Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"StoneToss" or "Stonetoss"

This article is currently titled "StoneToss". Across his internet presence, StoneToss/Stonetoss uses CamelCase and Title case inconsistently.

• In the title of his website he uses CamelCase. [1]
• On the about page of his official website, he uses Title case. [2]
• On his official FaceBook page, he uses CamelCase. [3]
• On Twitter/X he uses Title case. [4]
• On YouTube, he again uses CamelCase. [5]
• On Instagram, he has a space between "Stone" and "Toss" and both are capitalized. [6]
• On his various e-commerce pages, he does not use caps at all. [[7][8]
• On his crypto/NFT pages, he uses Title case again. [9][10]

Capitalization is also inconsistent across the media reporting about him, with about 2/3rds using "Stonetoss" and 1/3rd using "StoneToss". StoneToss/Stonetoss himself them interchangeably about half the time.

Should this page be titled "StoneToss" or should be renamed "Stonetoss"? Which is more correct? GranCavallo (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I lean "StoneToss" because that's used for the webcomic website. —Alalch E. 16:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Page history clear request

FYI

 – ShownDownl was blocked for abusive use of multiple accounts (list), which were advocating both for and against including a real name in the article

Hello. As the article meets the criteria of WP: LIBEL, falsely identifying the accused individual (without proof) of being Stonetoss and a neo-Nazi, may an administrator wipe the page history so that that it is not shown?

I have been trying to reach info-en-q@wikipedia.org for this situation but not sure how long responses typically take. I'm requesting that this article is locked and wiped until the discussion is concluded.

Thank you! :) ShownDownl (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

... until the discussion is concluded: What discussion specifically? —Alalch E. 15:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My email about the libelous nature of the article. I'm requesting that the article is not published until the matter is concluded.

Hope that clears up everything. ShownDownl (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your position, but I disagree. You can not enforce that the content stay blanked while something that you believe is going on is going on. Wikipedia has its own, internal, autochthonous, decision-making processes. If you want to nominate this article for deletion, you may pursue the WP:AfD venue. From where I stand, this is appropriate encyclopedic content. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The citation gives out the name of a falsely accused individual. This is WP: LIBEL and needs to be discussed before the page is created. This is doxxing, a form of stalking, at best. Surely you can wait for 24 hours? ShownDownl (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, can't stop knowledge. —Alalch E. 16:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing that the article should falsely accuse someone of something they didn't do. Wait until the matter is resolved through info-en-q@wikipedia.org. ShownDownl (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Not gonna. The article covers a topic of encyclopedic interest per the available sourcing. —Alalch E. 16:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The only individual in thebarticle that describes StoneToss as a neo-Nazi is Alejandra Caraballo. That certainly seems problematic to say the least. As currently written, the page essentially acts as WP: LIBEL against an individual that some think is StoneToss, and most of the claims against StoneToss are based off of other accounts that they think is him.

Do you see the problem with this? ShownDownl (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the first few citations:

• Wired calls StoneToss "neo-Nazi" while not deciding on the allegations
• DailyDot (years before the recent doxing controversy) stated he was promoting Holocaust denial, racism, homophobia, sexism and anti-semitism.

