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.

"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 sufficiently neutral and formal, 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	[1]	Caution
Advocate	Indirect reference	[2]	N/A
Wired	Indirect reference	[3]	Good
MSN	Doxing	[4]	Good
Boing Boing	Attributed to Know Your Meme	[5]	Caution
NBC	Indirect reference	[6]	Good
LGBTQ Nation	Attributed to Know Your Meme	[7]	N/A
Ars Technica	Article originally appeared on wired.com	[8]	Good
Mashable	Indirect reference	[9]	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.

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)

His name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two infoboxes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doxing

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

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

Neo nazi

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

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

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