Talk:StoneToss

"StoneToss" or "Stonetoss"

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

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

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

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

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

Page history clear request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the first few citations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

@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)

Civil Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doxxers/Doxxing?

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

The Evening Standard article is citogenetic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garbage

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

References

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

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