network society", but also § "Social impact" rewritten shorter and to refer better to the date it refers, to § "Conflict of interest" renamed (and 便所の落書き added with e.g. {{nihongo2}}), § "Contribution to the fairness of academic research" removed as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or else consolidated to § "Social impact"...§ "Operation" needs a lot of clarification for what refers to what version of the site. The lone note probably needs to be removed, it's not even correct romaji and what I think they mean, 鳥獣戯画, doesn't refer to a specific panting. I'm happy to start on this, I do think that I can get this article up to WP:GA status via a rewrite, there are a lot of sources out there, in English and Japanese. But without review of what is likely to be a complicated change by a non-involved editor, I don't know that I want to take time on the rewrite. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: I can't make any promises that I would take part in a review, but maybe there is someone interested in one of the 3 connected WikiProjects. Regardless of that, I think WP:BOLD would be the guiding principle here, this article needs a lot of work, and most of what you proposed (if well-sourced) sounds like it would only need review if challenged. — Goszei (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I don't think my conflict is even that severe in this case, and WP:IAR also provides some guidance. So, I'll write a draft and copy it over and just be mindful while we're establishing consensus on any tricky sections in the new version to allow other editors to take the lead. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As on my talk, I actually do think you have a sufficient COI, I'm afraid. Do write a draft in your userspace, but then please do ping one or both of us and/or place an edit request here so someone who doesn't have a (rather serious, I think you'll agree?) ongoing dispute with a former owner can approve, before copying it over. You're a (surprisingly!) experienced editor, and I'm sure you'll do a good job, but do let it be vetted. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GRuban: I do wish you would have pinged me. I've spent multiple days now refactoring User:Psiĥedelisto/2channel, and was just coming here to see if Goszei was interested in looking it over before I do the final push in the next few days. Please have a look yourself, but remember it's by no means done. The main things that remain to do are: (a) Finish up the end of the history. (b) Add a reference to the Korean DDoS of 2010, I found it reported in AFP via The Telegraph. (c) Figure out the delicate issue of how much it matters that 8chan was DDoS'd in 2015, bringing 2channel down for days. That was widely reported and probably deserves at least a sentence; for many 2channel users it was their first time learning Watkins had acquired 8chan. (d) Clean up the machine translated sections, and figure out what we can cite, and what is just hearsay. From reading them, they make little sense, so I feel that most is hearsay, but I will try to rescue as much as possible.

I feel that once you read my draft, you'll see that I'm not overly favoring Nishimura. In fact, I thought that I could be much more gentle on him when I started. Then I started digging into the sources, and they took me places, and I wrote what mattered despite my personal feelings on who is "in the right". Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: OK, pinging per request. Whew, this is a large article. I'm going to take a few passes, first by just reading your article, then in comparison with the sources. I will make minor tweaks that I hope will be uncontroversial in your draft directly, and larger comments that you might dispute on User talk:Psiĥedelisto/2channel. But if you don't like the minor tweaks, please feel free to dispute them on that talk page as well. Thanks for your work.--GRuban (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: Ouch. I would have let someone else, one of us, for example, do the actual big move of content. It's a huge change, I'll need some time to look it over again. It's strongly recommended, and that's what I did with my CoI articles, and there is a non-zero chance someone will now slap an ugly-looking Template:COI tag on the article. But yes, I do see the WP:IAR note, and I appreciate the effort, which was a good deal of work, and it does look like an improvement, and I believe that it was done with the best intentions, so probably won't undo your change wholesale, and if someone does object you can lean heavily on Goszei's approval. I'm guessing since it's now moved here, comments should go here as well? --GRuban (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: Sure, although I think it might be simpler to transclude User talk:Psiĥedelisto/2channel since everything is already there. But either way is fine. I understand what you mean, but if someone wants to add {{COI}} they should have to say what section is actually the problem; Template:COI/doc is abundantly clear on this issue. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 10:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: There, I did a WP:SUBST of User talk:Psiĥedelisto/2channel 😎 Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 11:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you nominated it for GA review already?!? You don't waste any time, do you? Wow. I wish you the best of luck, but even my review will likely take a few days, much less the GA reviewer. I'm impressed. --GRuban (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

Thank you GRuban for the below review. I will ping you when I'm ready for you to look again. All your comments are well taken. Perhaps we really can get this up to a WP:GA together, I'd like that. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 03:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be amazing! --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: It's ready for another look over by you. Please allow me to do the copy over, I want to be credited for my work in XTools and in the page history. Goszei may also be interested. If you look at the diff log, you'll see that I've poured more than 24 hours of work into this page. It should be obvious to anyone, COI or no COI, that the article I've written is far superior to what's there right now. As I wrote on Talk:2channel, I will be careful to allow other editors to take the lead if they think my COI has led me to bias this article in some way. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 02:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I moved it to article space, but it's fine to keep discussing it here, perhaps also transcluding this page on Talk:2channel.) Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GRuban's review[edit]

Minor hopefully undisputable tweaks directly in text, larger or possibly disputable ones here. I haven't been following the diffs, so realize that you may not have written all the text these comments are about, so "not my change" is a legitimate response; but if you want to improve the article in this place anyway, that would be great.


