Talk:StoneToss

Rewritten Infobox

New infobox maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Exclusion of StoneToss's website from the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to include a link. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, StoneToss's objectionable content is not a valid reason to exclude a link to his webcomic. This does not mean that we must include a link, and some editors questioned the benefit of including a link to a webcomic for an article that they considered to be primarily about a person, but other editors consider the article to be about the webcomic too, and others opined that the webcomic is analogous to a personal website and that including a link to it would be useful, standard practice. Ultimately, this is mainly an editorial decision, and those favoring inclusion prevailed over those favoring exclusion by about 2:1. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Should StoneToss's website be excluded from the article? TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Traditionally we only exclude websites for hosting illegal content, not objectionable or offensive content. We regularly link to websites for other far-right or neo-Nazi groups, for example Patriotic Alternative, or Ben Garrison, or Proud Boys. The arguments presented earlier in the article seem to stem from a desire to starve StoneToss of additional traffic. This is not neutral editing and amounts to righting great wrongs. For us to make an exception in this case a compelling argument would need to be made, but so far it seems to just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We don't need to like or endorse StoneToss to include his website; we should be stoic in such decision-making. — Czello ^(music) 10:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Some of StoneToss's material likely does violate hate speech laws in Canada at least. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  That'd need to be significantly demonstrated. As far as I'm aware, his website is not blocked in Canada. I think removing it on a global website because of one country's laws isn't the done thing, either. — Czello ^(music) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to have an infobox at all. It is an active, deliberate, non-neutral choice to give this purveyor of hate speech a courtesy link. Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, this isn't just an RfC about a infobox. This is an RfC about having the website anywhere in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Per TarnishedPath, I'm taking this discussion to mean anywhere in the article, not just infobox. — Czello ^(music) 11:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just a bit of confusion because it started about the infobox but then my latest edit was a removal of you adding the website to an external links section. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, I assumed that the removal of the external links section was for the same reasoning as the infobox. I personally would prefer a link in both, but there is a broader question about whether there should be a link at all. — Czello ^(music) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well this RfC covers that question of whether there should be a link at all. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think we're on the same page where the scope of the RfC is concerned, as it is asking the more fundamental question. — Czello ^(music) 11:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia should not be providing clicks to hate speech. This is a perfect time to WP:IAR in order to avoid materially helping white supremacism.Simonm223 (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a WP:RGW argument. It's not for us as editors to make this decision, as it's biased editing. It's for us to present an encyclopedic page without emotion or intent. — Czello ^(music) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Czello, I fail to see the WP:RGW argument. Exactly what wrong do you propose is being righted be the current exclusion of the website? If you haven't noticed the edit history of the talk page there have been heaps of SPA's come here previously in order to attempt to RGW and I'm getting numerous pings on a daily basis when they vandalise other editors user talk with whatever messages they're tyring to send me in their battles to RGW, but I don't see how exclusion of the website on this article is RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The arguments appear to be not providing links to hate speech – that's righting a great wrong. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  As an editor who has had to put up with these gnattish trolls for the last week I do have a "keeping the website usable for me" motivation here. I don't like notifications full of half-literate insults and impotent threats. However I do actually think that Wikipedia should draw a political line at not actively helping white supremacists which linking to their websites does. I don't believe it is non-neutral to decline to help them. In fact I do sincerely contend it is non-neutral to include links to white supremacist websites. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is not non-neutral to include links to said websites – we, in fact, do it very regularly (I've linked examples elsewhere and would be happy to provide more examples). Doing something different from what would be in any other article based on their political views is the very definition of editing in a non-neutral manner. — Czello ^(music) 14:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCONTENT in not an argument. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Precedence is, though, particularly if we want to deviate from it for spurious reasons. — Czello ^(music) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no MOS on this. An MOS would be what is classified as precedence. Local consensus occurring on WP:OTHERCONTENT is not precedence, it's merely other things. An argument from the customs and habits of others is never a good argument unless you are in the company of those others. Again the arguments presented by others for non-inclusion are not spurious. Me and others have stated a number of times that there is no convincing editorial reason for inclusion and that there is no requirement to include the link. Those are sufficient reasons for exclusion in the absence of alternative persuasive argument for inclusion. I'm yet to see an actual persuasive argument for inclusion. All I'm seeing from editors in favour of inclusion is railing against perceived non-neutrality of other editors or perceived censorship. That would be what you have termed "spurious reasons". TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do not see a convincing editorial reason for exclusion, however. This wouldn't be an issue normally – so why is it in this instance? If your argument boils down to "we don't have to include it", well great – but why argue so firmly against it? — Czello ^(music) 11:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing firmly for it. If you choose not to incorrectly represent the positions of others as spurious frankly there wouldn't be a lot to discuss. Why are you so firmly for it beyond your perceptions of non-neutrality in some editors or stuff elsewhere? TarnishedPath^talk 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  You've replied to almost every one of my comments (including outside of this page). That seems pretty firm to me. But again, you haven't answered the question. Why does the inclusion of a link vex you so much? — Czello ^(music) 12:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I just happened on the NPOV/N thread because that page is on my watchlist and I was looking for something else. In any case I really don't see the point in continuing this as neither of us is going to convince the other and I don't want to BLUDGEON the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the desire to avoid bludgeoning, as I removed one of my own comments for that reason – but I have to highlight that you're choosing not to comment as soon as I ask why the link would bother you. The primary case you've put forward is that the link isn't mandatory, but no reason why we should actively exclude it. I can only conclude that it is, indeed, for non-neutral reasons; as is the case with some others who admitted wanting to deprive StoneToss of traffic. — Czello ^(music) 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have given you precisely why the link bothers me personally elsewhere along with a rationale why I've been reticent to discuss those personal implications in this space. Beyond that it remains the case that a positive argument is required for inclusion. There is no policy in Wikipedia that says that inclusionism is always more neutral than exclusionism and, as I've said before, the inclusion of a URL to a webpage designed to give a neo-nazi money for being a neo-nazi is not, in fact, a neutral editorial decision on its face. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again there is no requirement to include a link to hate speech on this page. The decision to include it is not a dispassionate inevitability. It is a choice. Simonm223 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Then what is the argument for not including it? — Czello ^(music) 11:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• No we are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I see no convincing editorial reason for its inclusion. If readers have a desire to find their way there I'm sure they have the faculties to discover its location just as they would have discovered this article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as WP:ELOFFICIAL has no actual requirement that the official website be included, and only says that it can be. In this case, there is no editorial reason for its inclusion, and WP:NOTCENSORED is only an argument to not remove what would otherwise be added — it is not by itself a reason to add links. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  To make the explanation clearer: as I argued below, the lack of editorial reason is due to the article being about StoneToss the person, not the webcomic of the same name. It is standard practice to feature links to an artist's official website, even one that happens to feature some of their work, as it is still primarily a source of information about the person. But linking a specific project's website does not have such editorial value, and is closer to advertising in nature, although the line can sometimes be thin. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes not much to add that hasn't already been said, and I emphasise that we aren't required to add it nor would it be a burden on the reader to find it. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTCENSORED and I see no reason for Wikipedia to become part of the cancel culture. Including the web address of a web comic is a sensible and standard thing to do. NadVolum (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• No because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I also think it's ridiculous to think that omitting the link will somehow deprive StoneToss of clicks considering his website is easily found through a Google search. Probably 99% of people who read this article will have found the article through a search engine where they would have already seen the link. GranCavallo (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again, WP:NOTCENSORED itself is not an argument to add anything. It just says that we shouldn't remove material just because some find it offensive, but it doesn't mean that such material imperatively has to be added. In this case, the website is not a necessity, as most of the article is about StoneToss the (pseudonymous) person rather than the webcomic. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is comprehensive. That means all relevant information should be included, even if the information is contentious. Since this article is about a comic published on the internet, a link to said comic is relevant information that should be included. GranCavallo (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  At its core, the issue is that this is an article about StoneToss the author, disguised as an article about StoneToss the webcomic. It would make sense for the latter to include the link to the webcomic as the official link to the primary topic, but, as the article is clearly focused on the former, it wouldn't be more relevant than adding a link to his NFT collection or (allegedly) to RedPanels. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see this article as being about both the artist and the webcomic. They both have the same name, after all. GranCavallo (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  A reading of the article clearly indicates that it is primarily about the artist. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The two are effectively one and the same – the only reason StoneToss is notable is because of the webcomic. And after all, the article starts with the words StoneToss is a political cartoon series in the form of a webcomic. Given that this is a webcomic, not linking to it for yet-to-be-spoken reasons seems odd. — Czello ^(music) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I gave the reasons in the comment you replied to, you don't have to say they're "yet-to-be-spoken" just because you disagree with them. That the article, while starting by StoneToss is a [...] webcomic, de facto focuses mainly on the author. It's a semi-WP:COATRACK article, and, if the topic is the author (which is the notable topic given the recent articles about doxxing), giving a link to one of his works is not as imperative. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  And I addressed those comments (as did GranCavallo) – the two (comic and person) are inexorably linked. The individual is not notable outside of the comic, and the comic is created by only one person. StoneToss's NFT collection isn't notable, and neither even is RedPanels (although, as far as I'm aware, it's still unconfirmed he created RP). The notability of him (and why him being doxxed is notable, should that be what the AfD concludes) is because of the StoneToss comic. I also don't agree that the article is about the individual more than the comic. Most the content is dedicated to comic. — Czello ^(music) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The article for cartoonist Scott Adams includes a link to his website where he currently publishes his Dilbert comic, even though the Scott Adams article is about the cartoonist rather than the cartoon itself. This is also the case for the Ben Garrison article as well. This is precedent for including a link to the StoneToss website, even if the article is considered to be primarily about the author. GranCavallo (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Scott Adams' website contains Dilbert stuff, but it isn't the Dilbert website, it's the Scott Adams website. If someone else took on the Dilbert project, they wouldn't take the site with it, that's the difference. A website for an author that happens to showcase their product vs a website for the product. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  You've been given reasons. They're clearly stated in people's !votes and elsewhere. To claim otherwise is incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 23:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The trouble is, a lot of the reasons aren't valid because of WP:NPOV. Or, other times, people in the "Yes" camp have only said there is no reason to include it. Which is perfectly fine, but not a reason.

