StoneToss is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by — Alalch E. at 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: American neo-Nazi cartoonist

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the StoneToss article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, March 21, 2024, see discussion. Delete, September 15, 2023, see discussion. Delete, August 5, 2021, see discussion.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Webcomics: Comics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Webcomics. If you would like to participate in this project, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WebcomicsWikipedia:WikiProject WebcomicsTemplate:WikiProject WebcomicsWebcomics articles This article is supported by WikiProject Comics (assessed as Low-importance). Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Davies, Rachael (March 21, 2024), Who is Stonetoss? X is suspending people for identifying right-wing cartoonist, Evening Standard

Current consensus (April 2024): There is a general sense that the alleged real name should not be added to the article considering available sources at this time (see this discussion). In this RfC editors agreed that "neo-Nazi" should remain in the first sentence. In this RfC it was found that there was consensus to include the link to StoneToss's website in the article. In this RfC there was no consensus found to refer to the revelation of StoneToss's identity as "doxxing".

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

New infobox maybe?

StoneToss
Logo used on the website
Author(s)	StoneToss
Illustrator(s)	StoneToss
Current status/schedule	Ongoing
Launch date	July 18, 2017
Publisher(s)	Self-published ( webcomic)
Genre(s)	Political cartoon, Satire
Original language	English
Preceded by	Red Panels

keep this one separate from Template:Infobox Webcomic trainrobber >be me 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't see any value with giving his website clicks off Wikipedia. I'd suggest we leave the infobox off entirely. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, you could use the previous infobox or this one if you want to. I find it to be my suggestion to the article. trainrobber >be me 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My objection is to including a link to his website in any infobox, not the specific format. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok trainrobber >be me 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was wondering if this was a policy for controversial cartoonists of some sort. I checked Scott Adams, Sinfest, and Robert Crumb, but they all give a link to the source material on their pages. GoggleGoose ( talk) 18:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There's a minor difference between controversial cartoonists and neo-Nazis. XeCyranium ( talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

We don't exclude links to their website because of their political views; that's not neutral. — Czello ^{( music)} 09:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223, what about the infobox without the website? The article just looks like it's missing something without the infobox? TarnishedPath ^talk 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah. I have no objection as long as we leave the link to the website off. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223 I figured that was the case given the conversation. OK lets work with that. TarnishedPath ^talk 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Having both "Authors" and "Illustrators" listed seems redundant. GranCavallo ( talk) 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GranCavallo ok trainrobber >be me 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a webcomic. Having the URL in the infobox is perfectly relevant-- Trade ( talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Not if consensus be that it not. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is silly, frankly. After already observing that controversial cartoonists are afforded a link in the infobox, I see that even the The Daily Stormer, an actual nazi publication, gets a link in their infobox. This article suffers from lack of WP:NPOV GoggleGoose ( talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Take it to WP:NPOV/N if you think there is an issue. TarnishedPath ^talk 07:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll call it out on the talk page first, like it is intended, thanks. GoggleGoose ( talk) 08:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe you're severely off mark, which is why I suggested you take it up at WP:NPOV. TarnishedPath ^talk 08:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussing it here is perfectly valid; that's what talk pages are for. — Czello ^{( music)} 09:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, but I don't think you're going to gain consensus. Go for it if you want though. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree; I think excluding the link because of the subject's political views violates WP:NPOV. We don't exclude links because the material might be objectionable, we only do it for legal issues. — Czello ^{( music)} 09:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you point me to exactly where in WP:NPOV it states that leaving off a website from an infobox violates NPOV rather than it being a merely editorial decision? When I did a ctrl-f on "website" on WP:NPOV, I got exactly zero hits. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm saying the reasoning presented above for not included it is not neutral. Can you give me a reason why it shouldn't be included? — Czello ^{( music)} 09:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Consensus. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For the record I don't see the statement above by another editor that they don't want to drive any traffic to the person's website as being neutral or not. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Consensus based on what? I'm not seeing reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. And no, a personal desire of not wanting to drive traffic to his website is absolutely not neutral. It's not for us as editors to right great wrongs, it's us to present a neutral encyclopedia. So why leave out the website? — Czello ^{( music)} 09:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As at present I'm reading 4 editors in favour of/accepting of leaving off the website and 4 editors who think it should be included (prior to tonight it was 4/3). I guess we're in a position of no consensus at the moment. Given that the arguments above are mostly made by other's I won't address you brining up WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RGW, other than to say those are essays. Again I don't believe the mere act of excluding a website is a not neutral position. A not neutral position would be if there was undue commentary used to describe its contents. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If there's no consensus on it, then the default position (and, yes, the neutral position) would be to include the website. There needs to be a significant justification for excluding the link – traditionally we only do so if the website hosts illegal content, not objectionable content. I will wait to see if others above present justified reasons for leaving it off before restoring the link, but remember that consensus isn't decided by a poll vote, it's by presenting arguments based on policy. I've yet to see any. — Czello ^{( music)} 10:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

RfC: Exclusion of StoneToss's website from the article

Should this strip from the RedPanels be added to the article? Trade ( talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I say no, for two reasons. One, RedPanels is a different comic, and including it in this page may cause confusion. Two, the license on that file is very questionable and I really doubt it qualifies as an actual release of copyright. I wouldn't be surprised to see the file deleted as a copyright violation. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with Di on both of the above. I'll also say: Putting that comic in the article doesn't add anything since it doesn't really illustrate any of the main parts of the article. Elspea756 ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree, IMHO it doesn't seem relevant. CVDX ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ TarnishedPath: I reverted this edit of yours because I believe that it makes the lead a worse summary, and the lead is only a summary per MOS:LEAD. The body of the article discusses primarily the webcomic, and the most important points are the ones that explain what the webcomic is. The layout is not that of a biography, and it's unnatural to start the article as a biography and not present real biograhical content as there is really little information about the author. At the time being, with how the body is currently written and seeing where the sourcing is currently at I recommend keeping the subject as the webcomic, primarily. But this may change. Sincerely — Alalch E. 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Even though a lot is not know, because obviously their identity is only alleged, the article spends the majority of the time addressing StoneToss as a subject rather than a work. To me this speaks to it being a biography. TarnishedPath ^talk 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe that's something that needs to be addressed in the other direction. Let's think about that for a bit. — Alalch E. 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If that's the form the article has already taken then the lede ought to follow the body. TarnishedPath ^talk 00:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I see what you are talking about, as there are many references to "cartoonist" and "author" but I frankly see it as a way to explain the motive behind the webcomic, the message of he cartoons, the character of the content, how it is understood by the observers etc. Even though the author is being talked about on a surface level, he is being talked about in order to explain the work. — Alalch E. 00:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's clearly indicated at the top of this page that this is a BLP, given that the majority of the the article is dedicated to talking about them StoneToss as a subject. I think therefore per MOS:LEAD, the lede should follow. TarnishedPath ^talk 00:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a relatively big change you know, it entails changing the infobox or adding another infobox, or moving the infobox lower (under a section heading), changing the layout (the first h2 section would not be "Content and reception" it would probably be "Career") etc. I still think the body should resemble an article written as a biography more, despite the frequent references to the author, which is normal for any work, as works are understood through their authors. I don't think that it's right to start by changing the lead and short description. It promises to the reader that they will learn from this article much more about the author than the article has to offer. — Alalch E. 00:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Changing the names of headings is only a superficial change. I don't see changing the short description as taking that much effort ( I did it before). The biggest change would be the infobox, which I don't think the position would need to change. Primarily though if we address StoneToss throughout the article as a subject then per MOS:LEAD the lede needs to follow. The rest are just consequences of that. TarnishedPath ^talk 01:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