* "In 2009, the site's ownership was transferred to Packet Monster Inc, a company based in Chinatown, Singapore, before its domain,, was repossessed by its registrar, N. T. Technology, in 2014." This is confusing - are you writing that the two events were connected? If so, it's not obvious, it was 5 years in between after all. In fact this is in the same paragraph with "In 2008, the site was reported to have generated an annual revenue in upwards of ¥100 million." which, presumably, means it was very profitable (I'm not up on Yen exchange rates), but the repossession implies that it ran into financial difficulties; if so, that's kind of important and we should say so explicitly. If all these events are unconnected, we should make that more clear as well.

Fixed while rewriting lead per Goszei's advice.

* ", owned by its original founder through Packet Monster Inc" - this is even more confusing; earlier lead says ownership was transferred to Packet Monster, but now it's owned by the original founder? Did Packet Monster sell it back, or was PM always owned by Nishimura, and the original sale was just shuffling papers, or what?

    • I see, it is explained later that it was, in fact, quite possibly just shuffling papers. Striking.

* Throughout, "Packet Monster Inc" - I think we need to use a period after "Inc." which is at least encouraged if not individually called out in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Shortenings.


* "as of May 2020 redirects to" - first, this means 5channel? We should say so, either here or earlier where we first mention 5channel.

Fixed as it was moved later in article.
    • I'd consider restoring to the sentence about 5channel. It's hard to argue that the URL of a web site isn't one of the most important things about it.

** "... Nishimura... has attempted to repossess the domain" Second, can we get an earlier date than May 2020, since presumably Nishimura's attempts were earlier than just this month?

Yes, I found the exact date the redirect began.

* "Meanwhile, as of May 2020, had 826 boards receiving around 5,700 posts daily,[17] making about 1% of the size of 5channel." - we need to rephrase something like "in terms of users" or "... posts", because in terms of numbers of boards it seems comparable.


* "A year before the credit card leak and subsequent split, " Credit card leak? This is the first time we mention it, we should explain first, or leave it until the body.

Good plan, left until body.

* "in 2007 it received more than 2.5 million daily." It's confusing to mix dates with relative times as above. Also, shouldn't we put this paragraph chronologically? I understand you're trying to contrast dramatically, but I think the contrast is sufficient chronologically, while ease of comprehension is more important, we're an encyclopedia, "boring" is almost a synonym. Face-smile.svg

I moved this to sentence one. On further reflection, I realized that the 2008 "Bad Boy" article is talking about revenue from 2007, so it's fine to put them together without mentioning date again.

* "and sometimes retrospectively as" - was it really known as, or was that just its URL? I mean, I don't think the article about Google says it's also known as If you want, "also known as 2ch from its original URL", maybe?

In sources which need to differentiate and, (mostly from before the name change,) how they do it is as 2ちゃんねる ( and 2ちゃんねる ( Besides the pleading, however, here are two reliable sources which refer to it as

* "was reported to have generated an annual revenue in upwards of ¥100 million" - again WP:WEASEL "was reported to" - is there any conflicting source? If not, I'd remove those; also "in upwards", as not only a grammar error, but not what the sources say, they just say about 100 mill.


* "was hosted in San Francisco, California[7][1] by Jim Watkins, a US army veteran, domain registrar and dedicated hosting service provider.[9]" - I removed the veteran bit. It's useful in the body, but not in the intro, which is a summary, and it doesn't really play any part in the story. I'm posting here to ask if there is a way to rephrase to something like "was hosted and domain registered in California by Jim Watkins." while linking appropriately and still being grammatical (I'm not sure if "domain registered" is really a verb that people use) in the interest of conciseness?

Perhaps my new wording is better. Domain registered just sounds wrong to me, I'm afraid.

* "Despite widespread use, 2channel and its successors are also more controversial than other social media in Japan": then you list right wing and defamation, how about adding crime announcements, and drug trade, which are each given noticeable weight below? Also I'm not sure if the word "Despite" is appropriate; I hear of plenty of media outlets that try to become controversial in order to gain popularity. Finally are both successors as controversial in these ways as the original was?

Removed despite. At least 5channel is as controversial, see source Endō (2018), Sankei Shimbun. I'll think of a way to prove also has far-right posters? Seems obvious to me...
  • You sure you don't want to mention the crime announcements and/or drug trade in at least part of a sentence in the lead? It takes a noticeable part of the body.