  The other issue, raised by Chaotic Enby, is that the article is about the person, not the webcomic, and so this would preclude linking to the comic. But I don't think it makes sense, especially considering there is no separate article for the comic, and the fact that, as we speak, the scope of the article (comic vs. person) is still being discussed.

  In any case, the comic is the person's main claim to WP:GNG. --CVDX (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  In any case, the comic is the person's main claim to WP:GNG. Incorrect, one only needs to look at the fact that the first two AfD (here and here) on this article landed on delete and the third (here) will definitely be a keep to dissuade oneself of that notion. They may be notable as a neo-Nazi cartoonist as consequence of allegedly having their identity revealed but their comic is not notable in and of itself. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. Not giving clicks from Wikipedia? That sounds like a really childish reason to exclude the link. Wikipedia is not meant to have an active role in the career of the subjects of its articles, be it to promote or to sabotage them. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. "I do not like this person" is absolutely not a valid reason to remove a perfectly relevant link. The article is about a damn webcomic for crying out loud--Trade (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• No – there is no policy/guideline that explicitly forbids its exclusion, or that we include it, so basically, the exclusion/inclusion decision, is editorial discretion by consensus. In my view though, excluding it smacks of censorship. And there is also precedent for including external links to offensive content as evidenced by looking at some of the other articles in the same categories this article is listed in. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes and the implication that I or anyone else came to such a conclusion out of a desire to keep readers from accessing relevant information is fucking disgusting. Several people have linked WP:NOTCENSORED even though it says quite literally nothing about the sort of mandatory inclusionism people are trying for here. We don't have to explain to you why it shouldn't be included. (Should I name the Wikipedia editors who obviously cited it without having read it first?) You have to explain why it should be. Of course, none of you are doing so. Every single editor who says that the link should be included is too cowardly to explain why. I, personally, am not scared at all so instead of arguing against inclusion, I'll give the entire argument for it: Wikipedia as a community wants to give attention, traffic, and money to a white supremacist asshole. That right there is it. Nothing else is riding on this. There is no other affirmative reason to include. Since I, like some and unlike others, don't want to give attention, traffic, and money to a white supremacist asshole, in the spirit and letter of NOTCENSORED I oppose inclusion. City of Silver 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a contentious topics area, and you really shouldn't be calling other editors that you disagree with "cowardly" – which can certainly be viewed as a personal attack. That is not the standard of behavior one expects when editing in this area, or any other area for that matter. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I can't speak for others, but I think it should be included as it's entirely relevant to the subject of the article, being their official website. Some of those arguing for exclusion are also doing so for non-neutral reasons, which Wikipedians should oppose. Saying those of us voting no are doing so because we want to give attention, traffic, and money to a white supremacist asshole is an extraordinarily bad faith accusation. — Czello ^(music) 08:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're WP:ABF here about people in this discussion and the Wikipedia community as whole. Saying that we "want to give the guy traffic, attention or money" is a baseless personal attack and has nothing to do with what we are arguing about.