After thinking about this during our conversation: I disagree with you for the reasons I have stated, but I won't revert your edits to the effect of changing the primary subject to that of the biographical subject, but if more editors oppose this I will involve myself again in this matter and will support restoring the present formulation of the subject. And I think that you should hear out what other editors have to say on this, but I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not to seek the third+ opinion before reinstating your change to the lead and the short description and continuing with the other edits of the sort. Cheers (edit: about the infobox, the position would not need to change of course if the comic infobox is replaced with the bio infobox, but if there is no bio infobox, the comic infobox should not be at the top of the article if the primary subject of the article is a person; that's what I meant; the type of the infobox in the lead and the primary subject need to match; edit2: and there is no material for the bio infobox, I don't support a bio infobox; edit3: just for reference, these are the separate Wikidata items: wikidata:Q74562748 (comic), wikidata:Q118640511 (author)) — Alalch E. 01:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What do you think about breaking the "Webcomic" section up into two sections? One dealing with the comic more directly and one with the politics? TarnishedPath ^talk 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't really foresee that it's possible to separate the political cartoons from the politics, but if you've got some idea please go ahead. But do keep in mind that I am against the switch from the webcomic to the peson and desire a wholesale reversal of that, and am still awaiting what other editors will say. I am making the edits in good faith as necessary corrections after the change of the subject. I do not want to revert you or obstruct your ideas because I do not want conflict with you and I don't want a perception that I am owning the article, so that I don't get myself into trouble, I'll be very frank about that. But I hope that subsequently to these edits, soon, they will all be reverted basically, in the part that is non-substantive (doesn't add new information to the article). — Alalch E. 03:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries. TarnishedPath ^talk 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that this article is improved with the subject change to the person creating the comic rather than the comic. Most of the sources, including the most reliable sources, identify their topic as the person. For example, Wired's headline is about "Neo-Nazi Cartoonist" and NBC's headline is about "antisemitic cartoonist". Elspea756 ( talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with this too. The notability and sourcing are much better established for the author than for the cartoon itself. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think this comes out most evidenctly in how the article failed the first two AfDs when the article/sources was more about the cartoon itself, but will certainly pass the third now that the article/sources are more about the subject. TarnishedPath ^talk 23:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's meaningful to make a distinction between them. Even though StomeToss himself calls it a webcomic, I don't think I've seen any reliable sources that describe his work as a webcomic. His pseudonymous identity is inextricably tied to his work and vice versa. His cartoons lack typical features of a webcomic, such as a brand outside of its author, a coherent narrative or characters. Other political cartoonists with a distinctive art style such as Ben Garrison aren't described as having a webcomic. PBZE ( talk) 16:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox placement

@ GranCavallo: Please read this l2 talk section to see why the ibx was relocated to the body. Template:Infobox comics creator is for the lead, not the comic ibx. — Alalch E. 16:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Funny business is going on with this article and I am enumerating it here.

This wikipedia article concerns a controversial twitter artist that was deleted after two successful deletion discussions [1] [2] over lack of WP:NPOV and other problems. These problems, particularly WP:NPOV have returned for the page's 3rd iteration and are continuing:

1. A user was already called out by an admin for deceptive editing of the page, breaking continuity from previous deletion discussions, and circumventing admin direction to use WP:AFC ( diff) and again ( diff)

2. It was observed ( diff) that despite sources mentioning the subject denying the label of "nazi" (a phrase advised against in MOS:LABEL for WP:BLP), attempts to remove the label in the page's short description, first sentence, and page category was reverted without discussion by another user to maintain the contentious label ( diff). This was elevated to a talk page topic but then archived by a different user which interrupted further discussion. ( diff)

3. The aforementioned user was quick to remove the subject's own url from its infopage ( diff) despite it being observed that it is standard practice for other webcomics, and even extremely contentious outlets ( diff and diff). The same user is WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page discussion he began for the subject's url. Other users have noted the non-neutral intention of this issue ( diff) and some users admit their own motivations behind this are against established rules ( diff)

4. While the current page's deletion discussion is ongoing [3], another user attempted to close it prematurely on the mainspace page, hiding the discussion. ( diff)

5. Worth noting that a page concerning the alleged person responsible for the page subject was deleted per WP:G10 - the prohibition against "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity.. as noted in the deletion discussion ( diff)

6. Recent events have made this page subject a target for WP:BATTLE. Specifically, there has been a lot of recent coverage of the alleged artist behind the page subject (but not much else). This renewed interest has coincided with the page's recreation. It is evident that the subject's controversial nature and recent coverage has contributed to this issues present in this page.

It should be noted that these issues persist even while the page is already in WP:XC protection. This will likely continue to persist as the events in item #6 above are still recent. Had the page not been circumvented from entering WP:AFC (as noted in item #1), the recent news coverage may have been recognized as lacking WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and not garnered the interference it has now. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would challenge your summary at point 3. It's an inaccurate rendition of what I said and why. I've said elsewhere that even if I have a different view from some other editors here as to what constitutes appropriately neutral editing, I still adhere to that project pillar. Suggest WP:AGF would be wise. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Item #3 in the list, and the diffs linked in it, mostly refer to TarnishedPath, not you.

Item #2 refers to you. Per WP:AGF, let's apply it and take a very brief look at your participation in the page.

You undid another editor's contribution ( diff) that explicitly referenced the deletion discussion issues about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP without also participating in the discussion until you were called out ( diff).