In the article, Caraballo is mentioned as having been blocked for disclosing the alleged identity of StoneToss, but she is not used as the source for the claim that StoneToss is a neo-Nazi. And, crucially, the latter does not depend on whether StoneToss's private identity is the individual in question. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The newest source and the most detailed one, the Wired article from today, describes the author simply as a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". It was written by a reasonably seasoned journalist David Gilbert who had written on this topic before and is familiar with the topic, and can be assumed to have taken a responsible approach to the topic. His article was checked by Wire's editor, and Wire is a solid publication for which there is a consensus on Wikipedia that it is a reliable source for areas in its expertise, and internet topics are its expertise. Our article then goes on to describe how exactly StoneToss is a neo-Nazi cartoon, basing itself on various other, rather serious, sources that explain that it is a crypto-Nazi cartoon (which also means: neo-Nazi cartoon, presented in a way that attempts to obfuscate its nature), that the author "pulls from neo-Nazi views and makes them more palatable for a broader audience", and that the content is of an "extreme rightwing" orientation, and "extreme rightwing" is cognate with neo-Nazi. The comic is a series of neo-Nazi cartoons and its author is a neo-Nazi, according to the sources. —Alalch E. 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and good day. There are no procedure to "remove an article" through that email. The correct procedure is taking it through WP:AFD. However, if the article contained errors you can change it by yourself. Can you point out which part of the article is erroneous? Please provide references to your statements. Thank you and have a wonderful day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I understand your concerns, whether you are the person mentioned or someone else worried about their privacy. It is indeed better for this to be discussed (and I invite you, if you wish, to send the article to AfD to discuss it). However, it is best to keep in mind that:

• The article doesn't directly mention the name of the alleged person, although publicly-accessible sources mentioning it are cited
• The article also doesn't claim that StoneToss is this person, only that others have alleged it, without stating on the veracity of these allegations
• The allegations have been published in reliable sources — which Wikipedia only reports on
• Given the public nature of such allegations, it is better to discuss them in public (for instance, on this talk page or at an AfD discussion)

I invite you to look at Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE for more information on how to deal with these issues, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects if you are the person mentioned. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

how is it "falsely identifying" when the man himself has proudly admitted multiple times to being one 199.119.233.232 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't question the sock's ways, for they are mysterious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

When has StoneToss "proudly admitted multiple times to being" a Neo-Nazi? From what I've seen, he's always denied it. GranCavallo (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @GranCavallo It says on his about page that he reject any belief in fascism or supremacy of any kind. trainrobber >be me 17:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Provide evidence please and also note that self-ascription doesn't always carry any weight. WP:RS carry weight. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone using "he doesn't call himself a nazi and so..." as an argument should read this book: Anti-Semite and Jew Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

He may have comics relating to holocaust denial and anti semitism, but if he labels himself as anti fascist on his site, what do we label him as? trainrobber >be me 15:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources call him. And, especially for far-right figures like him, they should not be treated as reliable for describing their political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the deletion discussion [11], the sources that mention the subject's refutation of the Nazi claim include sources already cited in this article. Shall we assume worse faith than the referenced material does? Obviously not. GoggleGoose (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

this was, of course, what I was getting at with the reference to Anti-Semite and Jew. Specifically the part about how Anti-Semites, as adherents to an ideology situated around hate, operate in bad faith. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course neo-Nazis will always try and cloak themselves in a veneer of respectability. TarnishedPath^talk 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@GoggleGoose: The thing is, sources reporting the subject's refutation isn't "good faith" or "bad faith", as reporting that someone says something is different from taking them to their word. Indeed, some of the sources do call him a neo-Nazi and point out that he denies that label. So the sources aren't taking him to his word, and neither should we, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The topic, WP:ABOUTSELF, primarily concerns sources that are self-published - and still permits use of such sources in listed item #5 if "The article is not based primarily on such sources".

In this case, the cited material contains the refutation as one element of a greater article, published by third parties.

In other words, WP:ABOUTSELF does not preclude its mention. Given WP:NPOV issies with prior deletion nominations of this article, if cited material can reference the artist's defense, then so can this article. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, of course the artist's denial should be added in the article as a claim. But that doesn't mean we should take him at his word and present his defense as objectively true. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Point #1 of WP:ABOUTSELF would rule out using any claims made by StoneToss about them not being a neo-Nazi. "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". The claim by StoneToss that they are not a neo-Nazi is obviously unduly self-serving given the amount of WP:RS that disagree with him on the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 21:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

FYI

 – Roadtruck was blocked as a sock of ShownDownl (SPI)