  I can speak only for myself, but my reason for supporting including the link is that from an NPOV/BLP perspective, it's good not to shy away from the actual content of the comic, considering the article has a lot of criticism of the comic and author, so that readers can look at it first-hand.

  I'm also not convinced that either of the sides in this discussion has a greater burden of proof than the other. I don't know of any precedent or policy that states this. In any case I'm also curious as to what reason you could give to remove the link, if it is readded, that wouldn't run afoul of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMPREHENSIVE. CVDX (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Echoing the sentiments shared by TarnishedPath, Chaotic Enby, and Doug Weller. There is no requirement that this article provide a direct link, and citing the fact that other articles link to their subject's websites as a reason for inclusion here is fallacious - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a convincing argument. Including a direct link in this article does not serve any important informative purpose for the reader. Invoking WP:NOTCENSORED in this context seems quite silly to me - "Wikipedia is not censored" refers to the removal of informative content that would alter the character of the article in the interest of pandering to the sensibilities of certain readers, which is clearly not the case here. Ethmostigmus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• No… but - I don’t think we should link to his website in the infobox (I think doing so highlights it and gives it UNDUE weight)… however I think we should provide a link in an "External links” section at the bottom of the page. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes In the absence of consensus, the default is non-inclusion of content. As far as I can tell, those !voting "no" have not come up with any convincing rationales for why including this link helps our encyclopedic mission. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. We don't have to include it, and I don't see much reason that we should—and there are plenty of reasons not to include it, like not linking to hate speech. Woodroar (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. And of course not. As noted by Czello at the top, this reasons for this are obviously non-neutral. Moreover, the presence of the URL is of importance to the topic itself, being a web-comic. This is also in accordance with precedent set by other wiki pages on web-based creations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MiniMayor98 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. As Chaotic Enby notes, WP:ELOFFICIAL does not require us to include a link to the official website of one of our article subjects. I would go so far as to say there are no policies or guidelines requiring us to include a link to the official website of any of our article subjects, where such a link exists. It is entirely a question of consensus, and like any piece of information consensus can form around excluding it where there is no policy or guideline compelling inclusion.
  To the editors citing WP:NOTCENSORED I would echo the points made by others that NOTCENSORED is not an inclusion criteria. All NOTCENSORED tells us that we shouldn't remove content for the sole reason that it is objectionable or offensive. Conversely WP:GRATUITOUS tells us that objectionable or offensive content is not exempt from regular inclusion guidelines. Consensus can always form around the exclusion of offensive content. I'd also point out that a January 2021 RfC at VPP found no consensus for mandating inclusion of official links to sites that are related to extremist groups, including neo-Nazis.
  Per WP:ONUS it is incumbent upon editors seeking to include disputed content to gain a consensus for it. So I would say to the editors seeking to include this link that you need to make a stronger argument for inclusion than deferring to a policy point (NOTCENSORED) that does not mandate inclusion, and is not an absolute (GRATUITOUS, other policies and guidelines that require us to remove content). Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not to be flippant, but the "Yes" camp is the one arguing for removal in the RfC. Editors had previously added it (multiple times), because, I imagine, it's very much assumed that an article dealing mainly with a webcomic would have a link to it.

  Also, I don't think it's WP:GRATUITOUS to provide a link to the main subject of the article. What the policy says is that "offensive" content is not automatically preferred in order to prevent censorship.

  The same policy reads: "[...] editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers".]]

  Of course, we have to see whether consensus forms in either direction. I just wanted to point out that WP:GRATUITOUS doesn't apply here.

  CVDX (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say we have to include it. WP:GRATUITOUS (and WP:NONAZIS, honestly) imply we shouldn't. So we shouldn't. Loki (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just as a point of order, WP:NONAZIS is not actually part of policy or content guidelines; it's just an essay. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also that NONAZIS is about not tolerating Nazi editors or discriminatory editorial practices. It has nothing to do with linking to far-right content, which we do regularly. — Czello ^(music) 12:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• No. The contents of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regard the existence of articles as a whole, not the contents therein. What other articles about controversial, hurtful topics do with official links *is* fully relevant. The contents of the website to be linked in question are fully relevant to the page. Given other far-right articles and their (uncontested) linking practices, it makes sense to provide a link. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCONTENT is the more relevant link here than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The argument that other far-right articles include those links is a textbook example of OTHERCONTENT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  OTHERCONTENT also gives room for valid comparisons, such as Featured, Good, and A-rated articles. So, an example: The Daily Stormer is GA rated, and features an infobox link to a site with similarly objectionable, but not outright WP:ELNEVER content. (I checked to make sure the link was present at time of review, as well).

