Talk:StoneToss

GA Reassessment

StoneToss

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No grounds for removal of GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The article relies on The Daily Dot (WP:DAILYDOT) and Boing Boing for contentious BLP claims of fact. In spite of being less directly discussed sources in 2024 when the article was made, as of today, both are explicitly not GREL on WP:RS/P and used in a standalone way to source very contentious BLP claims.

The article would require much rework to bring it back to a BLP-compliant state, let alone pass a GA, which is why I am making this GAR. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

See this RFC which found WP:SNOW consensus for the supposedly contentious claim. Of note, during the RFC there were multiple sources provided in support of labeling the subject a neo-nazi. It isn't, as incorrectly claimed above, just Daily Dot and Boing Boing. This article should be speedily kept as GA and the OP should get a WP:TROUT. TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

See this RFC which found WP:SNOW consensus for the supposedly contentious claim.

I do not care what specific "contentious claim" you are focusing about, I am just saying this article backs multiple contentious BLP claims (in a standalone way) with unreliable sources such WP:DAILYDOT, Boing Boing, Wired, and does not meet GA status as a result.

This RFC is from 2024. Back then, there were little WP:RS/P or WP:RSN entries for those sources now regarded as unreliable. Historyexpert2 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:RSP entries for both Daily Dot and Boing Boing have been exactly the same since prior to the RFC. If you bothered to raise this on the articles talk page prior to nominating it for GAR, you would have been told exactly that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Ps, neither WP:DAILYDOT nor Boing Boing are listed at WP:RSP as having community consensus as being generally unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That said, I would say that Boing Boing is a borderline source - they have some reputation, and do seem to have basic editorial controls and fact-checking, but I wouldn't use them to (say) source a controversial claim about a WP:BLP or anything like that.

(source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259#Boing_Boing_as_a_reliable_source)

There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.

(source: Wikipedia:DAILYDOT)

This May WIRED published an AI-generated article by a fictitious journalist about the rise of virtual weddings in the post-COVID era featuring 5 named people, all of whom were fake. Despite being non-existent WIRED reported direct quotes that they were told by them: “We’d log on almost every day after school,” Nguyen tells WIRED. One couple, who met in a Discord server dedicated to indie game development, tells WIRED ... One of the non-existent people claimed a prominent online presence which would have been easy to verify:

(source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_489#WIRED_admitting_to_publishing_stories_without_fact_checking_them,_knowingly_doesn't_publish_a_retraction_until_outed_months_after_the_fact)

So, nothing appropriate for BLPs, let alone a GA. Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wired is still listed as being generally reliable at WP:RSP. That most recent discussion has not changed community consensus.

What specific claims do you think are not adequately sourced? TarnishedPath^talk 04:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

If we removed every single source that made a mistake we wouldn't have any! WIRED handled the situation well, and community consensus is that they remain RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem here so I don't think it should be delisted. WP:DAILYDOT and WP:BOINGBOING are not unreliable, or even marginally reliable, they're no consensus, so we can argue either way and to the specifics of the case - imo, they're usually fine, they're just a poor source for notability because they tend to cover internet things indiscriminately. The consensus on Wired, though, is that is generally reliable so I don't know what you're complaining about there. But once the notability question is settled I don't see much of an issue with using them here.

The only contentious bit of information relative to the subject is really the identity, which we aren't including (so not an issue), the contents of the webcomic, and the "neo-Nazi" label and well, we had a whole RfC over that. I guess you could quibble about us citing the description of the comic as racist to the Daily Dot in combination in the lead, but I don't see a major issue. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that denies it is racist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I heavily agree with delisting it as a good article. The article has some amounts of bias that are not properly sourced. If anything it should be considered a stub. BelowFlames (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

These arguments about content have been put forward many, many times in the talk and have never gained consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 21:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis Motion to speedily close. This is an ordinary content dispute and a challenge of an RfC outcome. As a contentious discussion ab initio, with the only claim that the article does not meet GA criteria being a minority viewpoint from a concluded RfC (in 2024), this is at best a common talk page discussion in GAR trappings. It could also be seen as a procedurally ineffective way to challenge the RfC. All the sources brought up here are the same as the ones from the RfC, and a change of their status has not been recorded at WP:RSP since then. No explicit connection to a GA criterion has been made. Therefore, this "GAR" should be speedily closed.—Alalch E. 01:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

That is crazy, this GAR was opened plainly because WP:MREL sources are used throughout to source controversial information involving living persons (which is a violation of WP:BLP).