@Roadtruck: Results of the investigation of the activists have not been fully backed up by a reliable source repeating them in an unqualified way.—Alalch E. 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wired is a mainstream, reputable news agency. What more are we exactly asking for here? Roadtruck (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We're looking for more independent sources. While Wired is allowed as reliable source on wikipedia, some of the material on both this article and on the wired article can be seen as bias and not impartial trainrobber >be me 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the article shows bias. This is an objectively written article created from routine journalistic labor. —Alalch E. 21:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wired doesn't include the information from the outing as a reporting of fact but as a reporting of an allegation. It could have been The Financial Times, BBC and Die Zeit and the same logic would apply. The burden is on you to show that Wired states the name as a statement of fact. —Alalch E. 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like Roadtruck was blocked as a sock of ShownDownl. 3df (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Roadtruck was blocked as a sockpuppet. For the record, WIRED still uses "alleged identity" and does not claim to have independently verified it. Nobody should be adding the name at this point. Per WP:BLPNAME, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Benchmarkingsalad was also a sock

Doug Weller talk 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a fair few of them around. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Civil Discussion

I am casually observing that after a deletion discussion was started (here [12]), a good faith edit to the page was made referencing the discussion by @GranCavallo (here [13]), but was quickly reverted by @Simonm223 in favor of more contentious language (here [14])

I think we should be more careful in a WP:BLP article. GoggleGoose (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced and, frankly, is accurate. I'm aware he's said otherwise but... please don't make me break out the Sartre quote from Antisemite and Jew again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the point of the deletion discussion. GoggleGoose (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing good faith about GranCavallo's edits and I can supply evidence if you want to argue the point. TarnishedPath^talk 12:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

as linked in my comment, you can literally see him reference the deletion discussion when applying his edit GoggleGoose (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Doxxers/Doxxing?

I believe this sort of language is loaded and should not be used in the article. Can we please get a discussion going on this if there is disagreement remember that this is a WP:BLP and that those policies apply not just to StoneToss but to those who allegedly revealed his identity. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The Evening Standard article is citogenetic

FYI: The following source: Davies, Rachael (21 March 2024). "Who is Stonetoss? X is suspending people for identifying right-wing cartoonist". Evening Standard. Retrieved 22 March 2024. closely paraphrases this Wikipedia article. See WP:CITOGENESIS. The content is okay in terms of statements made as they trace back to valid references in our article, but we should avoid a perception that we reinforce our content using sources that plagiarize the same content. —Alalch E. 12:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, they're definitely paraphrasing the start of the article. Shouldn't be included as a source at all, in this case. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They also copied the quotes from our article (search for "[who]") and obviously didn't (I mean of course they didn't, who would expect that of the Evening Standard) look at our source material. —Alalch E. 12:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be proven before jumping to such conclusions. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they linked to the citation right before (in our article) the one actually giving that citation makes it pretty obvious. In any case, we're not looking for an "absolute proof" standard, a source that is in doubt can and should be removed as precaution. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a judgement call. —Alalch E. 12:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing. No great loss. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They literally managed to copy-paste the wrong citation! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "AI" is involved. —Alalch E. 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

NFT coverage

Thread retitled from "Garbage".

StoneToss sold non-fungible tokens (NFTs) through OpenSea and another marketplace for a while, before they were delisted, Gizmodo wrote in 2022, reporting on trends in online extremism. (Gizmodo cited a cryptocurrency portal's interview of StoneToss; in the interview he claimed to have made $2 million.) In an article published on the for-profit digital art website Outland, a critic described the assets (named "Flurks") as "a series of cartoons flashing the "OK" symbol—an [if you know, you know] gesture used of internet neo-Nazis—and accessorized with MAGA hats and Confederate flags".