  It also feels odd to try to cite OTHERCONTENT when it's not just that *other* content exists, but that there is an apparently universal treatment of comparable subjects (with exception for outright forbidden links). Anyway, probably going to move this to discussion if there's anything else to add to the exchange! Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  "there is an apparently universal treatment of comparable subjects" this is not accurate - refer to the RfC linked by Sideswipe9th above, which includes a number of articles on similarly offensive subjects that do not provide direct links. While some articles do provide direct links, it is far from universal, and consensus has not been reached. Ethmostigmus (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I actually went through all the articles linked in that RfC, and the only exceptions to "Subject has a website, article linked a website" so that I saw were nation-state level actors (al-Qaeda, ISIL, full-on countries), who could have a fuzzy definition at best at having a single official website, and Bill Ayers (for some reason).

  On the other side are articles that are actually comparable, and have links. When I say comparable, I mean subjects whose controversial reach is primarily through the website in question: Stormfront; the various linked paedophile groups in that RfC; nearly every other of the couple-dozen-ish websites in the "Antisemitism on the Internet" section of the infobox, such as The Daily Stormer (except for 8chan, a site which clearly violates linking policy, as well as Iron March and Jew Watch, neither of which are operational and therefore have no URL to link).

  A good number of websites linked aren't direct links, granted. I would actually rather see this article use a similar archival website link than a direct link. It would provide the access to relevant information without exposing people to potentially malicious scripting or other dangers of directly accessing such websites. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• No. Seems like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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 and not any encyclopedic reason. As per WP:COMPREHENSIVE, linking to a webcomic in an article whose subject's main claim to notability is said webcomic shouldn't be controversial, it's really basic info. --CVDX (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No per Czello rationale. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• No per Czello rationale and due to the fact it is the subject of the article, obviously no other articles should link to it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per WP:ELYES point 1 (which I'm surprised hasn't come up yet): "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." Seems pretty open-and-shut, to me. The arguments against don't seem to be policy-based aside from IAR (respect the honesty). But I don't see a reason to ignore ELYES here. Linking the site does not advance white supremacy any more than an academic article on the far right citing sources expounding the POV they are arguing against is an endorsement of said views. It is in fact expected as part of academic practice. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  The main argument against linking isn't at all IAR, it is that the website is not an official site for the author, but for his eponymous work. And while that might sound like a technicality at first, it's the difference between linking to an official website that adds encyclopedic information about the subject, and just showcasing their work/product. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is pretty clear that the article is about both the "artist" and the comic he produces as they share the same name. No one is advocating showcasing the work product on the site, but unless there is another thing the artist is known for and the comic also gets its own Wikipedia link, I think to not include the link detract encyclopedic value. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Per CE, this is a BLP and the website is not the subject's official site. The website is the hosting site for their work. Therefor per the arguments of myself and others there needs to be shown a sufficient enough argument for inclusion, otherwise I see no editorial reason for inclusion nor is there a requirement to include. TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Does the subject have a separate site? This is both a BLP and an article about the comic. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  This article is predominantly about StoneToss the subject because that is where the notability lies. This is a BLP per the notice at the top of this page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• No Another editor cited WP:ELYES and the objections against this policy argument don't really make sense when paired with the wording of this RFC. The votes in support so far haven't really articulated a compelling policy reason against inclusion. This article exists because it's notable enough to exist. Linking to the subject's site is perfectly reasonable extension of the article. This POV isn't cowardly as suggested above in that appalling comment. I don't know anything about this person, but reading briefly they seem to be dreadful. However, the RFC didn't ask for our comments in regards to our personal feelings about the subject. Our jobs as editors are to discuss topics impartially and in good faith. I would kindly remind editors of this fact. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Linking to the official website of a subject is standard encyclopedic use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Look, I am about as left-wing as it is possible to be. The things that I would like to say about StoneToss would get me banned from this website. The man is a piece of shit, and that's pretty blatantly clear from the contents of the article. But this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. As Wikipedians, we are custodians of knowledge. The moment we treat one article differently because the knowledge is distasteful, we cease to be custodians and become moral arbiters - and that is when Wikipedia loses all of its reason for being. The right wing already screams that we're "woke garbage" (reality has a well-known liberal bias), and the left wing screams that we're imperialist propaganda (history is written by the winners). We have to be above those slings and arrows and continue with our work without fear or favor. If we're going to have this article in the encyclopedia (and there's no reason we shouldn't), I can think of no compelling reason to treat it any differently from any other page on the project. Can we point out that StoneToss espouses hate speech? Certainly; there are plenty of sources that corroborate that. But as others have pointed out, in every other similar page, the artist's official page is always linked, and despite my personal feelings on the matter, giving this page special treatment (for good or bad) makes us cease to be a neutral party. Trying to "information quarantine" serves very little practical purpose here, since a quick Google search will put his website at the top of the result anyway. There's no compelling reason to censor this page, and plenty of compelling reason not to. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• No. There's no policy based reason not to include it. I don't even think we should have this article, but if we do, we should have a link. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• No as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Wikipedia also links to other websites containing right-wing content that may also contain hate content, such as 4chan, OANN, Breitbart, and the list goes on. If Wikipedia didn't link to any of these websites, through "reverse psychology", it would just make the reader even more curious to search up the official website. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging @Simonm223, @Trainrobber66, @GoggleGoose, @XeCyranium, @Czello, @GranCavallo and @Trade as editors who have participated in this discussion so far. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on folks, there's been more discussion in the survey than in the discussion, that's not really optimal. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I try to add discussion sections when I create RfCs. Sometimes people use them, sometimes they don't. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey? Could i get a round down on what's going on? Never heard about a survey in a Rfc before Trade (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Trade, it is not uncommon for RfC's to be broken up into survey and discussion sections to make them easier to follow. TarnishedPath^talk 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Most people will think of Survey data collections when they hear the word "survey". Not the best name i must admit Trade (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll see it used not infrequently in RfCs. Getting hung-up on a name isn't very useful. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Czello, just moving the discussion down here regarding WP:RGW because I'd rather the Survey section didn't get too cluttered. If you have a look at the examples given in that section of the essay I don't see how "not providing links to hate speech" is similar or analogous to any of those examples. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The examples given aren't exhaustive. Ultimately the only argument presented against inclusion seems to be starving StoneToss of additional views because his views are distasteful. This isn't neutral editing. — Czello ^(music) 11:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not the only argument given. It's certainly not the argument I've given. You are correct that the examples aren't exhaustive and that's why I wrote that I don't see how it was similar or analogous to the examples that were given. TarnishedPath^talk 11:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What other arguments are given? I am not seeing any, other than that there's no requirement to include the link (yourself, ChaoticEnby and Doug Weller) – but that doesn't actually say why it shouldn't be included. — Czello ^(music) 11:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That there is no convincing editorial reason for inclusion and that there is no requirement to include the link are sufficient reasons for exclusion in the absence of alternative persuasive argument for inclusion. You're not actually giving an argument why it should be included except railing against what you see as non-neutrality in maybe one other editor. TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That there's no requirement to include it is already an argument to not include it. In absence of any explicit reason for inclusion, the default option is to not include, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't at all count as an indiscriminate collection of information. I also don't see in that guideline where it suggests links are indiscriminate collections of information (except where excessive linking is conernced, which isn't the case here). Including external links to official websites is normalised; I'm still not seeing an argument for exclusion other than "it does need to be there". Okay, but that argument could be made about any number of websites with external links. Why have them at all? When it is standard practice to link to an official site (and it is) then a reasonable argument must be presented for exclusion, but all I'm seeing is "we don't have to have it". — Czello ^(music) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Other things is not an argument. There is no MOS on this that you can claim standardisation. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that providing a link to the primary subject matter of the article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Not including it because we don't like the content is not neutral.