You initally removed the page infobox, citing "no merit" ( diff). When pressed, you revealed that you take personal issue with "giving his website clicks" ( diff) and that wikipedia should "draw a political line" ( diff) to that effect, even if it is against its own rules ( diff). I searched for any wikipedia policy that would support those points. On the contrary, I found WP:NOTCENSORED, which would compel editors to include the material to the benefit of the page. MiniMayor98 ( talk) 05:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As many editors have demonstrated in the above RfC, nothing in WP:NOTCENSORED compels the article to have a website URL. Your argument that the article not having one violates Wikipedia's rules is entirely incorrect. You need to stop these WP:INCIVIL assumptions of bad faith. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nothing on the page compels it because dictating what must be included in articles is outside the scope of the page.

Mind you, there is nothing in WP:NOTCENSORED compels the article to have a section about the doxxing either. Nor a section compelling to calling out Neo-Nazis Trade ( talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, exactly. So that's why saying that WP:NOTCENSORED would compel editors to include the material isn't accurate. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

? Trade ( talk) 21:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I contend that doing things that have no effect other than helping the career of purveyors of hate speech is non-neutral and have done so at length. Just stop this; frankly editorializing over the diffs of a group of other editors in this manner is inflaming WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, not providing a path to improved consensus. Simonm223 ( talk) 08:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree, I think linking the site does serve the editorial purpose of... linking to the comic that is the subject's main claim to notability. It's not rocket surgery. There is ample precedent that pages about webcomics have links to the site. It's a webcomic after all. Of course this page isn't just about the webcomic, but there is no page about the webcomic. I don't think this has been controversial before (correct me if I'm wrong). Any stance that takes into account the content of the link is in my opinion not WP:NPOV. Linking to information, on the other hand, is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. CVDX ( talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Point 5 is an inaccurate description: it wasn't a different page created, but this very page being moved to that name, which was obviously continuing the doxxing and threatening the subject's identity. Ultimately, the page was moved back and the redirect connecting the alleged real-life identity to it was deleted under G10. It isn't that the existence of a page about the author was problematic (indeed, this very page is about the author, as the move showed), but it is the title (directly naming a real-life person) that was G10. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Firstly your comments smacks heavily of WP:ABF and you should redact large parts of them. Per Simon, WP:AGF would be wise. Secondly WP:AFC is not a compulsory process for editors who are autoconfirmed. TarnishedPath ^talk 22:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It smacks as a list of instances where users knowingly violated Wikipedia's policies and customs Trade ( talk) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

+1 — Czello ^{( music)} 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Incorrect. You need to cease casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ MiniMayor98 and @ Trade. Given the results of the RfC concerning "neo-Nazi", I heavily suggest you retract the WP:ASPERSIONS you cast towards me. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Review of discussion

While I don't 100% agree with the assessment of recent events, I do believe certain issues raised by the author to be very relevant (some more than others, some not at all). So instead of accusations of bad faith, I believe it's important here to assume the assumption of good faith, as to me there was nothing that was obviously assuming bad faith. The closest to this was the terminology "deceptive editing", but personally I read this as "misleading", in the spirit of good faith. For reference "misleading" would of been the neutral, less controversial and more accurate term to use, as isn't necessarily based on intent. However I also wouldn't summarise an entire opinion into bad faith over this specific use of language either, as bad faith requires intent, not a hunch that it is present.

It's otherwise a shame this discussion devolved into WP:AOBF, certain editors could do well to simply counter these concerns where appropriate, rather than adding bad faith accusations. The latter does nothing to further discussion, but instead stifles and disrupts it, and only serves to reduce the validity of responses rather than raise a valid point, which I assume is not intentional as is counter-productive. As a side note, generally I find those accusing others of bad faith and being uncivil are usually the ones engaging in such behaviour.

Please note this is an "outsider perspective" as a non-involved editor. Personally I find the discussion very off-putting to directly engage in, because of these accusations, and I highly doubt I'm the only one. Hence this is why I'm not directly engaged in this discussion, also because I'm not interested in expressing my opinion and being told to AFG when I already am, that seems like it would be a waste of time. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bold edits

Edit (16:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)): updated this edit summary to reflect current revision

As another outsider chiming in on this discussion I very much agree with CommunityNotesContributor that everyone needs to take a deep breath, remember the human, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF.

As someone who has been involved in the AfD, a central theme is the fact that, as it stands the article doesn't meet WP:NPOV and is a WP:BLP, I agree with MiniMayor98 that the use of unattributed disparaging labels is unwarranted. Maybe it will be warranted someday, but it isn't right now.

To me it is also inappropriate to include a huge antisemitism infobox, as this editorializes the article. Also too soon.

Regarding the inclusion of the URL, TarnishedPath or anyone else having a problem with "giving his website clicks" has no bearing on the issue at hand. Although I agree WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't COMPEL editors to include the URL, I think it would be a pretty clear NPOV violation to not include it in this case, especially if the stated reason has to do with the content of the comic.

I have made an edit to the article to address some of these issues, as follows:

1. included a ref from KnowYourMeme [ [4]] which states facts important to the article if the subject matter is deemed to be important as a person and not for an isolated event ( WP:BLP1E). I wasn't sure if KYM was an appropriate source but added it anyway in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Feel free to remove the source if unsuitable. -- source has since been removed as per WP:UGC, WP:KNOWYOURMEME

2. removed the derogatory "neo-Nazi" label from the lead of the article, while mantaining attributed descriptions and labels and copyediting them for NPOV.

3. removed the (weirdly-placed) antisemitism infobox.

4. added a more neutral content description of the comic before the labels by WP:RS -- text removed because it relied on a bad source

5. described the recent event as a "doxxing" as per multiple sources, including the Wired article [ [5] -- removed mentions of doxxing pending consensus, although I feel an attributed statement (e. g. described as a doxxing by X and Y) would be warranted

6. general small bits of copyediting for NPOV, such as replacing "claims" with "describes as"

7. breaking overly-large paragraphs

I think the article still needs a good amount of work, but hope that my changes make it a little bit better. CVDX ( talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this not a reliable source in your opinion? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

To quote what I said in the deletion discussion:

For such a contentious MOS:LABEL I'm not convinced two reliable sources are enough as per best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. This also comes under MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn't necessarily reflect the balance of reliable sources, even if helps to establish notability.

It'd be more than due in the body, even the lead, but not necessarily the open imo. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Then I trust you will find an appropriate place to identify we're talking about someone who is reliably described by multiple sources as a neo-nazi. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't remove the label, so I won't be re-including it. I replied to your question directed at @ CVDX which may not have been obvious. My suggestion is for it to return to the lead, but not the open, given it's already in the body. Arguably, he's already described de facto as such in the last line of the lead. Overall it'd be worth having a count of sources to see how many times neo-nazi, antisemitic and white supremacist appears as a description from RS, to see which are more due than others. Otherwise that last line may well reflect a good balance. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is what not a reliable source? I'm not putting into question the reliability of sources, at least not right now.