I do not care at all about your RFC, nor have any sentiment to it. This is a basic application of BLP, which precludes WP:GAC. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't crazy. Tell me, what are you going to do after this "GAR" is closed? —Alalch E. 01:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Historyexpert2, I could be wrong, but thie is very much coming accross as a misuse of GA process in order to push a dispute about content which has previously had a SNOW RFC outcome. Given I have notified you on your talk that American politics is a contentious topic area, I'd suggest you reconsider your approach. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand how making a GAR is a misuse of GAR? Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, before I close this, could you clarify (succinctly) what exactly is the issues with the article from the GA criteria?

Unless I've missed something, neither Boing Boing or DailyDot have been listed as unreliable sites (and certainly not Wired, which is listed as reliable). Whilst I'd prefer these sources were replaced with higher quality ones, I can't see why we'd need to change the article's quality mark. This does seem like a content dispute. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Having reviewed this discussion, my thoughts are similar to Lee Vilenski's above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2026 (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.

Question of relevance in the lead

Why is this

"In March 2024, after an antifascist group published materials claiming to have revealed his identity, StoneToss sought help from Twitter's owner Elon Musk. Twitter then suspended multiple users who included StoneToss's alleged real name in their tweets and amended its privacy policy to prohibit disclosure of others' real names. Critics took the move as evidence of Musk's preferential treatment for neo-Nazis, antisemites, and white supremacists."

in the lead? Chattenoir (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is it in the lead? Because it's how he passed the threshhold for us to consider them as being notable. Prior to that community consensus was that they weren't notable. TarnishedPath^talk 04:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok, that makes sense then thanks. Chattenoir (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

(Disclaimer I am against stone toss and against his action)

I am unsure if this framing makes us Wikipedia users appear pro-doxing. I’m pretty sure Elon musk was following the law by stopping doxing, and therefore wasn’t implicitly pro (in the favor of bigots). Unsure though, because this framing could make the article look insincere. ~2026-27357-57 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The whole article screams insincerity tbh, its a very ametuerish piece for the site. Hardly objective. ~2026-35963-40 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Suicide of Charlotte Fosgate

Re Special:Diff/1357657267 (ping Plantcoal):

The best content about this that can be come up with is:

Response to the suicide of Charlotte Fosgate

In May 2025, Charlotte Fosgate, a 17-year-old transgender girl from the Portland, Oregon, area, died by suicide. Her final tweets were a nighttime photograph taken from the St. Johns Bridge, captioned "its a pretty view", and a subsequent tweet reading "Long way down". The tweets attracted transphobic internet trolls, who misgendered Fosgate and mocked her death. As part of the wider transphobic response, StoneToss posted a cartoon depicting a transgender woman deciding against suicide after being told that men are statistically more likely to die by it.

Sources

And that is not good enough for including. The LGBTQ Nation article does not mention StoneToss, only links to his tweet. That is not sufficient verifiability for BLP. Even if it did, as a whole, the content does not add educational value to this article which already establishes that StoneToss would make precisely this kind of cartoon -- and this is just one of his many cartoons.

We cannot use Transvitae because of WP:BLPSPS: "I am the founder, editor, and primary writer behind this website."—Alalch E. 21:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I seriously don't know what the fuck to do with this information let alone putting it in StoneToss' overview section. Sorry, it's just for the past few days, I have been feeling nothing but self-criticism over my Wikipedia activity. I kinda feel like quiting it all in general. Plus there's another wiki that I enjoy. plantCOAL 00:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen you make good edits. Your ideas for new articles and initiative in covering new topics is very valuable for the project, which is true for everyone who can bring something fresh to the encyclopedia. So I hope that you will keep contributing. —Alalch E. 22:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks well I think it best to just keep in the userpage draft I created for myself. plantCOAL 23:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to quit. ~2026-35963-40 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Evidence for the Neo-Nazi descriptor?

Seems utterly citationless. While he is evidently a right wing baiter, and an argument can be made for bigotry in his work, until he expresses support for (or is linked to) Neo-Nazi groups, it should not be included in whats meant to be an objective, fact based account. Furthermore, hitpieces from online blogsites (namely those with overtly oppossing political views) have a vested interest and are not trustworthy sources to back this up - as would be, I hope to imagine, any RW blogsites with their own motivation making claims about others. In other words, our bar for evidence should be a LOT higher than "Some blogger said he is cause his comics made him angry". At best, what we have here is grounds for a "Neo-Nazi Accusations" section, not a first sentence descriptor. As is, the article feels more like a personal hit piece from a writer with a bone to pick with him, which is unprofessional and reflects poorly on the site. ~2026-35963-40 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems utterly citationless.

Well, that's not true at all. There are plenty of sources, and they're not online blogsites or Some blogger. — Czello ^(music) 20:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)