* "Meanwhile, as of May 2020," "making about 1% of the size of 5channel in terms of posts." - I'd consider leaving both of those bits out, and maybe replacing the first with "At the same time", or combining the sentences with "while". Is there a source comparing the two in terms of size? If not, we probably shouldn't do that so prominently. Finally, is this a summary of the body text? It should be; in other words, this information should also be in the body, possibly even in more detail. I agree it's important enough to also be in the lead.

Cut what you asked me to cut, copied to body § Culture. More detail could possibly come later.

@GRuban: Thanks, Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Only 2 unaddressed comments left in the Lead, struck out the rest. Sorry if just leaving them unstruck doesn't make them stand out enough. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early history[edit]

* "2ch was opened on 30 May 1999" - "opened"? Do you "open" a website? Maybe founded, started?

I think opened is fine, but don't care either way so changed it.

* " served as the successor to an earlier anonymous textboard known as Ayashii World" In what sense? Also owned by Nishimura? Much frequented by Nishimura but not owned? Something else?

In the sense that Ayashii World, a similar site, closed in 1998 and 2channel was founded as a successor.

* the website enjoyed a greater degree of immunity to legal action - pretty controversial statement, needs a source

I believe the one's I've added since you looked are sufficient.

* "in comparison to its predecessors" - there were more?

Nope, just Ayashii per the sources, so I've removed it.

** We want to explain why 2chan was different from/more successful than its predecessors. I see the Wired article says it wasn't much different from other BBSs, the main difference was the freedom of speech, in closeted Japan. We should say that (and source it).

Very good idea, I added this.

* "Jim Watkins, through Race Queen Inc. and N. T. Technology Inc., hosted the site since at least 2004." Since he's going to be a major character, we should write something about him as an introduction. Was he a professional website host, before getting involved with Nishimura? Did he specialize in Japan, textboards, something else?

Added a blurb about what he was doing before.
Rather than just "an ex-US army officer", I'd repeat the "US army officer host and registrar" or whatever phrasing you had in the lead before. There's more room here in the body, but the host and registrar bits are still the important parts.

* "is allegedly a reference" - is there any doubt of this? Unless the source says something like allegedly, or unless there are other sources that dispute it, we shouldn't MOS:ALLEGED; if there is a dispute we should make the dispute clear.

No doubt at all in my mind. I didn't write that, and I've removed it.

* "In 2010," - what?

Hehe. You were reading a half-done article, after all.

* "Nishimura announced 2channel on Amezou in May 1999, calling it "Amezou's second channel"." - nice, but needs a bit of clarification ("I don't know" is a possible, but do try to check your sources for these, I can't read the Japanese, I'm afraid)

    1. He wasn't actually connected to Amezou in any way, right? It's written as if it might have been an authorized spinoff.
    2. How did Amezou's owner feel or react to being told he has a spinoff on his own noticeboard?
    3. This was in May 1999 - Nishimura only founded 2ch on 30 May 1999; so this was the very first announcement of its opening?
  • "after violent threats were made on it" - meaning threats to Amezou, to the author, or to unrelated entities or people?
@GRuban: Hey - sorry it took me a while to get to this! I was waiting on a source, which I received today! Barubora (2005, Shōeisha KK) goes into a lot of depth. I am currently reading through it and will be transcribing out some quotes from it this month for the article. To answer your questions though, no, he wasn't connected to Amezou. The book actually reprints a discussion between them in its entirety, and it's very interesting to see! Also how he describes 2channel is very interesting, in that it's always going to be in a sense "below" Amezou, thus why it's channel 2 and Amezou is channel 1. Barubora even explains how there was a 1ch and 1.5ch as a backlash against Nishimura, where you had to pay a fee to post, something like Something Awful. Remember "toilet graffiti" guy from § Anonymous posting? Yeah, he made 1ch. Really fascinating work. And yes, he announced the opening on Amezou, the very first time it was mentioned anywhere online according to Barubora and others. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Still not clarified whom the threats were directed at. It's kind of an important point, were people threatening Amezou, Nishimura, or unrelated forum users? --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @GRuban: Sorry for the long delay. Getting an answer to this has been an odyssey. I won't bore you with the details, but basically I'm working off a blurry PDF and a single critical kanji evaded me because it's just a blob in my scan. :-) ( in 脅迫) I have changed the text of the article. Actually I transcribed almost the entire page, but for copyright reasons tried to trim the quote I put in the ref tag as much as possible. I'll email you the full text and scanned page. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* " since at least 2004[8] through various corporate identities, including Inc.,[28] Pacific Internet Exchange LLC[29] and N. T. Technology Inc.[30]" - I can't read the Japanese, but at least the Washington Post link doesn't seem to back that N. T. Technology ever hosted 2chan as such, certainly not since 2004. It says "...Loki Technology, owns the popular Japanese message board 5channel." --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]

