Talk:Fufufafa

Gibran

fufufafa? Great achievement (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Great achievement. There is substantial evidence that Gibran could be be fufufafa. However, due to uncertainty, it will be left as allegedly until the Minister of Communication and Information reveals the identity of the user.

In the meantime, you should ask the user, @fufufafa (talk · contribs), directly. He has a Wikipedia account. Kaliper1 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The account was created after the controversy first emerged, so it's likely to belong to an unrelated third party. 82.19.160.128 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerns regarding neutrality and political bias

I would like to raise serious concerns about the neutrality and intent behind the creation of this article.

The article appears to be politically motivated and potentially defamatory, targeting public figure Gibran Rakabuming without adequate reliable sources or appropriate context. Despite his public denial, the article continues to suggest factuality in the accusations, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies.

There is growing concern that the article was created (and possibly promoted) by individuals with political motives, possibly even paid editors. I strongly urge editors to refrain from removing neutrality templates or warnings until a thorough review and consensus is reached. This article should not be used as a tool for political attacks.

Please discuss before removing any templates again.

Naruminato (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I've raised a concern at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding neutrality, sourcing, and potential political bias in this article. Please refer to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Neutrality concern and template removal without discussion – Fufufafa.

I recommend editors avoid removing any maintenance templates (such as

{{NPOV}}

) until the issue has been properly discussed and resolved.

– ~~~~ Naruminato (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Your allegations seem unfounded, considering that the article content is thoroughly supported by the cited reliable sources. Gibran's response is already covered in the Gibran's reaction section. Do you have any evidence that this article was "created (and possibly promoted) by individuals with political motives, possibly even paid editors"? If not, please keep in mind that accusing editors of misbehavior without adequate evidence is known as casting aspersions, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policy against making personal attacks. Due to the lack of evidence cited in this complaint, I support removing the {{NPOV}} template. — Newslinger talk 04:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I have no proof. I just added the quote "Kaskus Forum Can only be deleted by admin and moderator kaskus" In the sentence of accusation fufufafa deleted 2,100 posts. I hope don't delete the NPOV template Naruminato (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have no proof, then you cede the point. Please don't re-add the tag until others have been convinced that there is an issue, and don't add citations unrelated to the claims that they're attached to, as done here _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Why was it reverted so quickly even though this is still being discussed? Naruminato (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Right now, the consensus is to remove the {{NPOV}} template, when you factor in the 7 May reversion of the template addition and the state of the current discussion. — Newslinger talk 05:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The owner of the Fufufafa account is still a mystery, but this page confirms that it is the person concerned even though it has been denied by the relevant parties. https://kabar24.bisnis.com/read/20240913/15/1799373/gibran-dan-menkominfo-budi-arie-membantah-akun-fufufafa-milik-siapa

I'm not good at editing political articles like this. So let someone else even on the neutral side.

Kaskus is a forum, admin/moderator/staff of kaskus has the power to edit and delete (I am not accusing admin/moderator/staff of kaskus of doing so but they have such power). https://www.kaskus.co.id/show_post/514eec35db9248566200000a Naruminato (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The Kabar24 article does not appear to make any such claim. If it does and there's just something wrong with the machine translation I'm looking at, could you please cite the exact words that make this claim? Separately, I don't understand the relevance of your comment regarding Kaskus admin powers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this.I will take new article new site.

Gibran Speaks Up About Kaskus 'Fufufafa': Ask the Account Owner. I will take new article new site.(https://news.detik.com/berita/d-7533921/gibran-buka-suara-soal-kaskus-fufufafa-tanya-yang-punya-akun)

Deleting a kaskus post requires sending a message to the kaskus admin/moderator. But this page doesn't mention that. (https://www.idntimes.com/tech/trend/uswatun-khasanah-52/cara-menghapus-jejak-digital-di-kaskus)

Minister of Communication and Information Ensures Kaskus Account 'Fufufafa' Is Not Gibran: That Was Long Ago. (https://www.detik.com/jogja/berita/d-7534381/menkominfo-pastikan-akun-kaskus-fufufafa-bukan-gibran-itu-udah-lama)

use machine translation, because the link I sent is in Indonesian. Naruminato (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what text in the Wikipedia article you believe needs to be changed/added/removed? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Budi Arie Setiadi's statement is already covered in the Reactions section, and Gibran's response is already covered in the Gibran's reaction section. The second link doesn't mention fufufafa, so it is outside the scope of this article. — Newslinger talk 05:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This article does not state that fufufafa was owned by Gibran; it only states that fufufafa was alleged to be owned by Gibran, and then provides a summary of how reliable sources have covered fufufafa. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes alleged. that's why it needs a tag. Regarding April 2025, I will either add or not add the month/year. Naruminato (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

No, an article does not warrant an {{NPOV}} tag for accurately describing an allegation. The fufufafa account is notable only for the alleged ownership, which is why media coverage focuses heavily on this aspect of the account. — Newslinger talk 05:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I give up.

Let time do it.

As this case progresses, there will definitely be edits if there are new incidents. Naruminato (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with Newslinger. It appears to be a roughly NPOV description of an allegation that is notable as an allegation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)