I have not removed the labels entirely, I just took care to make them attributed to the sources and not make it an outright description of him as "neo-Nazi cartoonist" which I believe is not NPOV. In the spirit of WP:RECENTISM I think it's too soon to say that in a consensus-implying way. CVDX ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For some reason Wikipedia didn't save my external link to the Washington Post article that describes him as a neo-nazi. However I'm quite concerned that this article is going to, while pursuing a false balance, present a literal nazi, who is widely known to be a nazi as being yet another edgy cartoonist. I know some people have brought up Scott Adams as a comparable and I have to say that Stonetoss is far more explicit in his politics than Adams is as Adams, at the very least, neither has characters giving Hitler salutes nor does he openly advocate for the death of queer people in Dilbert. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This would also be my only concern right now. I'm only basing my opinion on the two RS available for the description, that is simply not enough for the opening paragraph. Do we have more RS for this to be considered "widely used" and to "reflect the balance", or are these two sources outliers? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• This source makes reference to him engaging in holocaust denialism [6]
• This article explicitly calls him a "literal neo-nazi" [7]
• This article calls him a neo-nazi [8]
• This article says he's been "accused of having nazi sympathies" [9]
• Likely not an RS but well-known and reported on by some of the others I'm citing youtuber Hasan Abi shared leaked chat logs in which Stonetoss said nazi things. [10]
• This article mentions Stonetoss' popularity with nazis. [11] Simonm223 ( talk) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for sharing, that's a good diversity of descriptions. However, based on the sourcing, most of these are not considered generally reliable. WP:YT is certainly not an RS as you pointed out.

  • Evening Standard (syndicated from Yahoo), that is a tabloid not considered reliable, even if more reliable than most tabloids. Meaning it's a grade above complete trash, but far from RS either.
  • No consensus that Techdirt is reliable, also WP:BLOG applies [12] [13] [14]
  • No discussion on Advocate being considered a reliable source that I could find, so not RS
  • No consensus on WP:DAILYDOT being RS, and is also considered biased.
  • Couldn't find any discussion on GNET reliability, but on the face of it does appear to be potentially reliable.

  This comes back to original point. The term neo-Nazi is covered by MOS:LABEL guidelines and is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. Do you have any RS other than Wired and Wapo? In summary, this isn't about whether StoneToss is a neo-Nazi publication/author, it's about whether enough RS describe him as such to be included in the OPEN, which so far I'm not seeing. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 18:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Generally we don't need to have a WP:RS/N thread to consider a source reliable *prior* to first use. Advocate is most certainly a WP:RS I'd also suggest that having Wired, Washington Post, Advocate and then additional support from weaker sources is enough to say that the guy's reputation is widely known. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I wouldn't recommend using "weaker sources" here, that would be a breach of WP:BLPSOURCES: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. For example, Wired, WaPo, Advocate and Techdirt could be considered enough here at a stretch. So I'm no longer opposing, as you have provided additional sources for this description, but simply raising concerns that other editors may well find this as not due in the opening paragraph, for reasons previously mentioned. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As per MOS:LABEL, I think we should not describe him as a neo-Nazi without attribution. There are plenty of referenced claims in the article describing his controversial opinions, my only qualm is with the open of the article using the word "neo-Nazi" in Wikispeak.

I know the WaPo and Wired articles use the label, but the policy is pretty clear: it's too soon to put it in the open as an unattributed statement before we can say it's widely used. However, putting it in the body as an ATTRIBUTED statement (to WaPo, Wired or whoever) is perfectly fine, and that has already been done.

CVDX ( talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Previous versions of this page made reference to sources that cast doubt on the label of "nazi" to describe the artist. See this [15], in reference to the artist's NFT sale. Also per @ CommunityNotesContributor request for sources. GoggleGoose ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Right, I'd assume the content and reference would be removed, rather than a hard revert (of a revert). That's the lazy way to bypass consensus. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 00:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's what I thought. The whole edit was reverted, ostensibly because of the bad source, but all of the other points I addressed there (listed here in the talk page) went unnoticed. Considering we're dealing with WP:BLP here, removal of such labels and NPOV, non-loaded, non-weasel-word phrasing is the default, barring a consensus to do otherwise. CVDX ( talk) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry but I wouldn't call a bitcoin publication a reliable source on politics. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Summoning @ Elspea756 here to explain reverting actions [16]. Also @ Alalch E. as per Do not reinstate unreliable sources: WP:UGC [17] What unreliable sources? If so remove them, no need revert a revert a revert here surely? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:KNOWYOURMEME is user-generated content ( WP:UGC) — Alalch E. 00:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

So why wasn't it simply removed? Are you not aware of what you were reverting, in it's entirety? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 00:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@Alalch E. Apologies, probably should have checked that beforehand. I thought they did the research themselves or something CVDX ( talk) 01:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No problem, thanks for responding. — Alalch E. 01:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I explained this very clearly in the edit summary. This is not the place for unsourced or poorly sourced editing. Elspea756 ( talk) 00:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your edit summary on this talk page for reference: Restore "Neo-nazi" description based on reliable sources. Remove unsourced "often criticizing Progressivism" description that is apparently a wikipedia editor's point of view and/or original research. This is a biography of a lliving person. It is not the place for unsourced or poorly sourced editing.

It's not just the source. It's the (very bad) source and unsourced content. — Alalch E. 00:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the user who made the since reverted "bold edit" what @ CommunityNotesContributor is referring to is the fact that the revert included other changes. When I made the edit, I posted here listing my changes.

I had added a bad ref and instead of removing just the bad ref all changes were rolled back. These included some removals of content pending consensus here on the talk page.

I have blended the edits made since then into a new revision with the unusable source/content removed, and edited my edit summary above accordingly. Please do not revert it in whole pending consensus. --- CVDX ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Are you aware that there was currently a discussion about whether neo-Nazi should have been included in the opening paragraph? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

We should start an RfC, this discussion is framed from the start by claiming deceptive editing on my part, and it's not a healthy talk thread. — Alalch E. 00:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This "Bold edits" section seems to need a reminder that "being bold" is not an excuse to violate wikipedia policy on material about living persons. "I'm going to be bold and 1. include a ref to user generated content at KnowYourMeme" is not at all appropriate here. Elspea756 ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's fair. How does Restore "Neo-nazi" description based on reliable sources fit into it all? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is fair, but you reverted the entire edit instead of just removing the KYM source. I listed all of my changes on the preceding talk page post. The same BLP policy you cite also precludes us from including "neo-Nazi" in the article open and including an infobox on antisemitism.