@GRuban: I know that the layers of shell companies are very confusing. I'm working off this paragraph:
But its name, Watkins said in 2015, “didn’t go over well with the wives” who saw it in credit-card statements, so he renamed the enterprise N.T. Technology. (The acronym, he said, means nothing.) The Reno, Nev.-based company is now tied to many of Watkins’s other Web properties worldwide, business records show. Those include a smattering of Manila-based companies focused on computer services and real-world property over the years, including a now-closed organic food restaurant and, in 2005, a business called Race Queen, probably named for the scantily clad models who pose along the tracks of Japanese car races.
Race Queen Inc was the Philippine corporation that operated before Loki Technology Inc. The Japanese source, the court ruling, is where I get the "2004" from. You won't see that year in Latin digits in the source, you'll see it as 平成16, see Japanese calendar. Court rulings are one of the few things that is still using the traditional calendar. Perhaps Race Queen Inc. needs to go into this sentence? I feel like this kind of does matter, both of them really love making tons of corporations as we can see. You can also see RQI at the bottom of the homepage as of 2016: [1] Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 04:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to double post. We were just talking about the CNET N. T. Technology apology - couldn't that be a source here? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 04:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ownership transfer and government scrutiny[edit]

* The section title implies the ownership transfer was specifically to avoid scrutiny. Is this intended? If so we need to say so straight out and source it. An earlier sentence said "greater degree of immunity to legal action" - we should probably make that more explicit and source it as well, as it's not immediately apparent that being a textboard means you are regularly in trouble with the law.

    • Aha, I see there is a whole "Slander and legal issues" section under Culture. I wonder if these separate sections need to be integrated?
I've done so :-)
  • "Nishimura allegedly left too many posts seeking to purchase illicit amphetamine" - "left ... posts" is ambiguous, "left a message" means is the author of the message. Is this intended? If not, we should rephrase. Also, was Nishimura personally the only content moderator? If not, we should probably say something like "2chan had many..." I don't like the "too", as it implies that only a few posts buying illegal drugs would have been OK.
OK, I've fixed it up.
"left" is still there. Maybe "did not delete"? --GRuban (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credit card leak[edit]

* Section title: was the important part the credit card leak, or the personal information leak?

You're right, the cards weren't really what mattered to most people.

* " various high level personas such as politicians and writers" - any people with articles here that can/should be named? If all we know is the pop group, who are the politicians? I see one writer named in the source article, but writers are less inherently high level, and 2chan's own attorney, though good to mention, is not really a high level persona

I've included a better source, PRESIDENT, but I think there's a cultural thing you're not getting is not appropriate in Japan for a reliable source to really post names like that...the names are on 2channel but I think we should respect that this was essentially a mass act of doxing and not mention names where the sources don't. The reason Karasawa is fair to mention is because everyone already knew he used 2channel, and he willingly talked to media about it, including revealing that his own credit card had been illegally used by 2channel users.

* "It allowed users to read old threads; if a thread on 2channel received 1,000 posts, it would become part of the kako rogu (過去ログ, lit. past log) by a process of ".dat omission" - I like that you're trying to explain the process, but you didn't quite make it clear; why would reading old threads allow access to credit card info, and why is ".dat omission" so important? Omission is leaving out, so why is leaving out info a leak?

I feel I explained this better.

* You removed the bit about identity theft and lawsuits. Maybe we could instead restore and source that?

I didn't really see any lawsuits worth mentioning. I found one quote of a bemused lawyer wondering how he'd even be able to collect for his clients given past failed collection efforts worth Nishimura. Given it's 2020 now, it seems nothing came of it.
  • "At the time of the leak, Watkins apologized on behalf of N. T. Technology, Inc.," - wait, what? The leak was in August 2013, Watkins only seized the domain in February 2014, no? Was he already officially at least partly in charge? --GRuban (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: He was running the servers then. So, I assume the reason he apologized was as it was his company's mistake that the leak happened...or at least he felt that way at the time. This struck me as somewhat odd too. CNET reported that he apologized, and I found the original apology based on the screenshot CNET shared, and the domain it's on,, was owned by Watkins at least since 2012, and seems to still be his now, as its nameserver is If I can just speculate for a bit, perhaps this was the origin of the dispute? No RS states this, but perhaps Hiroyuki got annoyed and wanted to switch hosts. Who knows what went on behind the scenes, I don't believe anything Watkins personally told me about what happened, and even if I did, we can't use that. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 03:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repossession/Domain seizure and split[edit]

* The title "repossession" implies that Watkins owned ... something. The domain name? The hardware running the site? How/why?