It's especially relevant to have the link from an NPOV/BLP perspective because it encourages readers to make up their own mind about the content of the comic, considering the article has a lot of criticism of the comic and author.

I myself when reading the article for the first time was curious to see the comic first-hand and I suspect this is true of many people. CVDX (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you believe it would be more neutral to hide from readers that the topic is a neo-nazi cartoonist and instead have them click over to his website to "make up their own minds?" Because that seems very non-neutral to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has hidden the description of neo-Nazi, it's documented in the body. Based on MOS:LABEL and MOS:OPENPARABIO, as explained in the NPOV discussion, it would be more neutral and policy-based yes. The fact it would be unfortunate due to not being "widely used" by RS is irrelevant in relation to NPOV and policy. Also could we keep this discussion to the correct location, as this has gone off topic. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading of MOS:OPENPARABIO is that neo-Nazi should be included in the first sentence as that is the main reason for the subjects notability. It strikes me that moves to remove it are against WP:NOTCENSORED. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's mainly about MOS:LABEL. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just whataboutism at this point, but I'll bite: Nothing has been hidden, the description of him as neo-Nazi, white supremacist, antisemite, etc is still in the article, some of it in the lead, it's just been attributed to a source. It's just good WP:BLP policy to tread lightly regarding these labels. CVDX (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to close

As much as I might personally disagree with the decision, I think consensus is pretty clear here. Per Czello's latest comment it's very correct that WP:NONAZI is not applicable to page content regardless of whether we treat it as "policy", "just an essay" or, what it really is: guidance for handling disputes with openly bigoted editors. Anyway I think consensus is clear here and I, for one, don't intend to keep fighting this particular battle. I would encourage a non-involved party to close. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 while there may be a clear majority of votes on one side, this is nothing a approaching a WP:SNOW or a WP:AVALANCHE. As such, given RfCs generally last 30 days I would suggest it needs to keep going at least until there has been no activity for a period or it hits 30 days. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ps, @Czello has listed it at WP:CR but when I've listed RfC's there in the past well before 30 days, even where discussion had slowed, closers generally don't close until 30 days. TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen Simonm223's comment when I posted that (the timing is coincidental), however I'll leave it for the closer to decide if enough time has passed. Point #2 at the top says 7 days is the minimum, and the above conversation appears to have slowed down considerably in the past few days, so I figure it's ready for closure. If an admin decides otherwise I'm fine leaving it open for longer. — Czello ^(music) 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've done exactly the same as you in the past posting to WP:CR when RfCs have slowed to about the same rate and prior to 30 days. I've just generally seen that they won't been seen to by a closer until they hit 30 days unless it's a WP:SNOW situation (in which case you might get told to do it yourself). TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my experience a request can be made at WP:CR and not get any attention for weeks, so maybe by the time it's closed 30+ days will have passed anyway! — Czello ^(music) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll withdraw the close request if it's premature. Truth is I'm just getting fatigued seeing the same three arguments for and against on repeat. I feel like we've all exhausted what there is to say about this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this should get closed. The consensus is clearly for inclusion, and, while I disagree in concept with adding a link to someone's work (rather than a biographical site) in the infobox, this particular situation is still enough of a grey area, so I wouldn't oppose a close in favor of inclusion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My request to close is still on CR, but that is often slow to get attention. Hopefully someone uninvolved might be along any week now... — Czello ^(music) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby This article is weird because it's trying to be both a biography of the person-whose-name-we-can't-put-because-it-isn't-confirmed, but also an article on the comics itself. The comic itself would of course have a link - and IMO, the scope should be more on the comic, since that's what the best sources about this focus on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We had a serious discussion on that here: #Subject formulation: webcomic or cartoonist. Consensus appears to be that the primary subject is the person. —Alalch E. 18:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I very much disagree, but that's consensus I suppose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA there's been three AfD's on this article. When the subject matter was primarily the comic the article was deleted. When the subject matter was the person the article was kept. Notability is on the living person. TarnishedPath^talk 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I don't think that's true. Any notability on the person is BLP1E (getting doxed on Twitter). The actual sources that are closest to evidencing notability, which were brought up in the AfF, are about the content of his comics. I think it's an odd choice to make an article focused on the person, when his works are all the sources discuss (minus the one event). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the most recent AfD to disuade you from the notion that any notability on the person is BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby as Czello as mentioned they've put a request up at WP:CR. We can wait for an independent closer to determine consensus. Noting consensus is not necessarily determined by votes. TarnishedPath^talk 20:57, 11 April 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.