In my post I was aware KYM might not be a good source and to feel free to remove it. The other edits weren't nearly as controversial, instead they were in the direction of being MORE conservative with sources, attribution and using labels in Wikispeak (as @ CommunityNotesContributor said). CVDX ( talk) 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I sub-headed this as part of a "start again" scheme [18], this discussion has no relation to that. You're right, there should be an RfC though. I'd also like to gently suggest that you move on from the "deceptive editing" insult. You're almost certainly right, unlikely to get an "official apology", and it serves nothing to keep raising this in discussions. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And all this gets to the heart of my neutrality concern here. Unfortunately Stonetoss is notable - specifically Stonetoss is a notable neo-nazi political cartoonist. But the holocaust denialism, antisemitism and homophobia of Stonetoss is integral to his notability. If he were just like Tatsuya Ishida or Scott Adams he would likely be far less notable. And so when I see a push to either treat him as non-notable or to treat him as we would Scott Adams it sets off alarms for me. Because neither of those two approaches would be neutrally covering a neo-nazi political cartoonist. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CVDX, giving the website clicks is not an argument I and a number of other editors have used. Please read our arguments more carefully. Some have used that argument, but not every editor voting to exclude has used that argument. TarnishedPath ^talk 00:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CVDX, firstly WP:KNOWYOURMEME is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Secondly, you need to be aware about stuff that there is active RfCs on prior to editing to remove content. TarnishedPath ^talk 01:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Point taken, I will refrain from using it as a source again and remove it from the article. However, the rest of the edit went in the direction of being more and not less conservative, bearing in mind WP:BLP and WP:CONTENTIOUS (please refer to my other post for details).

"Doxxing", "neo-Nazi" etc were changed to only being used IN ATTRIBUTION, instead of wikispeak, for example. The huge antisemitism infobox was removed, etc. The editor who reverted it reverted it in whole, instead of merely removing the bad reference. Some inbetween edits were also reverted. I believe most of it can be salvaged (apart from the now obviously unusable reference).

As you have reminded us in other discussions, the inclusion of content needs to be argued for, and considering the BLP situation and history of AfDs regarding this subject, I believe my (other) edits were fair. Please avoid conflating every change included in an edit. --- CVDX ( talk) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

We literally just had a RfC regarding the use of "neo-Nazi", which was concluded as a snow close. Your last edit removed the term entirely without regards for consensus. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The RfC opened today and is already closed? We believe we need more time, I hadn't even seen it, that's why I removed the term. Closing the RfC after less than 24 hours clearly runs afoul of the snowball test. I urge you to reopen it

I mantain only 2 out of 19 sources use the label, and as per WP:BLP and MOS:LABEL, I believe it would be prudent to remove it from the open. With the neo-Nazi label the article is hardly WP:NPOV in my opinion.

CVDX ( talk) 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was not the one who closed the RfC. Please don't "urge me" of anything. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I wasn't referring to you specifically, rather everyone involved in the discussion. Especially @ Nemov and @ Alalch E. CVDX ( talk) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Again, you reverted my entire edit without considering the fact that the "neo-Nazi" issue was just an aspect of it. Even operating on the assumption that consensus has settled in the less 24 hours since the RfC opened, the simple addition of the term instead of reverting all my changes would suffice. And you accuse me of WP:BATTLE? Consensus needs to be reached for content to be added, not for its removal. CVDX ( talk) 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Saying that consensus isn't needed for removal of content is plainly wrong, especially given that consensus here is pretty clearly on the side of adding it. The rest of your edit was WP:BOLD wording changes for which consensus wasn't established either, thus WP:BRD. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What I meant is that the default position is not including the contentious term, especially in a BLP article on a contentious topic. Also, as I said, the RfC process was very rushed, and does not pass the aforementioned snowball test.

What defies consensus in my other edits? They haven't even been challenged so far. They are bog-standard NPOV alterations. I feel you're not WP:AGF here. CVDX ( talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I never said they defined consensus, I said that consensus wasn't established for them. And I reverted them, so saying they haven't even been challenged is plainly false. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Have you read the recent RfC yet? It is more than 2 sources. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 16:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No I hadn't read it. Will look at the sources. I found it weird that it opened and closed today. Seems premature to me. How can you snow close a RFC after less than 24 hours? CVDX ( talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Having reviewed the RfC and the !votes, I would also likely have SNOW closed it. A SNOW close is not something that can only be done after a set amount of time, it's largely a judgement call from the experience of the closer assessing the discussion. You can SNOW close a discussion after a few hours, or a few days, the circumstances for when one is indicated are unique to each discussion.

Now if you're dissatisfied with the close, I'd suggest you follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, starting with opening a discussion with the user who closed it on their user talk page. But until that happens, and the close is amended in some way or withdrawn it still stands as the current consensus. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Additional to that given that I've had WP:ASPERSIONS cast at me in regards to the "neo-Nazi" issue. Now that my position has been backed up by a SNOW close those aspersions need to be redacted. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is what we call doxxing nowadays? Trade ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, for racist cartoonists at least EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What part of the BLP policy are you citing? Since you believe it should dictate the title of the section Trade ( talk) 04:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Doxxing his a heavily loaded term. Revelation of identity is what is actually occurring. We need to remember that this a BLP, not only concerning the primary subject but those who are alleged to have revealed his identity. TarnishedPath ^talk 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Considering the article calls "those" people a group of "antifascist internet vigilantes" the intention of shaming or otherwise cause him harm (physical or otherwise) is already made abundantly clear

Tho, i do have to wonder if you are taking the same angle as as EvergreenFir ("it's not doxxing because the cartoonist is a racist") Trade ( talk) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Whether what you state is made abundantly clear or not does not mean we should unduly use biased language in the article. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As awful as StoneToss is, I agree that it shouldn't be a reason to use euphemisms. I don't know which term is standard or recommended, but it should definitely be used here. We shouldn't be in a situation of "it's called 'doxxing' for good people and 'revelation of identity' for bad people". Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it should be used in either case in BLPs given that it's a loaded term. To me it would be classified as similar to a MOS:WTW. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wired article uses it however. It includes a "debate" around how much doxxing is real doxxing, reporting how Twitter began to see any extent of doxxing as officially doxxing, and then cited the example of Junlper being doxxed by Andy Ngo, referring to it as a doxxing in his own voice, and that case of doxxing was a revelation of the real name and city (I think), which is equivalent to the extent of the doxxing of StoneToss. ("Musk has also engaged with posts that doxed individuals on X, with seemingly no recourse for those accounts.") Therefore, the Wired article does not assert that this was not doxxing. And Wired uses the term.