This is the term most often used in the sources. I find it a bit confusing too. I guess what people mean is, he claimed that it was for financial reasons. Basically, Nishimura owed him money, so he repo'd it. But Nishimura disputes this, and given he had the money to buy 4chan, I'm inclined to believe he didn't owe. He owns the registrar, so he literally just gave himself the domain by editing the WHOIS record, which is something like a title deed for domains. That's why it went to ICANN, which appoints WIPO to arbitrate.
@GRuban: Thinking about it more, I think "seizure" fits better. It is a more neutral term and does not imply any legitimacy to the transfer, but it also doesn't imply any illegitimacy; after all, property seizures can in some cases be legal. Wired used the phrasing "wrested control". Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 07:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* I linked to Web scraping and Real-time web to explain the terms, if that's not correct, please redirect, but I think it's not obvious otherwise. Not all of our readers will be web professionals. Face-smile.svg

Scraping is correct, real-time web has slightly different meaning. I attempted to clarify.

* "a domain and trademark owned by Loki Technology, Inc." - also Watkins? Worth a note and cite saying so, or just leaving out if we can't source it. There are more shell corporations here than on an oyster bed!

I was able to prove it was Watkins and family. Watkins' own lawyer said he's chairman of Loki, and Washington Post reported his wife is treasurer. Another source said Ron registered the 5channel trademark in Japan.

* "In 2018, Nishimura won a lawsuit against Watkins in the Tokyo District Court." - in what sense, and what effect did it have? Won the rights to the name "2channel", to the URL, or what? --GRuban (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]

    • Do we want to move this after the next sentences? In fact, they go in reverse order: 2018 lawsuit, then 2017 redirect, then 2016 registration, this seems a counter intuitive ordering. --GRuban (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Tensai kinshi[edit]

* I'm not sure this is worth a separate section - so he put a copyright mark on the site, most sites have one. Did it not have one before? Even if it's new with Watkins, this seems like a reaction to the scraping, so seems like worth a sentence in the previous section instead.

I put it in Culture instead under matome. It's actually quite important to the site's users and caused a lot of strife. It's more about openness of the data. It could've been partially about scraping, but sources suggest it was more about being anti-matome. After all, Hiroyuki can still scrape, even if he has to parse HTML; there's no real difference for him if he's told to stop and doesn't, it's all just cat and mouse at that point.

* "He makes two contradictory legal claims: [40]" - what?

Was half-done, not anymore. I talk more about the source lower.

* "/poverty/" (in Matome section) - what? --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]

    • OK, slightly better, /poverty/ is the name of a board. Fine. But why is /poverty/ part of the "reproduction prohibited" notice? Is this the board that the notice is supposed to be discussed on, are there more details there, what? --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2ch phenomena[edit]

* This only has one "Densha Otoko" subsection that can probably be moved up, and definitely needs a reference. I know, not your work, but as long as you're here, could you?


Source review[edit]

Unfortunately, many of the sources are in Japanese, a language I cannot read, and don't know much about. So there is some chance experts will be able to correct my comments here; but many of the sources seem weak for rather controversial information.

It is someone's blog, but it's not just someone's blog. If that makes sense. I'm sure it's accurate. The Mainichi article wasn't on archive, so I found someone who had copied and pasted it. If you search exact quotes you'll see other sources agree that's what the article read.
It's a ruling, not a pleading. It's useful for some things but of course we can't use it to say "Watkins stole 2channel", even though that was essentially what the court ruled.
  • - this seems really short; again I can't read Japanese, but the Google Translate seems to imply this is a speculative news piece full of allegations and rumor. Again, this is Livedoor - is this some guy's blog? We probably need more than this to say the pop group info was leaked
I found a better AKB48 source. This is not quite someone's blog, it's more like Forbes, HuffPost or Yahoo! News in USA. Somewhat vetted authors, I guess perhaps due to being popular in the blog section, can get paid to be reporters for Livedoor News.
It's authoritative but on second thought I decided that a legal discussion is not appropriate. So I just cut the sentence. I believe it's authoritative because the author is a Japanese attorney writing under his real name. It's essentially a trade rag, which we allow. Actually, it's basically a Japanese, funnily enough, just more polished and professional / less clickbaity, more like a legal journal/legal review.

Societal impact[edit]

* Some bare links need just a few words of explanation - the link will give more details, of course, but we shold give some minimal warning where the link is going. For example

    • Kids Goo - this is actually explained well, a kid friendly search engine, but is the Kids part of the name?
    • Naoto Kan - maybe "House member and later Prime Minister Naoto Kan"?
    • Taro Aso - similarly, "Prime Minister Taro Aso"?
    • Matayoshi Jesus and Mac Akasaka - "perennial candidates Matayoshi Jesus and Mac Akasaka" ?
    • Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun's "SPA!" section - newspaper Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun ... I don't even know what an "SPA!" section is, the link doesn't clarify.
  • "the utilization rate of 2channel for primary and secondary students was 12.2%" - meaning 12.2% of 2chan users were kids, or 12.2% of kids were 2chan users?
    • Again, the 3 sentences in this paragraph go 2007, then 2009, then 2008. Is there a good reason to go non-chronologically?