References

This is the best I could come up with trying to develop the crypto angle. It's bad so I won't put it in the article. Maybe someone else can do better. —Alalch E. 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

interesting talk title /s trainrobber >be me 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Genre

User:Elspea756 seems intent on listing the genres of the comic as "Neo-Nazi" and "racist", despite the fact that these are not genres. It seems obvious to me that the actual genre of the comic is political cartoon. Can we get some other opinions to form a consensus?

for the record, I’m aware that sources describe the comic as espousing Nazi and racist views, but that’s not the same as racist being a genre. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the genres should be webcomic and political cartoon, but yeah genre and ideology are not the same thing. The ideology/political leaning should be mentioned, definitely, but not in that specific line of the infobox. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The source I've cited is Wired, which describes the cartoonist as "Neo- Nazi" in the headline and on first reference, and then as "racist, homophobic, and antisemitic" in the fourth sentence. The source does not use the word "political" or "politics" ever. For encyclopedia writing, we should not be interested in what wikipedia editors "say the genres should be" or what wikipedia editors say "seems obvious to me that the actual genre" is, and more interested in what our best reliable sources say. Elspea756 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Elspea756: There is a very clear difference between being described as "racist, homophobic, and antisemitic" and saying that the genre is racist or neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazi and racist are not genres of media, they are adjectives that describe the views espoused by the media. It would be absolutely better to simply not mention a genre at all than to use made-up genres that don't exist. Furthermore, there's at least one source that does use the phrase political cartoon. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The expressed personal point of view that wikipedia infobox genres should not "describe the views espoused by the media" is not supported by sources and is not supported by wikipedia consensus. You can see this wikipedia consensus for infobox genres across many articles, for example Johnny Rebel (singer) is listed as "white power music, "Atlas Shrugged is "Libertarian science fiction," Herland (novel) is "feminist science fiction," Love Finds You in Sugarcreek, Ohio (novel) is "Amish Romance," and on and on. It is very clear from reliable sources and wikipedia consensus that genres are very often defined by the "views espoused by the media". Even the single blog source that you've linked to repeatedly "describes the views espoused by the media" when describing the genre of this comic strip, using "Nazi cartoonist" in the headline, "far-right political cartoonist," in the lead, and later "racist, homophobic and antisemitic ... holocaust denial." I will note that Holocaust denial is typically described by reliable sources as an antisemitic conspiracy theory, not a "political" position as we currently have it listed in this infobox. So, as a compromise, I am going to add "far right" to this infobox, since "far-right political cartoonist" is one of the genre descriptions in the source you are using, and is a more accurate description of Holocaust denial. Hopefully Di can agree to this compromise since it is one of the genres listed in the single source they seem to prefer. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Got any sources for what "seems obvious"? TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Yes, actually, this source describes StoneToss as a "far-right political cartoonist". Di (they-them) (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Di (they-them) it's not a perfect source but it's better than nothing. We go with the sources. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

crypto-Nazi

@Alalch E., I did a ctrl-F on the article prior to removing that material and the paragraph in question reads:

"One other notion that can be explored from this and similar datasets is how meme environments intersect and interact with other movements or events. Firstly, Rittenhouse has represented an important figure for different, often-disparate movements to coalesce and find common ground. Secondly, later Rittenhouse content appears to draw connection to other news events, such as Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the flag or the lethal shooting of pro-BLM demonstrator Garrett Foster in Austin,fc Texas. One of the alleged plotters of the Michigan case also shared on his personal Facebook page a Rittenhouse meme about killing “commies,” adding his own commentary with the caption “savage.” These events allow for the creation of channels of relation between an event, the meme- making or meme-consuming community, and another similar event or related political happening, which still merits further exploration. As described earlier, a multitude of movements coalesced in these meme environments. These include allusions to the “Boogaloo” modality, “patriot” militia references, comic characters from a crypto-Nazi cartoonist, connections to Back the Blue/Thin Blue Line adherents, and even some references to a well-known college campus conservative activist group"

