Talk:StoneToss

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)

Change "Crypto-nazi" to "Crypto-fascist"

Change "Crypto-nazi" to "Crypto-fascist" ~2026-39729-16 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The cited source uses the term "crypto-Nazi". With labels like these, it's usually better to stick with what the sources use rather than risk editorializing with our own wording. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)