* various news reports often use the phrase "the online bulletin board says" - this needs a citation. :: @GRuban: I tried for two hours to source this and was not able, either via Japanese or English sources. (It came from Japanese Wikipedia and wasn't my writing.) I'm sure it's true as I've watched my fair share of Japanese TV, but that doesn't matter. Instead, I've toned it down. Removed often, the worst word, and added another source that provides a lot of context for 2channel's content appearing in the media. I'm sorry if I seem to be taking your requests out of order: I like to focus on the most difficult stuff first then make many small changes all at once. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 02:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) * conservative Shokun! magazine, during its operation, formerly ran - don't need both of these qualifiers, either "during its operation" or "formerly", both are redundant. Also, do we need to specify it was conservative? Reply[reply]

  • Other publications, such as Weekly Bunshun - the source only says this publication, if there are a multitude of others, cite more than one

@Psiĥedelisto: In general, this work is very well done, and I would be surprised if you can't get this to GA status. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GRuban: I think I just got everything,[2] besides what I mentioned at § A legal review of the Nishimura–Watkins feud, and how Wikipedia ought to handle it. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 03:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: You got most of it, but missed a few, left unstruck above:
  • Violent threats that closed Amezou: against whom?
  • Nishimura won a lawsuit against Watkins: about what, and with what result? (Apologies if your answer to this is the huge "A legal review..." section, but I'm afraid my eyes glazed over partway through that, and we do need a few words in the actual article, even if they're "with inconclusive results" if you can cite that.)
  • Same place, 2018, 2017, 2016, don't we want to go chronologically?
  • /poverty/ is the name of a board, but why is it in the "reproduction prohibited" notice?

Again, awesome work. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GRuban: OK I believe I've handled everything in my latest edit. (1) was handled earlier, (2) was yes, indeed, exhaustively covered in my section which bored you SNice.svg...for now, as in that section I do a review of the sources, I cut the line, as I think if we're going to say inconclusive results then Nishimura has attempted to repossess the domain both through WIPO's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and through the Japanese court system. already handles it. (3) Seems fixed (4) Tried to fix this too. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 10:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: All looks good, impressive work! We can close this section or let it be archived or something like that. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goszei's comments[edit]

@Psiĥedelisto: Great work so far; I have a few comments myself.

  • The lead needs some rewriting to be explicitly clear. It should not dip into the level of detail that it does in the third paragraph, and should be shorter overall.
  • Phrases like "Packet Monster Inc., a Singaporean shell corporation" should be reduced for sake of simplicity (what really matters is who was in charge and when)
  • Basically, the minimum amount of words should be used to relay that ① There was a registrar repossession in 2014 ② There are two websites now ③ Watkins and Nishimura have a legal/business dispute.

Goszei (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Goszei: How does the lead look to you now? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 19:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: A big improvement! Still too heavy on the dates though:
  • "At that time", "In 2007"; perhaps these two periods/claims can be combined? First source seems to be from circa 2008.
  • "In 2008...", should be moved to the first paragraph and/or combined with the other two temporal claims I mentioned
  • "Beginning in at least 2004", should be grouped with other info on ownership in second lead paragraph; I also recommend removing the clause "being in the United States allowed 2chan..." — Goszei (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Goszei: How about now? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 20:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: Perfect, the rest of the article looks great to me. — Goszei (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A legal review of the Nishimura–Watkins feud, and how Wikipedia ought to handle it[edit]

Please respect the dress code for this section.

@Goszei and GRuban: S'il vous plaît, join me on a journey into the weeds...(this is my reply to § Repossession/Domain seizure and split, GRuban).

Or, skip the weeds and go right to § What should Wikipedia do?


My interest in 2channel[edit]

I posted on 2channel way before making 8chan or meeting Watkins. I am JLPT N2.

My legal experience, or lack thereof[edit]

I like comparative law. I especially like researching how colonized countries adopt the legal systems of their colonizers, and turn them on their heads. I am not a lawyer, but I consider myself a (non-traditional, unorthodox) law student. I may indeed take the California Bar via the mentorship route, or I may not, who even knows if the United States will still exist in 2022. Perhaps California will be sovereign once again!

The system[edit]

Japan has a three-tier legal system, plus a bunch of quasi-judicial bodies. For our purposes, at least as of when I'm writing this, the only quasi-judicial body that matters is the Japan Patent Office.

The tiers are: district court, high court, supreme court. Very typical layout. For our purposes, all the cases I know of have been filed in Tokyo. So, it goes Tokyo District CourtTokyo High CourtSupreme Court of Japan.

It is a civil law system, with some Americanism thrown in due to the country's constitution, which has remained virtually unchanged since that war that went rather badly for them. Although, that could change soon.