I'd love the keep the content myself, however the source doesn't allow it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh there were two sources involved, the initial report by the Stall et al., and then they repackaged that later as an article, which was peer reviewed. But when they did that, they did actually omit "Stonetoss" (while clearly still referring to him), and this is something I didn't notice when I read that source. Nevertheless, the initial report is fine, and does include "Stonetoss" (the quote is in the article now). —Alalch E. 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is from the report: "Other such “crossover” events include a meme complaining about the NFL kneeling controversy regarding Colin Kaepernick, a few allusions to the “Boogaloo” modality, an encroachment of “patriot” militia references, use of comic characters from the crypto-Nazi cartoonist Stonetoss, multiple connections to Back the Blue/Thin Blue Line adherents, and even some allusions to college campus-bound conservative activist group Turning Point USA."
• This is from the peer reviewed article: "As described earlier, a multitude of movements coalesced in these meme environments. These include allusions to the “Boogaloo” modality, “patriot” militia references, comic characters from a crypto-Nazi cartoonist Stonetoss, connections to Back the Blue/Thin Blue Line adherents, and even some references to a well-known college campus conservative activist group Turning Point USA"
• This is not a defense of including the latter source in the article, but an explanation how I saw "Stonetoss" in there, when in reality that sentence doesn't include that name, as both "Turning Point USA" and "Stonetoss" are intentionally omitted from the text. The reason for leaving the explicit mentions out, however, is purely stylistic.—Alalch E. 12:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Subject formulation: webcomic or cartoonist

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Red Panels

RedPanels

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

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)

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)

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

Problem with Neutral Point of view and WP:BATTLE issues

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[15][16] 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 [17], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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 [[18]] 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 [[19]] -- 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• This source makes reference to him engaging in holocaust denialism [20]
• This article explicitly calls him a "literal neo-nazi" [21]
• This article calls him a neo-nazi [22]
• This article says he's been "accused of having nazi sympathies" [23]
• 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. [24]
• This article mentions Stonetoss' popularity with nazis. [25] Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  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 [26][27][28]
  • 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

Previous versions of this page made reference to sources that cast doubt on the label of "nazi" to describe the artist. See this [29], in reference to the artist's NFT sale. Also per @CommunityNotesContributor request for sources. GoggleGoose (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Summoning @Elspea756 here to explain reverting actions [30]. Also @Alalch E. as per Do not reinstate unreliable sources: WP:UGC [31] What unreliable sources? If so remove them, no need revert a revert a revert here surely? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I sub-headed this as part of a "start again" scheme [32], 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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

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)

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)

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

RfC: first sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The first sentence of the lead currently (permanent link) reads:

StoneToss is a pseudonymous American neo-Nazi cartoonist who publishes a political cartoon series in the form of an eponymous webcomic.

Should "neo-Nazi" be omitted from the sentence? —Alalch E. 01:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Weak Yes (for now). As per previous reasoning of MOS:OPENPARABIO (that inherently covers MOS:FIRST):

  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.