Red Panels

File:Tyranny of the majority example.png

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)

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)

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[1][2] over lack of WP:NPOV and other problems. These problems, particularly WP:NPOV have returned for the page's 3rd iteration and are continuing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. breaking overly-large paragraphs

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

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

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

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

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

  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 [15], 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 [16]. Also @Alalch E. as per Do not reinstate unreliable sources: WP:UGC [17] What unreliable sources? If so remove them, no need revert a revert a revert here surely? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

"Revelation of identity"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Alalch E. 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for this change. Most editors agreed that the revelation of StoneToss's identity constitutes an example of doxxing, but there was little agreement beyond that. Some editors felt that using the term would evoke the broader phenomenon and thereby supply useful information to the reader, but other editors expressed concern that the phrase doxxing is less specific than just saying what information was revealed. Concerns were also raised that the term is not neutral, and some expressed reticence about using a word that only a minority of sources use. Ultimately, this was an editorial decision to which policy does not clearly speak, and editors split halfway on the question, with an unusually large percentage of participants expressing weak, uncertain, or otherwise qualified opinions on the matter. There was a brief discussion toward the end about keeping the current wording and wikilinking to doxxing, but I don't think it fermented enough for me to say that a consensus was found (or not) either way on that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

---

In the Alleged revelation of identity section of the article, the first sentence currently reads: "In March 2024, antifascist internet vigilantes claimed to have revealed the identity of StoneToss using leaked information from Gab, a social media website with a far-right userbase".
Should the wording "revealed the identity of" be replaced with "doxxed"?
If so, should the section heading be modified?
TarnishedPath^talk 13:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• A Weak no As mentioned in the comments above I don't have any particular qualm around the term "doxed" or "doxxed" beyond two: the irregularity of its use by relevant sources and its colloquiality. If we have different ways this event is being referred to I think we should cleave to more formal language. However I'm not particularly wedded to a specific term for this section so if a compelling argument were made for changing it I'd be open to conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Doxxing neonazis is the bread and butter of doxxing. Doxxing is a distinct internet phenomenon with a cultural dimension and a tradition. The event described in a part of this article was a classic, "folkloricaly correct" doxxing, yet we don't even link to our article about doxing. The article being an internet topic, its readers know what the word means. It is a rather old internet term and functions fine as a word in an everyday conversation between two people who've been online a few times; they would say "doxx", not "reveal the identity". As a technically unquestionably correct and the most exact term, despite being somewhat colloquial, we should use it for the sake of precision and concision, as we normally do when covering internet topics. Calling it "revealing the identity" is using more words than necessary, borders on a lie-to-children, and evokes the question of why aren't we just saying doxxing when we have an article about doxxing titled "Doxing". This is just my thought process on this mater, but from a bigger perspective it's not a big deal and doesn't affect the article much. But the link must be added.—Alalch E. 14:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. As per Alalch E., I believe the subject of the article had his identity/likeness revealed in an act of vigilantism, which is a common motivation for doxxing, in this case against an alleged neo-nazi. CVDX (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• No - I could only find 6 (semi-)reliable sources that used the term "dox". We my comment and table in the Discussion section below. As such, it would be WP:UNDUE to use it at this time. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - the first sentence in that section says this was carried out by antifascist internet vigilantes, which links to internet vigilantism, where doxing is described as one of the methods of internet vigilantism. And their vigilantism also matches the description of want they wanted to achieve, negative publicity, punitive public denunciation, etc., of this individual. And doxxing also aptly describes precisely what Anonymous Comrades Collective intended to accomplish. A weak no to modifying the section heading, since it is just as accurate as doxxing. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why should the section heading and the first sentence use different wordings? That would just be inconsistent Trade (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak no - I wouldn't be against the word itself being used in reference to how news sources and involved persons characterized it, but to say something like "Internet vigilantes doxxed StoneToss" would feel something between jargon-y and unencyclopedic to me. It's slang that colors the events and skews the POV. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No As I wrote above, "doxing" is a neologism that shouldn't be used in section headings. It shouldn't be used on first reference. If ever used, it needs an explanation of what it is meant by doxing in general, and what was "doxed" in this specific particular case. So, no, we can't just replace "revealed the identity of" with "doxxed", because we still need to explain that it was their identity that was revealed. As always, we should be basing how we do this on how reliable sources do this. For example, NBC News uses "revealing the names of anonymous users" in their headline, not "doxing". They use "publishing the real names of people behind anonymous accounts" in their lead. They don't use "doxxing" until the second to last paragraph, and then don't use it without explaining the term, writing "Broadly speaking, the privacy policies of X and other sites are designed to prevent what is known as doxxing: the release of a person’s identifying information with malicious intent." Note that here NBC News is describing Twitter's policies broadly. NBC News is not describing the alleged revealing of this person's identity as "doxxing". Elspea756 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes – Alalch E. has provided a good explanation, there is little I could add. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No per the source analysis undertaken by EvergreenFir we would be using undue WP:WEIGHT to use the term in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You still hold onto the claim that using the term "doxxed" violated the BLP of the vigilante group? Or is that not a factor anymore Trade (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  It would be a BLP violation to use a term which has undue WP:WEIGHT as demonstrated by the source analysis undertaken by EvergreenFir. TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes The term "internet vigilantes" indicates an obvious intent to cause (reputational) harm towards the target. If the event was a simply benign "reveal of information" it wouldn't have been coveed by 20 different news outlets--Trade (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. This is obviously a value-laden term and would require strong sourcing to use in the article voice; yet most coverage isn't describing it that way. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak no. I agree with Reil and Elspea756 that the term doxxing is rather loaded, bordering on unencyclopedic, and without more extensive use of that terminology in RSes (per EvergreenFir's source analysis table) I am hesitant to use it. To be clear, as concerns about double standards have been raised above, I am not singling out the use of the word doxxing in regards to StoneToss specifically - I would be interested in a wider RfC on the use of the term doxxing on Wikipedia as a whole. The line between doxxing, public interest reporting, whistleblowing, etc, is somewhat murky, and the wording we choose in regards to the publication of StoneToss' details here needs to be very carefully chosen to maintain neutrality. Ethmostigmus (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No Why should we use MOS:JARGON like "doxxing" when there are more widely understood and less vague expressions available? (Since "doxxing" can mean anything from publishing someone's name to their home address). (t · c) buidhe 06:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• No I am less opposed the term under MOS:JARGON or a concern that it won't be recognized but because the term remains value-laden and non-neutral. For me, it's a no in the lead, no in the heading, and no in the section. I would be ok with it being used in quotes, but I don't think it's really necessary here, and per buidhe a more specific description of what took place is better for the reader. --Wow Mollu (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes because it accurately describes the action. "Doxxing" is not a neologism. It's been around for enough time to no longer be "new". It feels like a SKYISBLUE situation since it meets the definition of what doxxing is. SWinxy (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, probably.

Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent.

— Wikipedia article: Doxing

StoneToss' "revelation of identity" can clearly be defined as doxing; his name and home city, among other personal details, were released without his consent. Using fluffy language here downplays the fact that this action was clearly done out of harrassment, and is potentially illegal.

The line between doxxing, public interest reporting, whistleblowing, etc, is somewhat murky

— Ethmostigmus

This is not "public interest reporting" or "whistleblowing." StoneToss broke no crimes and didn't really hurt anyone. This was done specifically to damage StoneToss' reputation. The distinction between these terms could be further discussed in a wiki-wide RfC as has been proposed, but I think it's pretty clear in this instance.

The usage of this "neologism" is not unpermitted (see WP:NEO) in this case. Dox is a common, well-known term, especially online, and is used in professional work; and specifically, multiple sources for this article use the term, even if not all of them do.

the term doxxing is rather loaded

— Ethmostigmus

I could be swayed, but I fail to see how this is relevant. If StoneToss is a neo-Nazi by definition, then this action is doxing by definition.

There's other language that can be used here, but at the very least a link to "Doxing" should be included as a relevant page to read further on. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 04:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gabldotink, refer to the table which @EvergreenFir started below for what the sources have to say about it. Your current argument is from a position of original research. We should only be concerned with reflecting reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 04:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The loaded nature of the term doxxing is highly relevant, in the interest of presenting this topic with a neutral point of view. The fact that doxxing is a common term does not mean it is the best term to use in this article, and in the absence of consensus on its neutrality, we should err on the side of caution and choose our words carefully. Per EvergreenFir's source table, reliable sources generally use words like "reveal", "expose", "identify", etc, with the term doxxing almost exclusively used in attribution. I do not object to the use of the word doxxing in this article with attribution, or if the word is widely used in reliable sources, but I feel that unattributed use undermines the encyclopedic tone expected of Wikipedia - per WP:VOICE, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". As several users in this RfC and the article for doxxing note, the term "often comes with a negative connotation", which is why I feel it is not the best term to be used here.

I dispute your confident assertion that this cannot be characterised as public interest reporting, or that doxxing, public interest reporting, and whistleblowing are so easily separated. The group that published the details characterise themselves as journalists, with reliable sources referring to them as "journalists", "investigators", and "researchers" (& referring to the publication of personal details with words like "expose" or "identify" in preference to doxxing). This is exactly what I mean when I say that the line between public interest reporting and doxxing is a fine one, as both terms can be used to describe the same event with reasonable accuracy. I would personally characterise this incident as both doxxing and as public interest reporting/investigative journalism, because it can be both - but I wouldn't use either term in this article, because they would undermine the neutrality of its coverage of the subject. I would urge you to read through the sources in EvergreenFir's table below, and I hope that this comment clears up my position on the topic. Ethmostigmus (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, per Alalch E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per Alalch E. — Czello ^(music) 14:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• What about wiki-linking "revealed the identity" to Doxing? Basically: In March 2024, ... claimed to have revealed the identity of StoneToss...? Some1 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• No, and also oppose a wiki-link, unless significant sourcing can be found for it. "Doxxing" is a MOS:LABEL and shouldn't be used unless the sources frequently refer to the action as "doxxing", regardless of the definition. They in fact appear to be going out of their way to avoid it here. I'm not convinced by arguments by definition because the same person can easily be described as either a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist", and on Wikipedia we usually avoid both those terms and go with "militant". Loki (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  If the title of the wikilink is an objection, then the page name for "Doxing" could be changed to "Non-consensual revelation of identity" or something to that effect (which is clunky and I would personally oppose it, to be clear). But as it stands, "Doxing" is the name of the Wikipedia article about the action, and its content is relevant to this article. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nice bit of hypothesising but the question really ought to be do the sources refer to the incident as doxxing and we've established that on the whole they don't. TarnishedPath^talk 03:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm willing to concede on the usage of the word in the article text, but the wikilink itself, I believe, is a different situation. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  If the RfC were to arrive by consensus at the no position then I think we'd need discussion on that, otherwise I'd think it would be implied by the consensus decision that it is out unless explicitly discussed to be in. I would consider it to be WP:GAMING if the RfC arrived at no position by consensus and an involved editor unilaterally took it upon themselves to wikilink "revelation of identity" to "doxxing". I would revert it and if reverted back I would take it to WP:AN/I as a behavioural issue per WP:GAMING. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  No it's not, for the same reason that terrorism is a Wikipedia article that could arguably be applied to all sorts of militants, but we don't all wiki-link them to terrorism either.