Nishimura's claims in a nutshellnutshell[edit]

  • Watkins stole 2channel
  • He owns 2channel's trademark, therefore he ought to own
  • He paid Watkins on time

Names used in cases[edit]

Watkins' claims in a nutshellnutshell[edit]

  • The repossession was just, proper, and legal
  • The Japanese trademark doesn't matter, 2channel pre-existed it
    • Even arguendo that the trademark matters, the case is moot and academic because a trademark is not a domain and he now operates the site under the name 5channel, which his son is the registrant of and has given him the legal right to use
  • The repossession was primarily carried out due to unpaid bills

Names used in cases[edit]

  • James Arthur Watkins
  • Jim Watkins
  • N.T. Technology LLC
  • Race Queen, Inc. (Philippines)

The cases I know about[edit]

  1. In re: Race Queen Inc.[note 1], 平成29年(ワ)第3428号 (Heisei 29 №3428) (Tokyo District Court 2019 December 24).Text
  2. In re trademark registration T5843569, 無効2017-890013 (Invalidity case 2017-890013) (Japan Patent Office 26 July 2019).
  3. Tokyo Plus KK v. N.T. Technology, Inc., 令和元年(オ)第1140号 (Reiwa 1 №1140) (Supreme Court of Japan 21 November 2019).Text
  4. Hiroyuki Nishimura v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0111730701 / Jim Watkins, Race Queen, Inc, Case № D2016-1025 (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 28 July 2016).


  1. ^ a b Literally, A v. Race Queen Inc., perhaps also interpretable as John Doe v. Race Queen Inc.


The reason it took me so long to get back to you, GRuban, is because of how impenetrable the system is. I reached out to two subject matter experts, who I will not mention their names, but say, they both write for well-respected Japanese newspapers, and are both native Japanese speakers. Even they find the system impenetrable, but they helped me get this far.

So, who has won what? That's the question I'm trying to answer. I'm going to engage in some WP:OR which is totally not suitable for inclusion in the article and tell you, my interpretation of the cases, just for background, before I go into possible solutions to this conundrum:

  • Case №1, Heisei 29 №3428, is most legally important, as well as important to the future. It's been going on the longest, the order I link is from 2019 but it's been in process since Heisei 29 (2017). Notice that the ruling I link, which to my knowledge is the latest ruling in the case, by Judge Yoshiaki Shibata[3], was ruled on after the ruling in Reiwa 1 1140. If it truly has been overturned by the Supreme Court of Japan, why are further rulings still happening?
  • Case №2, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) case, was the cause of action for Case №1.[note 1] That is to say, with the JPO ruling on the matter, Nishimura could start a court case.
  • Case №3, Reiwa 1 №1140, is the most confusing case. Notice how the source is an WP:SPS: I can't find any mention of this case anywhere online, except Japanese Wikipedia and forums. Let me just say, both Hiroyuki and Watkins have obfuscated information, both have told outright lies, it's so hard to trust either of them. Is this document even real? If real, what does it really mean? My sources told me that to the best of their understanding, it's an entirely separate action from Case №1. So, Nishimura brought two cases: one against Race Queen Inc. and one against N.T. Technology Inc., for different reasons. My sources cautioned that because we don't have the lower court's ruling, we really can't say anything from this document. It could simply have been rejected by the Supreme Court because of jurisdiction: a foreign corporation is being sued, and they felt it didn't rise to the level. It also, though, could be a consolidated petition, and a ruling on Case №1 as well. But, because Case №1 had a ruling after, that seems unlikely.
  • Case №4 is the most practically important. The WIPO would have had the ability to resolve this matter quickly by declaring the domain stolen, but they decided that they didn't have jurisdiction and punted to the courts. Now, the only way that Nishimura can get the domain is through a federal court order. See this interesting pleading by attorneys for ICANN in Netsphere, Inc., et al. v. Jeffrey Baron and Ondova Ltd. which explains in great detail the relationship and authority federal courts have over WIPO, ICANN, et cetera.


  1. ^ I actually link to the settling of an appeal and not the original case, which is why it's dated after Heisei 29 №3428.

Crystal gazing[edit]

So, let me stare into the crystal ball and try to figure out what could happen here. Most likely, nothing. Unlikely, if Nishimura gets a finally executory order in Case №1, and Case №3 is truly not an impediment to him and was rejected for some other reason, and despite the move to he wants to keep fighting this battle, he can sue Watkins and N.T. Technology, Inc. in US federal court, and ask the judge to enforce his foreign court order via the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. Now, question, is the domain a money judgment? Even if not, it still might be possible under the common law, see this treatment of the matter by the International Comparative Legal Guide.