  I'm yet to see other RS provided other than Advocate and Techdirt that remain questionable. Please bare in mind, this has nothing to do with whether StoneToss is referenced by RS as a neo-Nazi, this is about the opening paragraph and whether it's widely referenced by RS. Is it? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sufficiently widely relative to the breadth of sourcing available and relative to the weight of each source in terms of how reliable it is considered to be. —Alalch E. 01:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's two high quality sources, Wired and WaPo, out of 19 used in the article. Is this consider enough for the open? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the list of sources below, have removed any support for this. There are 3 WP:GREL and 3 WP:MREL referencing StoneToss as such. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. This individual is notable due to being a neo-Nazi, attracting scholars and researchers to comment on their cartoons which propagate such ideas. Per MOS:LEAD, the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences, and while "Neo-Nazi" is a contentious label, it is used widely in sources to the extent that is a quantity of reliable sources on this topic is available. Most of the best sources that we have, including The Washington Post and Wired describe the individual very explicitly as a neo-Nazi. An additional description found in an expert-written source is "crypto-Nazi cartoonist"[33], and this also means neo-Nazi cartoonist, one who presents his ideas in a way that attempts to obfuscate their nature (the source continues to say that he "pulls from neo-Nazi views and makes them more palatable for a broader audience").—Alalch E. 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please bare in mind, this isn't about MOS:LEAD, it's about MOS:OPENPARABIO. To establish notability and explain why the person is notable is a strong argument here, but does it reflect the balance of reliable sources? If you want to simply include this in the LEAD, that's a different RfC to open. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• No per Alalch E.. The subject's neo-Nazi/far right (whichever term we decide to use, both are used in the available reliable sources) views are integral to the subject's notability and should be included per WP:OPENPARABIO (points 3, 4, and/or 5, depending on how you interpret them). Failing to include one of these labels in the lead would, in my opinion, be intellectually dishonest - it would obfuscate the reason for which the subject is notable. Ethmostigmus (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per MOS:FIRSTBIO, "The first sentence should usually state ... 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". The main reason the person is notable is because they are a neo-Nazi cartoonist. It is clear that source after source used in this article refers to the subject as a neo-Nazi in article voice. To deny that fact is to scream at the moon. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. This is part of the main reason this person could be considered notable. They are not covered by reliable sources because of any of the other parts of the lead sentence; they are not covered because they are American, or just another cartoonist, or that their cartoon is self-titled, or because they publish it as webcomic. Reliable sources -- we can clearly see this from their headlines -- find this noteworthy because of the Neo-Nazi, antisemitic, Holocaust denial comics. Wired's headline is "Neo-Nazi Cartoonist", Boing Boing's headline is "Nazi cartoonist," NBC News' headline is "antisemitic cartoonist", etc. If anything, the current lead sentence under represents these descriptions. An improvement might be to trim the current lead sentence and combine it with the second sentence: "StoneToss is a pseudonymous American neo-Nazi cartoonist whose eponymous webcomic espouses far-right, racist, homophobic and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial. Elspea756 (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. Obviously very strong coverage is required for this... but it does seem to exist; virtually all recent sources refer to them that way. Based on the coverage, their status as a neo-nazi is a major part of their notability. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No being a Nazi is the root of his notability. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No several reliable sources refer to StoneToss as a Neo-Nazi directly, other reliable sources indicate his popularity with nazis. His expressed political opinions (specifically antisemitism, homophobia, exterminism regarding LGBTQ+ people, misogyny and anti-communism) correlate with Nazi politics. His notability is inextricably tied to him being a Nazi cartoonist pretty specifically. I know we should follow WP:RS when it comes to BLPs but when reviewing reliable sources yesterday they mostly either indicate he's a Nazi or that he's associated with Nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Have yet to see a reference to why this should remain based on MOS:LABEL, that is a basic requirement based on use of this term. Without intending to sound rude, could someone at least entertain the idea? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Can someone show what RS say? We need to make decisions based on policy (WP:BLP and WP:DUE) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, several people have enumerated on why such a label is highly relevant, and almost all of the references within the article use the terms neo-Nazi, far right, or extremist to describe the subject. This is clearly not a controversial or contentious application of these labels. MOS:LABEL refers to the use of potentially contentious labels when those labels are purely opinion based, not largely supported by reliable sources, or otherwise not what the subject is known for. This is clearly not the case here. As an example, it would be ridiculous to remove labels like neo-Nazi from the lead for Stormfront (website), given that the neo-Nazi nature of Stormfront is clearly central to any discussion about it and that this is largely what the site is known for. Similarly, StoneToss is known pretty much exclusively for being a neo-Nazi (/far right/extremist) webcomic - were it not for the antisemitic, far right etc content, StoneToss would almost certainly not be notable. Ethmostigmus (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Using the same group of sources used above in another RfC here's how the sources label StoneToss:

Organization	Label	Link	WP:RSP
DailyDot	Author of far-right comic	[34]	Additional Considerations
Advocate	alleged neo-Nazi	[35]	N/A
Wired	Neo-Nazi Cartoonist	[36]	Generally Reliable
MSN	neo-Nazi cartoonist	[37]	N/A
Boing Boing	Nazi cartoonist	[38]	Additional Considerations
NBC	"antisemitic cartoonist" in article voice. "neo nazi” attributed to Alejandra Caraballo - clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic	[39]	Generally Reliable
LGBTQ Nation	alt-right cartoonist	[40]	N/A
Ars Technica	neo-Nazi cartoonist	[41]	Generally Reliable
Mashable	"far-right webcomic creator" in article voice. "neo nazi cartoonist" attributed	[42]	Additional Considerations
The Washington Post	neo-Nazi comic artist	[43]	Generally Reliable
Yahoo News/Evening Standard	crypto-Nazi cartoonist, neo-Nazi views, attributed to Global Network on Extremism and Technology	[44]	Additional Considerations

• TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  That MSN article is re-hosted from a website called TrendyDigests.[45]

  I've never heard of this website before, so I can't attest to it's reliability. GranCavallo (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You not hearing of it does not make it unreliable and MSN is reliable per WP:RSP. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  TarnishedPath - The MSN article (Trendy Digests) is part of Microsoft Start. And I can't find MSN or Microsoft Start or Microsoft Network at WP:RSP, can you please provide the link at RSP showing they are reliable. Thanks. And a search of WP shows zero results for Trendy Digest or trendydigests.com being used as a source, and I'm not seeing any discussion at WP:RSN pertaining to their reliability, and per your link below - Trendy Digests , LLC was registered at 3/25/2023, barely making them a year old, so caution should probably be advised since they really are an unknown entity. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway, you are quite correct that MSN, Microsoft Start or Microsoft Network can't be found at WP:RSP. I took @EvergreenFir's table in the RfC above and changed things around to suit this RfC. Perhaps they can advise how they arrived at the conclusion that MSN was WP:GREL according to RSP. I'll adjust this analysis if needs be. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking, my vision isn't quite what it used to be, and a second set of eyes is appreciated. The reason for my query is because Microsoft Start is a news aggregator, and they often post stories from sources we consider generally unreliable or cautioned ie - Fox News, Newsweek, Metro UK, Raw Story, Daily Mail, New York Post, and to be fair, they also post stories from generally reliable sources. So since they are just a news aggregator, we should consider the original source it came from, and not list MSN as generally reliable. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway, I'll change the listing to N/A. I can't see any reason that the source is unreliable. However it's not been discussed at RS/N so there is no consensus on it. TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for changing it to N/A. My concern with Trendy Digests is that since it has not been vetted, and neo-Nazi is covered by MOS:LABEL as being contentious, I think we should stick to established sources that we know are reliable, which in my view obviously do exist for the label, so there is no need to use Trendy. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ps, my eyes aren't that fantastic either after I've been staring at a computer screen all day for work but ctrl-f doesn't tell no lies. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @GranCavallo for reference Trendy Digests has an editorial team and editorial guidelines. This suggests it is a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Advocate is a publication of Out Magazine which is one of the most established LGBTQ periodicals around. So I would certainly assert its reliability in this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've had the discussion many times with other editors that something not being on WP:RSP is not an indication of its reliability. It might simply mean that no one has never thought to question it at WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that I think "a political cartoon series in the form of an eponymous webcomic." is an awkward way to phrase this. GranCavallo (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Out of an abundance of caution I reviewed the descriptions of StoneToss in all of the citations currently in the article. 8 of 19 call him a nazi, neo-Nazi or crypto-Nazi in article voice. Five call him far or extreme right in article voice. Three call him an alleged or accused fascist or nazi. Three don't specify a political ideology for him but state that his comics contain holocaust denialism or antisemitism. So the plurality of sources, in the article as it stands, refer to this guy as a nazi of some sort with the most common descriptor being neo-Nazi. My own source review outside of Wikipedia shows that this holds true. The neutral descriptor of StoneToss, per reliable sources is neo-Nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

