Talk:StoneToss#rfc 4180B73

{{atopy

| result = Asked and answered. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Please make it factual. 1.132.111.108 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:This page operates in accordance with WP:V which is the policy basis for maintaining accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}}. There is no actionable, or even meaningful, request here. We are not going to waste our time trying to guess what, if anything, is being so vaguely complained about. DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopy

| result = We had an RFC about this. Please refer to and read Special:PermanentLink/1216015718#RfC: first sentence, along with the sources referenced in it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

This source is an opinion article that primarily reports on the platform response (i.e., X suspending certain journalists) rather than providing direct evidence or citations of anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi content authored by Stonetoss.

The Wired article does not quote Stonetoss, cite specific comic strips, or document any content that constitutes overt neo-Nazi ideology. Its assertion is based on external researcher claims, which are not independently verified within the article.

Per WP:BLP, WP:LABEL, and WP:RS, labeling an individual or entity as “neo-Nazi” requires high-quality sourcing, particularly when making serious accusations about living persons. In this case, the source appears to be:

A secondary opinion piece

Lacking direct engagement with primary content (comics or statements)

Focused more on platform moderation than the subject of this article Skyrd.techem (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please define basis for "this is incorrect." response. Skyrd.techem (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You are incorrectly identifying sources as opinion sources that are not. Furthermore you are ignoring several sources, focusing only on a few. Please refer to the RfC which led to this language. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Edit executed with consensus, no need to keep this discussion open}}

We decided upon treating this as an article on the person and not the webcomic. I suppose this is why we have stuck half the categories on StoneToss (webcomic) (:Category:Political webcomics, :Category:Internet properties established in 2017,

:Category:Neo-Nazi publications,

:Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017,

:Category:Jewish-related comics,

:Category:Holocaust denial in the United States,

:Category:Works published under a pseudonym,

:Category:Far-right publications in the United States)... however, this is very inconsistent, because :Category:Antisemitic publications and :Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and :Category:Race-related controversies in comics on the main article. The person is clearly not a publication or a meme himself, so what gives? (In fairness, this is used to be in Antisemitism in literature, before i subdivided it, but if we're going at this from the angle of splitting the categories that is just as bad) We should have either all the person categories on one title and all the comic on the other or both. I don't care which we do, but for the love of god can we at least be consistent about it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:@PARAKANYAA I think the confusion may be because StoneToss is both the common name for the author and the title of their work. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes but doing some of the comic categories on the person article and some on the comic redirect and not one or the other makes no sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see any actionable request here. EdgierEdgar (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think what they're asking for is for the categories for the comic to be on the redirect and the categories for the person to be on this page with less of a jumble across the two pages. Is that correct @PARAKANYAA? Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, or all on one. I don't care which but the way we do it now is illogical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't personally have any opposition to this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am looking for a clear statement, something like "We should (add? remove?) this specific category from this specific page." Instead, I see a large amount of narrative backstory and "for the love of god" complaints, but I don't see anything that is a clear actionable request. EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::“We should have either all the person categories on one title and all the comic on the other or both”? I’m not telling you which to pick but I’m saying that the status quo must change which is an actionable request. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::OK, you haven't been able to articulate a specific actionable change, of which specific category or categories you want added or removed from which specific page or pages. Therefore, status quo is fine with me. EdgierEdgar (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The actionable change is pick one of option A or option B. If you fail to understand that I don't really know what to tell you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I moved the rest of the comic categories to the comic redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks. —Alalch E. 01:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::For anyone else trying to decipher this proposal, it was to remove four categories from this article - :Category:Antisemitic publications, :Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017, :Category:American comedy webcomics, and :Category:Neo-Nazi websites - which they did in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StoneToss&curid=74683901&diff=1288346674&oldid=1287188615 this edit]. EdgierEdgar (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::...and to add them to the redirect. Or, alternatively, to remove all of the categories already at the redirect and add them here. The more correct thing was done: categories for "publications", "internet memes", "webcomics" and "websites" were moved to the redirect which has the webcomic as the subject, which subject is also a publication, an internet meme, and a website, whereas StoneToss the pseudonymous author -- the subject of this article -- is not a publication, an internet meme, a webcomic or a website. —Alalch E. 09:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah. This is fine. I know we get a lot of trolling and POV pushing on this article and that can lead to hyper-vigilance from page watchers but this edit was none of those things. The correct categories are on the redirect and on the main page based on the article topic. It's fine. Good edit. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yes, this edit seems fine and uncontroversial. I have no idea why it was proposed with such "for the love of god" histrionics and a refusal to clearly state which specific categories they wanted to add/remove from what article(s). EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::1) Because people have been arguing about what categories go on this article since its creation

::::::::::::::2) I did clearly state it, the people categories and the publication categories. There is no overlap. Why was that so hard to figure out? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{edit semi-protected|StoneToss|answered=yes}}

Add :Category:Antisemitic works

Add :Category:Holocaust deniers 208.80.208.170 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Antisemitic works doesn't apply as this is the page about the person, not the comic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have added Category:Holocaust deniers to this article and Category:Antisemitic works to the redirect at StoneToss (webcomic). Thank you for the clear, actionable request. EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not super he got doxxed, but it happened and this article just buries his name? Topagae (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because we lack reliable sources that confirm his identity. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic project and we cannot do our own research - we depend on sources with a strong history of accuracy. This is especially strict when it comes to living people. Many outlets reported on the dox. So far none of them have said that the subject of the dox definitely is that guy. If that changes then so will the article, with very careful attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|StoneToss|answered=yes}}

I want to remove any mentions of the article calling him a "neo nazi". It's disingenuous considering he himself has proclaimed in the past to not be a neo nazi. If he says he isn't one, then he shouldn't be labeled as one, as it proves that the Wikipedia moderation team has a clear bias and thus makes this particular article misleading and inaccurate. https://stonetoss.com/about/#answer CanonEvent05 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: Sources describe him as one. What he calls himself is irrelevant. In fact it would introduce MORE bias to prioritise his own description like this. See WP:MANDY — Czello ^(music) 08:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{atop

| result = there is consensuses to call him a Nazi. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

In the sources from the Wired article sourced calling him a neo-nazi it is written:

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-researchers-neo-nazi-cartoonist/

“I have rejected the accusation of being a "nazi" at length, for years, on my own website,” the email read. “Not only that, but my statement also provides examples of my work that oppose nazi ideology. As such, the label of "nazi" is not consistent with the facts.”

The artist goes out of their way to write about how they're not a Nazi and yet this article labels them as such. It's disingenuous. A more appropriate term would be a comic artist who frequently criticizes Judaism, Israel, LGTBQ rights, etc. 93.176.148.200 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}