However, exceptions apply, including one to me personally: the SPEECH Act. Any cyberlibel judgment found against me is unenforcable in the United States, where I now live. Does a similar exception exist in this case? We can't say because there's no order yet.

What should Wikipedia do?[edit]

OK. Now that I've bored you with my WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL, here's my suggestion for how to change the article.

  • Remove the mention of Heisei 29 №3428 from 2channel § Domain seizure and split. No reliable source has reported on it. BuzzPlus News is only pseudo-reliable, sort of like a Gizmodo or perhaps a Buzzfeed. The only other source would be Slashdot via Zaikei Shimbun: [4]. It's not clear to me if Zaikei simply reposts everything from Slashdot, or if they do some fact checking. I think they might repost everything or almost everything. Given the legal uncertainty, it's very hard for me to say what is going on.
  • Only mention that Nishimura owns the trademark, without trying to figure out what this means legally. Reliable sources have reported on that, and the WIPO case is clear that the trademark is his (in Japan at least).
  • Keep ignoring Reiwa 1 №1140. We have no idea what it really means, and we don't have the lower court's judgment. We have no idea if it's just a technical rejection by the Supreme Court or something bigger. We don't even know for sure if it happened, the file could be a forgery. (Unlikely, but let's remember who we're dealing with.)
  • Wait for an actually reliable source to figure this out before considering adding it back.

@Goszei and GRuban: Thoughts? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 04:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you nominated 2channel for GA status! Perhaps the GA reviewer can answer the question. -iaspostb□x+ 10:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: I did indeed! Please see GRuban's section above, where we discussed this issue and (I believe) resolved it for now until more sources emerge. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll check out that section. -iaspostb□x+ 02:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General corrections[edit]

  • "The name "2channel" is a reference to VHF channel 2, the default setting for the RF modulators used in earlier-generation game consoles (such as Nintendo's Family Computer) when connecting to Japanese television sets."

The citation for this statement does not actually explain the website's name in any way, it only discusses 2channel's alleged connection to the 2008 Akihabara massacre. In an archive of a thread where Hiroyuki first advertises 2channel on Amezou, Hiroyuki implies that the name "2channel" was meant to convey how the website was a second channel for Amezou and could house the extra boards that Amezou wouldn't quickly consider for his website.

  • "including 2channel's own attorney, Takahiro Karasawa (唐澤貴洋),"

Takahiro Karasawa does not serve 2channel. He's just a lawyer that 2channel users turned into a meme and there's a long story behind that.

  • "In 2012, due to growing discontentment towards such sites, Nishimura added a board, /poverty/,"

The /poverty/ board was established and announced back in December 28, 2007, not 2012. Hiroyuki had announced this in an /operate/ thread and allowed users to fiddle with its board settings in another thread.

Nameless(?) 05:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NamelessRumia: I have met Karasawa in real life. He is 2channel's lawyer, and has represented Watkins several times in Japanese courts. Now, I agree with you that he wasn't always 2channel's lawyer. I'm pretty sure the story says that Karasawa is their lawyer as well. Doesn't it? Of course, we can't have things in this article based on my personal experience, so if there's no reliable source, we can remove it. About the Channel 2 thing, I think I know another source for that. And about 2012, feel free to change it if you can find it in a reliable source. Thanks for reading, hope you can review this article under the GA criteria. By the way, your website is excellent and helped me get a general feel for what should be in this article. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 00:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I did two out of three of your requests. [5][6] Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2channel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NamelessRumia (talk · contribs) 05:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

As the author of a website that covers Japanese internet culture such as 2channel, [7], I believe that this article fulfills Wikipedia's Good Article criteria. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vincent60030 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiroyuki Nishimura
Hiroyuki Nishimura

Improved to Good Article status by Psiĥedelisto (talk) and GRuban (talk). Nominated by Psiĥedelisto (talk) at 06:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol voting keep.svg The article was promoted to GA in time and is neutral. I assume good faith on the references that I can't read. The image is free use. The hooks are directly cited. This is ready. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. @SL93 and Chipmunkdavis:: would either anyone mind reviewing ALT2? ~ Amkgp 💬 05:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I suggested an alternative hook in the WT page so I'm not going to review, but tagging for new review. CMD (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so many citations in lead?[edit]

I tried to find discussion on this, sorry if I searched stupidly -- is there a reason this very recent GA still has so many citations in the lead? —valereee (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am under the impression that having citations in the lead is allowed, but it is also allowed not to have any. Personally, I prefer always have citations in the lead, and I prefer articles written this way. I am on my phone right now but if you are aware of a policy that says citations are no longer allowed in the lead, please do link it and I'm happy to remove all of them. Except for the notes of course. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 02:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Alpha Omega 2603:8080:BB00:3B76:995:9FE5:4B81:3A5 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


<fe.6> 2603:8080:BB00:3B76:995:9FE5:4B81:3A5 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]