@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)

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)

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)

"Right-wing" is not a euphemism for "white supremacist"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shame of wikipedia

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"StoneToss is a pseudonymous American neo-Nazi political cartoonist " This is baloney. People can troll wikipedia users with screenshot of first paragraph. I definitely will. 95.26.219.167 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) For once I agree with this user. Can the article at least make it neutral? trainrobber >be me 09:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC) We literally had an RFC about this closed four days ago. Consensus hasn't changed just because an IP threatened to be disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) We follow reliable sources here. Your threats at trolling doesn't change that. TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

On the Neo-Nazi Label

WP:SOCKSTRIKE—Alalch E. 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know that this has been discussed before, but I wanted to discuss it again. First off, let me say that I am most definitely not on StoneToss's side. Yes, the guy is a racist, a bigot, an anti-Semite, a homophobe, and everything else that this article says he is. But he is not a neo-Nazi. Below is a quote from StoneToss's own website: My beliefs are pro-speech, anti-war, anti-authoritarian, and pro-equality for our institutions. As such, I totally reject any belief in fascism or supremacy of any kind. Why would any neo-Nazi write that? I am not going to lie: I honestly think that the neo-Nazi label was almost certainly added by someone who fancies themselves an Antifa warrior. But Wikipedia is simply not the place for that. Our job is to be as neutral as possible, even when talking about very unpleasant people whose beliefs we despise.—AuroraGlimmer (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Stonetoss has been described as a nao-Nazi by multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia tries to steer clear of such labels when there's any ambiguity because it could be considered defamatory, but in this case there isn't any debate. Stonetoss is 100% a Nazi. As for why he wouldn't describe himself as one, it's simple: he's trying to spread his views through memes and cute comics, and "Nazi" is a controversial label that would undoubtedly turn away much of his potential audience. By claiming plausible deniability, he can spread his views while claiming to be an ordinary person. See the page Dog whistle (politics) for more info on this kind of thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC) You're talking about the Wired, The Washington Post, Global Network on Extremism and Technology, and European Center for Populism Studies ones, right? While those may pass the WP:RS test, it can very easily be argued that all four of them are certainly biased and opinionated, especially the last two. As such, their description of StoneToss as being a neo-Nazi has to be taken with a grain of salt, as one could easily find sources describing pretty much anyone on the far-right as a neo-Nazi. The Washington Post and other publications that are considered WP:RS have also run articles claiming that Donald Trump is a fascist and, even if one might personally think that he is (and I do personally think that he is), that still isn't a label that we could place on him in the article about him because it is not a statement of fact and Trump would very much dispute it, just like StoneToss would very much dispute being labeled a neo-Nazi.—AuroraGlimmer (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Sorry his website is not a reliable source. We had a RfC not long ago on this at Special:PermanentLink/1216015718#RfC:_first_sentence and a review of reliable sources demonstrated that he was referred to as a neo-Nazi in them in the articles' voice in a number of instances. TarnishedPathtalk 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC) The neo-Nazi label was not added "by someone who fancies themselves an Antifa warrior", it was added because it reflects how StoneToss is described in reliable sources, per the RfC linked by TarnishedPath. The fact that StoneToss denies being a neo-Nazi is irrelevant - after being banned from several sites for his neo-Nazi views it is clearly in his interest to publicly dispute such a label. He is clearly not a reliable source, and the majority of the reliable sources we do have variously describe him as a neo/crypto-Nazi. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and most reliable sources refer to it as a duck, it's a duck. Ethmostigmus (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Lol, nevermind, the user who created this thread was blocked for sockpuppetry. Ethmostigmus (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Why does that not surprise me? TarnishedPathtalk 08:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is Red Panels mentioned in the infobox?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Concur with EthmostigmusSimonm223 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Citation for "irony"

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

Is it okay to add more images to this article, like StoneToss's profile picture?

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)

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)

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

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)

Two infoboxes?

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Doxing

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)

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)