Edit: See how we do use the term in wikivoice in other articles; one such example: special:permalink/1214859890#Doxxing ("... doxed a political activist in 2019 by publishing her full name") — Alalch E. 09:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Notably in regards to Andy Ngo, and I must admit that is an article I have edited and have on my watchlist, he is described as having doxed a person once through the entire article even though he is alleged to have done it extensively. In this instance there is only an allegation of it occurring. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

By allegation you mean the act of characterizing what the internet vigilantes did as doxxing as opposed to not-quite-doxxing? — Alalch E. 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I mean the sources use the word alleged as against stating that doxxing occurred in article voice. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The sources do say in article voice that the internet vigilantes published materials with the intent to identify the author, and only say "alleged" in denoting whether the investigation was a success or a failure (a hypothetical misidentification) because they did not independently verify the claims in the doxxing material. So they say "alleged real name", "supposed name" (citing from memory, but that's about it).— Alalch E. 10:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would be more comfortable using the term doxxed/doxxing if all of the sources didn't use the word "alleged" and doxxed/doxxing was used in article voice. However I can see that I'm in the minority here (I took @ EvergreenFir's comment as sarcasm). TarnishedPath ^talk 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In this 2021 Guardian article discussing doxxing on Twitter, which also mentions the group from our article here, doxxing is used in article voice: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/08/twitter-new-privacy-policy-far-right

It acknowledges doxxing as a real phenomenon and uses that word for that thing. It says "Far-right groups have frequently used the tactic of doxxing – publishing someone’s private or identifying information on the internet – to target activists and journalists and even families of the victims of mass shootings like in Sandy Hook." But when it discusses doxxing done by other actors it does not use the word "doxx" and its derivatives, but uses constructions like "... identified a mayoral candidate and Capitol rioters" and "... group of activists working to expose far-right extremists". The Guardian is terminologically "complicated" here because they are not a 100.00% unbiased source, and they employ WP:NEWSSTYLE and try to avoid repetitive language. We have different standards on Wikipedia, we are much more clinical. — Alalch E. 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lol, please don't try and tell me The Guardian is some leftist publication. Not that I expect you to.

I do think there might be a slight substantive difference in trying to uncover the identities of those involved in actual crimes (January 6) and Andy Ngo for example exposing the identities of people he just doesn't like, who haven't done anything illegal. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not the argument, the argument is how finding replacements for the term "doxx" is less likely to be avoiding loaded terms and more likely to be finding euphemisms. I'm following up on what Chaotic Enby said.

Also our article Doxing does not say that doxxing only doxxing when it is done for purposes other than ostensibly morally defensible purposes—quite the opposite, it says that doxxing neonazis is archetypal doxxing (apart from doxxing in hacker culture):

Outside of hacker communities, the first prominent examples of doxing took place on internet discussion forums on Usenet in the late 1990s, including users circulating lists of suspected neo-Nazis.( special:permalink/1215743864)

— Alalch E. 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I got what CE said above but I don't really see it as a euphemism. The term "Revelation of identity" is in fact a description of the act and doxxing is a particular normative verb applied to that description. Now I'm warry of dragging this on too long because I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON. As I said above I get that I'm in the minority and I was going to leave it at that, however another editor has come in saying that they don't think the term should be used either. Do you suggest seeking outside input in the form on RfC? I'm quite happy to write a question if that's what you want. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Not sure if an RfC is maybe too much for this, I'll leave it to you to decide. I won't be starting one for sure. I actually don't think that this is especially important and that it meaningfully affects the quality of the article. Rather unimportant. — Alalch E. 12:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree that a RfC could be a good way to clear this up, I can see both formulations having their advantages and I think it's best to establish which wording we'd prefer to use in general. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Chaotic Enby, do we want it now or do we want to wait for the other RfC to finish? @ Alalch E. input? TarnishedPath ^talk 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If certainly starting, shouldn't wait in a BLP IMO. — Alalch E. 12:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe try DRN with OP; I will participate. — Alalch E. 12:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've never seen much good result from DRN besides which OP hasn't contributed much to this entire conversation. TarnishedPath ^talk 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll present a question soon. TarnishedPath ^talk 12:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Doxing" is a neologism that shouldn't be used in section headings. We are writing for a global, generalist audience so we should avoid neologisms, jargon, and slang. This is consistent with our most reliable sources, who do not use doxing in their headlines. For example, NBC's headline uses "revealing the names" and Wired's headline uses "Identified a Neo-Nazi". Der Standard uses "die Identität eines rechtsextremen Cartoonisten enthüllen" which translates to "reveal the identity of a right-wing cartoonist". Elspea756 ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Kind of agree with Elspea756 here that Doxing or Doxxing seems somewhat... unprofessional... in tone. I don't believe it's hiding the nature of the deed to say an attempt was made to reveal his identity - that's what was actually done - but also I don't think it's a matter of any sort of shame or fear of censure among the community who identified him or the people who support them to say it was a dox. I can certainly understand, especially with a BLP, wanting to cleave close to what the sources actually say however if the language is inconsistent then I'd suggest it'd be best for us to cleave to the formal and accurate over the colloquial. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The problem is that none of the sources even attempts to explain why they decided not to call it a dox or how "revealing his identity" is something completely different. As far as anyone can read the only difference of this and other reported cases reported in the news is simply the target. Trade ( talk) 03:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  We don't need to know why, we just have to follow them. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

RfC: Should the revelation of StoneToss's identity be referred to as doxxing?

Closure

• I now see that most sources describe him as such and am less opposed to including it. However, I believe the closure of this RfC by Nemov less than 24 hours after first opened was premature. Me and other editors involved in the talk page didn't even get a chance to express ourselves. This clearly violates the Snowball test stated in WP:SNOW, I quote: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.

I urge that we reopen discussion and allow it time to develop before closing the RfC. CVDX ( talk) 16:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CVDX, if you take issue with the close the standard procedure is to first take it up on the closer's user talk and then if still unsatisfied to raise the close for review at WP:AN. TarnishedPath ^talk 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I echo this sentiment as well. I did participate in the Discussion section, but I was still conducting research and didn't get a chance to express my opinion in the Survey section. Like I stated above in my RFC before comment, we all don't live in the same time zones, and operate on the same schedules. 48 to 72 hours should be the minimum for a snowball close, Having said that, I don't think there will be an appetite to re-open it. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've had more than a one close that I've taken issue with but I've yet to take any of them to WP:AN. TarnishedPath ^talk 14:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article goes out of it's way to label StoneToss as "Neo-Nazi", but as a longtime reader of the comics, I don't recall a single one promoting National Socialism. It would be less wrong to substitute "Neo-Nazi" with "alt-Right", "far-right", or "racist".