  The definition of a word doesn't fully capture what the word means. Words have connotations and those connotations are important for our usage of them. Loki (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging @Trade, @Simonm223, @EvergreenFir, @Elspea756, @Chaotic Enby and @Alalch E. as editors involved in this conversation. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment:I'm just gonna sit this one out--Trade (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Do we have examples of other such events to see what kind of language is usually used? Also, should we only decide on this specific case, or on the use of "doxxing" in general, i.e. whether to add it to our "words to watch"? (in the latter case, the discussion could be moved to a more general board) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am responsive to what Alalch_E. said in their !vote. That being said this does, ultimately, feel like an MOS question. Do we have any general guidance on the use of online colloquials? Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We could attempt to apply the detailed and IMO quite extensible WP:VGJARGON by analogia legis. There are links to generally general guidance about jargon and technical language in that section. There's no similar thing for internet topics afaict. —Alalch E. 16:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on this I think that the lead should not say "doxxing", that the h2 heading in the body could be "Doxxing" but doesn't have to be (I'm split on that), but the body content in that section should most certainly use "doxxing". —Alalch E. 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read that section on jargon and I am not sure it'd be applicable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Noteworthily it doesn't say not to use jargon because it's colloquial register, says that jargon may be used out of necessity if the concepts that the content covers are strongly tied with the jargon, that jargon is problematic insofar as it is cryptic (but doxxing isn't cryptic jargon) and that the first use should be explained. It can be explained contextually by not using "doxxing" at first, but introducing it later. But, I mean, yeah, If you don't see the utility in this approach, nevermind. Just an idea. —Alalch E. 17:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For the time being, I think it can be called doxxing with attribution from the sources using it. Namely the Daily Dot and Wired. CVDX (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess, ultimately, the question, for me, hinges on whether a general audience does reasonably understand what "Doxxing" means. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are all the (semi-)reliable sources that call it doxing per a Google search of "StoneToss dox":

Caption text

Organization	Language used	Link	WP:RSP
DailyDot	Allegedy doxed	[19]	Caution
Advocate	Indirect reference	[20]	N/A
Wired	Indirect reference	[21]	Good
MSN	Doxing	[22]	Good
Boing Boing	Attributed to Know Your Meme	[23]	Caution
NBC	Indirect reference	[24]	Good
LGBTQ Nation	Attributed to Know Your Meme	[25]	N/A
Ars Technica	Article originally appeared on wired.com	[26]	Good
Mashable	Indirect reference	[27]	Caution

Give the lack of sources that use the term, I would argue that we should not use it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe let these WP:RFCBEFORE discussions play out a little bit longer, like say 3-5 days before starting a RfC, and give other editors a chance to participate. This RfC on doxxing was started less than 12 hours after the initial discussion was first started. We don't all live in the same time zone or operate/edit on the same schedule. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this, @TarnishedPath you have created a lot of RFCs lately and many of them probably needed it, but some more time discussing these topics could avoid RFC. This article had 3 RFCs going at one time. RFC should really be the last resort. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree in spirit, but one can see from the nature of the disputes that the issues are controversial and that delaying the RfCs to stagger them instead of running them concurrently is delaying the inevitable. Discussions are going to be had, and RfCs provide some needed structure and help keep discussion fresh and substantive by broadening the input. It's hard to judge whether the decision to start any of the RfCs including the one which I had started and you closed was an especially good decision, but at least they were reasonable decisions. —Alalch E. 15:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I can only echo Alalch's comments and a desire to see off edit warring. TarnishedPath^talk 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd just point out that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that StoneToss previously kept their identity anonymous, something that it seems they took great pains to do and was the state of affairs for quite a long time up until a few days ago. I think if we are to avoid using the term doxing (which I contend), it would go a long way in providing context for the intent, impact, and significance of the publication of StoneToss's identity to explicitly establish their previous desire for anonymity. Pseudonimity is often motivated by a desire for anonymity but not always - I don't think that term alone is sufficient. --Wow Mollu (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, and that's something I thought of doing and wanted to do myself but didn't get to it. There is such information in the sources. —Alalch E. 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources indicate he wanted anonymity. I mean we all know it to be the case so I'm not opposing. Just want to make sure we source it correctly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

See edit: Special:Diff/1216197675 —Alalch E. 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Works for me. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A related issue I've just noticed - the lead uses the term "internet vigilantes" to describe the group that published StoneToss's details, but this term is not used in any of the reliable sources cited in the article, which instead refers to the group either by their name or as "the collective", "journalists", "investigators", "researchers", etc. While I personally think internet vigilantes is a fair description, it's not the most neutral wording, nor is it the wording used in reliable sources or in the body of the article. The use of the term "internet vigilantes" in the article certainly seems to have biased some people in the above discussion...
Wondering if others agree that this should be changed - perhaps just referring to them as "an antifascist (journalism?) collective" instead, given that this is the wording used by the group themselves and by sources. Thoughts? Ethmostigmus (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus, I think it would be best to just use the groups names (if given in sources) without any sort of spin (including if its one that's come from the source). I've edited that way previously. TarnishedPath^talk 07:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus, I've updated to "Anonymous Comrades Collective and Late-Night Anti-Fascists" which is the name of the two groups given in the sources. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not good. The reader doesn't benefit from this level of detail in the lead, and the reader also does not know what these names stand for, i.e. what sort of entity is being named. —Alalch E. 11:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. presuming the groups' names are mentioned in the body (I've had a few sleeps since I've read the article fully) feel free to revert me. TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned so I'll change it back to antifascist groups. —Alalch E. 12:07, 7 April 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.

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"[28], 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	[29]	Additional Considerations
Advocate	alleged neo-Nazi	[30]	N/A
Wired	Neo-Nazi Cartoonist	[31]	Generally Reliable
MSN	neo-Nazi cartoonist	[32]	N/A
Boing Boing	Nazi cartoonist	[33]	Additional Considerations
NBC	"antisemitic cartoonist" in article voice. "neo nazi” attributed to Alejandra Caraballo - clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic	[34]	Generally Reliable
LGBTQ Nation	alt-right cartoonist	[35]	N/A
Ars Technica	neo-Nazi cartoonist	[36]	Generally Reliable
Mashable	"far-right webcomic creator" in article voice. "neo nazi cartoonist" attributed	[37]	Additional Considerations
The Washington Post	neo-Nazi comic artist	[38]	Generally Reliable
Yahoo News/Evening Standard	crypto-Nazi cartoonist, neo-Nazi views, attributed to Global Network on Extremism and Technology	[39]	Additional Considerations

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

  That MSN article is re-hosted from a website called TrendyDigests.[40]

  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)

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)

"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)

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)