The word Nazi is a slur for the NSDAP, which translates to "National Socialist German Worker's Party", a German political party from the 1920's through 1940's. National Socialism is similar to Fascism, except instead of the good of the State being the primary concern, it substitutes the state for the majority ethnic group of the country. It would stand to reason that a "Neo-Nazi" is a modern person that favors a National Socialist form of government. By contrast, StoneToss just mocks things like Jewish power, political correctness, Trans advocacy, Marxism, Feminism, and various other aspects of modern left-wing politics.

"StoneToss is a nazi" is a meme on "X" started by people that were offended by his comics. If it's aspired that Wikipedia is to be seen as impartial, then it's recommended not to let the language of hyperbolic haters show up in the search results seen by people searching the term "StoneToss" in web browsers. 75.172.11.231 ( talk) 03:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Not done. Nazi is not a slur. The sources describe him as a Nazi, which is accurate. Wikipedia does not aspire to be "impartial". Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"StoneToss just mocks things like Jewish power". Yikes. KlayCax ( talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For the reasons stated in this edit summary of mine I disagree with this edit of yours, and would like to discuss this point of terminology with you if you would like to reinstate the change. Sincerely — Alalch E. 22:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ KlayCax: forgot to ping you... — Alalch E. 22:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

StoneToss is a neo-Nazi. He's popular among white supremacists. Saying "right wing activists" is euphemistic and hiding where his fans are disproportionately coming from.

In contrast, "right-wing" can mean almost anything. KlayCax ( talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You don't have to be a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist to follow a neo-Nazi and to like his cartoons, firstly because, as the article makes clear, the modus operandi is crypto-Nazi, not openly neo-Nazi (except perhaps for some of the cartoons, which, again, perhaps not every one of his followers has seen). The sourced content in the body says that his audience is broadly right-wing, which is frankly completely true. There are politically moderate people who think that the cartoons are funny, provocative, and "politically incorrect" and that he is owning the libs or whatever, and do not understand the embedded ideology. Many people even on the right do not even understand the cartoons at all and share them mindlessly because they are popular. — Alalch E. 23:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you're correct when you state that not everyone of his fans are neo-Nazi. There's a lot of kids out there, who lack any self-awareness and who think he's just edgy and owning the libs/left/whatever. That doesn't make them also neo-Nazis like StoneToss. TarnishedPath ^talk 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The sentence in question is currently unsourced, which is not at all appropriate in a biography of a living person and a contentious political topic. It could be sourced to The Daily Dot, which says "Stonetoss’ most reactionary themes have won him many fans on the extreme political right. Official Stonetoss communities on Reddit and Discord were both banned earlier this year, in March, within weeks of one another. One scathing commentary blasted the old subreddit as 'a Neo-Nazi hive.'" That this comic has many fans on the extreme political right is a very clear statement that can be sourced. This article shouldn't be the venue for Wikipedia editors to publish their unsourced claims that the audience for Holocaust denial comics is simply part of the mainstream "right-wing," or to claim that the fan communities on Reddit and Discord were somehow both banned when they were simply engaged in mainstream "right-wing" fandom. Elspea756 ( talk) 02:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

These aren't my unsourced claims. Lead content doesn't have to be cited per MOS:LEADCITE. You raise valid points about describing his audience in more detail, but that should primarily be done in the body, and the lead is only a summary of that. I supported contraining the lead's description to "right-wing" because the body said only "right-wing", which is sourced to the Wire article, but when the body begins to include more information about the audience, I will, naturally, support including some way of representing that in the lead, in summarized form. So what you said is "completely unsourced" in this edit of yours is in fact completely sourced, as it's a summary of the first sentence of the first paragraph of the 'Career' section and of the second paragraph of the same section ( Special:PermanentLink/1216420598), and all of that information is sourced.— Alalch E. 03:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. ... there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." Elspea756 ( talk) 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Verifiability, sources, references, citations: These are all discrete things. The content was verifiable as sourced in the article itself, references are present in the article, it is just not verifiable using citations in the lead, but relying on the body for support—where the citations are present—the lead being a summary of the body. Adding citations to the lead is an exception conditioned on "verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". You will see many mature articles which are incredibly controversial that do not have leadcites. But, of course, it's been challenged now and citations are due. But that does not convert into the claims having been unsourced. — Alalch E. 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wow, now you want to argue the difference between "citations are due" and "unsourced." This is biography of a living person and a contentious political topic. Just cite sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 03:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In a now deleted comment, Alalch E wrote "Okay, so it's been challenged and citations are due, but that does not mean that the claims were unsourced." My reply above where I say "Wow, now you want to argue the difference between "citations are due" and "unsourced." This is biography of a living person and a contentious political topic. Just cite sources." was in response to that comment they deleted. I am reproducing their comment here since my response quoting them makes little sense after they've deleted the comment I was quoting from. I earlier added their comment back so my response made sense, but they deleted their comment again here. Hopefully that makes sense and clears up any confusion and we can carry on citing sources in biographies of living people and contentious political topics. Elspea756 ( talk) 03:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not how it went, which is evidenced by this diff: Special:Diff/1216458384. You replied to my entire above comment, after I had edited it full five minutes after I was done. You then pulled a previous version of my comment out of page history that you were indeed replying to, no doubt about that, and hadn't noticed that I changed my comment perhaps, but perhaps you did see that there is an edit conflict, and you copied that comment and readded it onto the page next to my real comment, which I actually wanted to make, and which I did finish making (see Special:Diff/1216458798 with the edit summary: Restore comment I was responding to.). That was pretty inappropriate (against WP:TPO) and I have written about it on your talk page, with the hope of resolving that more elegantly, but it seems like instead of furthering the discussion in a sensible direction where we could decide what to do about a sentence such as the one you've removed from the lead, you are complaining about my supposed deleting comments. Ultimately, this or that version of my comment, there's no reason to talk like that to me and address me in the imperative mood. I see you as a respected colleage and it's in the best interest of this article, that we've successfully collaborated on thus far, if you would see me in the same way.— Alalch E. 04:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What reliable source is there that definitively links the two comics together? Note that I said definitive, the doxxing doesn't provide any verifiable proof, only conjecture based on flimsy similarities. 24.175.80.143 ( talk) 03:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's your opinion. Do you have anything else to add? TarnishedPath ^talk 07:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That isn't an opinion, there is no evidence that StoneToss and Red Panels are made by the same comics artist. trainrobber >be me 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes there is evidence, it's just unconfirmed. Many, many things in this universe are not verified (everything in the Bible for example), to use the word flimsy however is some serious POV pushing. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Though I don't think the connection is nearly as tenuous as this IP and Trainrobber66 (who seems quite biased in favour of StoneToss) suggest, I must unfortunately agree that I think would be best to remove it from the infobox out of an abundance of caution. The reliable sources I have read did not attempt to or were unable to definitively confirm the connection, and with that in mind I don't think it's especially wise to put that connection in the infobox without the context that it is currently just an allegation. I think the connection to RedPanels is better covered in the body of the text, where full context is available, than in the infobox. Ethmostigmus ( talk) 09:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Concur with Ethmostigmus Simonm223 ( talk) 12:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no great issue here. TarnishedPath ^talk 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The lead paragraph has said this comic uses "... Holocaust denial, under the veneer of irony ..." however I do not see a cited source that says these comics are using "irony." Three sources are cited for this sentence, but none seem to support this description that the comics are "ironic" or use "irony." Wired refers to "Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic ... claiming, ironically, that she was the victim of mass reporting from antifa." The European Center for Populism Studies describes "One reaction among leftist groups has been to appropriate and “remix” StoneToss comics (Gilmour, 2021), with what my son calls 'layers of irony.'" The thirds cited source, Daily Dot does not seem to mention irony at all. So, since non eof these three sources support this description, I am about to remove this description that these comics are using racism, sexism, transphobia, Holocaust denial, etc. "under the veneer of irony" as this description currently does not seem to be cited. This type of defense of these comics, that they are just using Holocaust denial to be "ironic," will need cited reliable sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That was added by User:KlayCax in Special:Diff/1216221610. I agree with the removal. — Alalch E. 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Alalch E.:. The sentence says that it is done under a veneer of irony. That is, he uses humor (including irony) as a means of promoting crypto-fascism/ crypto-Nazism under semi-plausible deniability.

I don't think that's a disputable claim. KlayCax ( talk) 22:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm open with the sentence being reworded, though. KlayCax ( talk) 22:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Remove it. I find nothing "ironic" about the neo-Nazi's holocaust denial and it is not sourced. TarnishedPath ^talk 03:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fully support this being removed given that it isn't at all backed up by the available sources, thanks very much for catching this issue! Ethmostigmus ( talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah it's non-sourced. Let's cut it. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

His name is public knowledge and should be posted. 2601:646:8084:B650:BCDE:D8C3:CBAD:E13F ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Source? LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please refer to Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Name where this was discussed. TarnishedPath ^talk 04:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The gist is that we need reliable sources that say "this is his name" rather than "this is alleged to be his name". Simonm223 ( talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have noticed that this article has no images, not even in its comics creator infobox (excluding the "part of a series on Antisemitism" part). StoneToss's Facebook profile picture is simply the face of a cartoon character and not something offensive like his webcomics. My reason for adding that image to this article would be to help said article with covering relevant information about him, and I think that articles without images look strange. CarlFilip19 ( talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Images such as StoneToss's profile pictures are copyrighted, and are thus non-free. Read Wikipedia's guidelines for non-free content before you upload any non-free images to make sure there is a legitimate use for them. GranCavallo ( talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. CarlFilip19 ( talk) 17:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh. An image was eventually added to this article. Thanks to it only consisting of simple geometric shapes or text, it does not meet the threshold of originality. See more here CarlFilip19 ( talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The conclusion of the website RfC and a tiny bit of editing that happened afterwards has brought up the question of whether we need two infoboxes? Originally the two infoboxes came about when the article move to become more uniformly BLP for continency. So at present we have a comic creator infobox and a Webcomic infoxbox. The question is, do we need both? TarnishedPath ^talk 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No, I don't think we need both. GranCavallo ( talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We don't need the comics creator infobox, it's just there perfunctorily, a rock sitting on the top content infobox slot, preventing someone from moving the webcomic infobox to the top. Which is fine with me. It doesn't actively harm the article apart from being a tiny little bit silly as an obviously informationally worthless infobox, and it helps prevent the article from becoming worse. Better than there being one infobox in the article, at the top, and not matching the primary subject. These three states are something I agree / would agree with:

1. Status quo
2. Removing the comics creator infobox but not moving the comic infobox to the top
3. Removing all from the article

(I do not agree with removing only the only sane infobox in the article, but I agree with removing any and all infoboxes.)— Alalch E. 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Alalch E. I think we need an Infobox at the top or else the antisemitism template slips up to the top and it doesn't look right. I also prefer 1 infobox. Question is the Comic Creator infobox able to take all the parameters as the Webcomic infobox? TarnishedPath ^talk 00:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not able. — Alalch E. 05:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Alalch E., please have a look at what I came up with in my sandbox at User:TarnishedPath/sandbox. The Comic Creator infobox lets you call modules which can be other templates/infoboxes. You do end up with a box in a box but it's better than two infoboxes. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would prefer only one infobox preferably positioned above the Antisemitism infobox for the reasons discussed by Alach E. and TarnishedPath above. I am neutral as to which infobox we keep. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ TarnishedPath: Thank you, I had also tested this, but didn't save it anywhere. I forgot to remove the title value, so I didn't like it aesthetically, but without it I can support this. — Alalch E. 12:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, on the basis of the discussion here I'm going to WP:BOLD implement it. TarnishedPath ^talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I embedded it after enabling that in the comic strip ibx: Special:Diff/1220381369. Hope everything makes sense to everyone. — Alalch E. 13:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Makes sense to me. I'm not fused about placement of the image either. TarnishedPath ^talk 13:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Although I'm not sure about the caption bit. Sort of like pointing at a door and telling everyone that it's a door don't you think? TarnishedPath ^talk 13:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I felt like the caption makes a little bit of sense in order to squeeze in the word "webcomic" (earlier) and signal that the remainder of the infobox is webcomic stuff. Not good? Probably. Doesn't matter now, as the image was moved back to the top of the infobox. We're okay now. (I'm not a fan that the webcomic logo is used as an illustration for the person, and it's not Stonetoss' avatar of some sort either; but it doesn't matter.) — Alalch E. 22:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, apparently an RfC has decided not to call the "revelation of identity" a doxing, but what about a hyperlink to that article? Has it been decided? RodRabelo7 ( talk) 22:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

What discussion that did occur in relation to wikilinking within the RfC was against it. There was not a lot of discussion because it occurred towards the end of the RfC. So far I would say there is no consensus for it and that the RfC is indicative that it shouldn't happen. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously 86.114.207.170 ( talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See #RfC: first sentence. — Czello ^{( music)} 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Exactly. We did actually two separate reviews of the reliable sources we could find on him and it was clear that the most neutral and accurate reflection of how to refer to Stonetoss was as a neo-Nazi. We measured twice on that one and then held an RFC because assigning such a label to a BLP is not something to do lightly. But, yeah, according to reliable sources, the guy's a neo-nazi. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply