Wikipedia talk:No Nazis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Listing of groups

While I am certainly no fan of the other groups listed here, I'd suggest tightening this up to specifically refer to neo-Nazis and those who use their iconography and symbolism. While it is true that we recently had someone displaying a Nazi black sun try to get out of the block by declaring themselves to only be a white nationalist, and not a Nazi, typically we are somewhat more lenient until someone openly starts displaying swastikas, etc. and/or promoting holocaust denial or conspiracy theories that Obama is trying to disarm whites so they will lose the oncoming race war he is planning. We definitely block for people being anti-Semitic and using whistle words, etc. but that's its own type of disruption that I wouldn't really call Nazi block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that any sort of racist philosophy is completely incompatible with the principles of this project (for reasons which both of us have written out in the essay), and I'd like to see that addressed. But I have absolutely no qualms with having a section entirely on editor who (for whatever reason) like to put nazi iconography on their user pages, or plaster it all over article space whenever it might be even remotely relevant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree, I was more thinking that with the other groups, they tend to be blocked more for insane rantings/POV pushing/standard misconduct things, while for actual neo-nazis we tend to POLEMIC/NOTWEBHOST/NONAZISALLOWED block them pretty quickly once they out themselves. Finding a way to nuance it a bit so that people who would scream "CENSORSHIP!!!! YOU'RE LUMPING ME WITH NAZIS WHEN I REALLY JUST HATE [insert race here] AND AM TRYING TO GET YOUR ARTICLES TO REFLECT HOW THEY SUCK." can understand that their specific brand of racist POV pushing nonsense is disruptive just like actual neo-nazi nonsense. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

While most of them do seem to get a little unhinged (and a good chunk get a lot unhinged), I've seen some that were slick. There was a thread at ANI a while back over an editor who had a photo of a nazi statue, a bible verse often quoted by racists and an "I love Wagner" userbox on their page. It wasn't until someone recognized the statue that they connected the dots and realized this was a nazi. And that was a case of someone putting their views right there on their userpage. I've seen at least one editor who denied being racist at all, but ended up indeffed because their every edit (except for a few which they were quick to point out in their own defense) pushed a nazi POV. Of course, that's POV pushing, but I think this is a particular brand of POV pushing that bears being explicitly addressed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Nazis" as a general pejorative is historically incorrect, imprecise, and high-schoolish. The English language is rich enough that there must be a word or short phrase that better says what you mean, whether it's racist, extremist, neo-Nazi, or something else. Say what you mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice the lack of Klansmen in that list? The issues with nazis aren't limited to "I hate [insert race here]." And I don't see any suggestions for improvement in your comment, so do me a favor and don't comment just to complain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Wilco. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

(edit conflict)

What is the intended purpose to this essay? If it is to justify 'ban-on-sight' I think it is way too diluted ie wordy and does not really make the case. A couple of paragraphs explaining what is 'beyond-the-pale' and incompatible with a collaborative project and why would be better. It would, in my opinion, need to focus on a couple of bright line issues cf Holocaust denial, expressions of frank racism etc. Just being a run-of-the-mill bigoted, fascist ass-hat is not something the community has, historically, found to be sufficient to block for unless they are disruptive bigoted, fascist ass-hats. In other words these people have, as far as I have seen, been blocked for pushing a POV as opposed to expressing such a POV. I believe there is an argument to be made for blocking for expressing certain beliefs but, considering the Overton window in current US politics, I think we should restrict it to, as one editor so eloquently put it, the "genocide-y stuff".

If the purpose is to be about identifying neo-Nazis through their beliefs/edits, I would suggest focusing on the tropes and dog whistles which editors may encounter in their editing. It is pretty easy to identify these folks when they are sieg-heiling but less so when they are trying to slant a topic with "reasonable" edits.

It is also necessary to note that there is a difference between being a racist POS and being a Nazi. Both are repugnant but, as a community which claims to be open, we can not treat the two as the same. Hell, in the not so far future it would be a reasonable assumption that any American who self-identifies as Republican will be supporting the same beliefs as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, along with the rest of the far-right and would be a Nazi as defined here. (No that is not an ad-absurdum argument.) The only moral difference between those parties and classic Nazis is they are not openly advocating genocide so that would need to be the bright line. Otherwise we would be banning a significant percentage of the pool of Wikipedia editors.

If Wikipedia's mission is to remain documentary rather than participatory then we can only ban expression of beyond-the-pale opinions not those that are part of current political discourse. — In fact discussing why and how we should handle that would be a worthwhile topic to address in this essay. At what point does being decent human beings require Wikipedia to make the move from documentary to participatory via exclusion of particular 'evil' POVs? Jbh ^Talk 23:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was my point above: racist POV pushers will be blocked, but quickly blocking someone for being a nazi is somehow on a different level than your standard race and intelligence POV pusher (or insert other racist POV pusher here). I like a lot of the explanations in this essay, but I think having a concise explanation for why we tend to quickly block nazis is needed. If that's a different essay, that's fine, but having something that can be quickly referenced when there is discussion about how NPOV means we should let them be until they cross [line X here]. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is an argument to be made for blocking for expressing certain beliefs but, considering the Overton window in current US politics, I think we should restrict it to, as one editor so eloquently put it, the "genocide-y stuff". I don't. If the Overton window shifts to include the "genocide-y stuff", then should we then allow editors with those views to throw them around here? No. I wrote this with the premise that ideologies which espouse hatred are fundamentally incompatible with the goals and principles of this project. I reject any argument that WP needs to reflect the current political climate, because there is no demonstrable connection between certain political ideologies and reality. We are in the business of documenting all of them, but we do so from the POV of reality. If that means some political views are described in less favorable terms, then the problem lies not with WP but with people who hold those political views. If that means that certain political views can get you blocked on site, then that is the problem of the blocked editors, not WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we are talking across one another. My point was that the "genocide-y" stuff is bright-line unacceptable. I also do not disagree that we should not be saying calling bad ideologies bad. My understanding though was that you were writing this as an argument for blocking on sight of editors expressing a particular opinion. My point is that we are already accepting of editors who have expressed support for all sorts of racist stuff, including support for people like Steven Miller and his policies. Those policies are racist, they are predicated on white supremacist ideology and hate yet we do not block them for that. That is what I was referring to as the effect of the US Overton window. No matter how repugnant we may consider those views there is no consensus within the community to block for expressing those views yet there is support for blocking for explicit or implicit support of genocide and for frank, dehumanizing racism e.g. 'blood libel' or referring to certain groups as being composed of/related to animals.

As far as "the POV of reality", that works for topics which are reality based but politics and the behavior of individuals or social groups is not reality based. They are perception based. It does not matter if some group is really descended from parrots because if some other group believes they are they will act on that perception not the reality. Now, Wikipedia should not give any credence to that group actually being descended from parrots but we must not neglect the real effects of those people who believe they are. (Also, I did not see that this essay was talking about how to describe views but rather how to deal with people who express their views. I make no argument that we should be allowing 'in-universe' POV. )

TL;DR I do not see that this essay has made a case for banning the expression of as wide a swath of opinions as I perceive it is attempting to. It seems to me to be trying to ban widely held views which are inconsistent with Western progressive morality yet we live in a world where a great many ie more than 50% of the people do not subscribe to that morality. (There is no practical difference between the racism described and bigotry of any other stripe; racial, religious, ethnic, etc.) That is what I think this needs to address – what views are repugnant to at least a plurality of the community. It is kind of like the laws which consider pressure cooker bombs to be Weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows bombs are bad but few people will agree that black powder should be treated the same way as plutonium. Not a perfect analogy, but I believe a serviceable one. Jbh ^Talk 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the POV of reality: Politics and culture are not -and can not be- completely divorced from reality. Hence, WP's reality-based POV will inevitably result in WP "taking a side" on a large number of political and cultural controversies. That is why we have policy links like WP:YESPOV.

Regarding racism: See my comment to Mandruss above. I left out a large portion of racists, including Klansmen and the vast preponderance of racists; the casual racist (the one who insists "I'm not racist, but..."). I have a lot of experience with racists of all sorts, and I assure you without hesitation that there is a huge difference between even an active member of the KKK and the type of person who thinks that the racism of /pol/ is reflective of reality. Now with that being said, please observe the bold notice at the top of this page. You may use my talk page for a more generalized discussion if you like, but I really want this to be a simple exercise in collaboratively writing an essay between me and a handful of admins. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Nazis" vs "racists"

In this edit, Mandruss suggested that "racists" could be a better word. I used "nazis" for a reason, and I made a point of defining exactly how I was using the term in the essay, so the specific meaning in the context of this essay would be the same. But the impression given by using "racists" vs "nazis" is very different, because of the original meaning of those terms. So I'm asking the admins I asked to look at this, Drmies, TonyBallioni, Bishonen and Doug Weller what you guys think. Which word works better?

"Racists" avoids giving the impression of labeling everyone listed in the lede an actual Nazi, or Neo-Nazi.

"Nazis" avoids the impression that this essay is about all people with racist views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) If I understand the distinction being made, "nazis" = "white supremacists", meaning someone who subscribes to the ideology of racial hatred. For the purpose of this essay, I would focus on those with neo-Nazis, KKK, neo-Confederates (i.e. League of the South), alt-right, Daily Stormer, etc. views, which are pretty close to one another.

There are plenty of casual racists; their views are not welcome, but they are not necessarily extremist and do not include (implied or actual) calls for violence / desire to create a "white ethnostate" etc. To illustrate the distinction: if you tell a casual racist that "hey, that sounded racist", they would apologise. If you tell this to a "Nazi", they may respond with something like this: "We hate the alt-right you fucking idiots", implying that alt-right is not Nazi enough for them. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That actually hits my thought process right on the nose, except that you're including the KKK with them. In my experience (I am related to active KKK members, and to at least one neo-nazi and I don't even want to think about how many avowed racists of various stripes are in my circle of acquaintances), there are three distinct types of racists: the casual racist (the "I'm not racist but [says something racist]" types), the Nazi type (whose very self-identity is based on nazi-esque beliefs), and the Klansmen types, whose hatred burns almost as bright as that of the Nazi, but who doesn't base their identity on it and can set it aside in the face of something more important. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I keep looking and this and trying to get my thoughts straight and failing. However, the word "hatred" shines out as the core of the issue. I can see a slight difference between the KKK and Nazis, but the current KKK has been clearly associated with self-declared Nazis and the depth of their depravity isn't particularly different and our article calls their ideology neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi. Basically your essay seems to be about people who essentially hate others based on general characteristics including skin color, religion, ethnic group and belief. Their hatred is far more than dislike, it treats such groups as less than human with all that entails. If we can come up with a word or phrase that encapsulates this I'd prefer it to the word Nazi, if for no other reason that "Nazi" is a word that means different things to different people and allows individuals to say "I'm not a Nazi because I don't believe in X". I'd prefer something that they can't deny. Of course people will deny anything it if serves their purposes. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This essay is akin to is what Twitter / Facebook / Paypal et al are doing when they remove alt-right, neo-Nazi, KKK and other accounts. I.e. we would not allow our platform to be used for hate propaganda. In essence, Wikipedia community would be saying: We are striving for an inclusive environment where anyone is welcome, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate speech runs counter to this goal. This is a private website; there are no 1st amendment rights here. Please take your hate elsewhere.

With that in mind, the options could be "/nohatespeech" or "/nohate". Although "/nonazis" is pretty punchy! K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is that to say that you (at least provisionally) prefer "racist" to "nazi"? Hell, we could call them "Haters" and make a shortcut at WP:HATERSGONNAHATE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The thing about Nazis is that User:Bishonen and I are aware of someone who I think is a Nordic Nazi, but whose editing behavior seems in mainly in line with policy and guidelines. It's really only when they start expressing their hate that it's easy to block them. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make the change. I'm not gonna move this page yet, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I really like the title WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS, but maybe after all WP:NOHATE would be more precise. I agree with Doug that we can't very well block our friend the Nordic Nazi, as long as his edits aren't nazi propaganda. But making the essay about "racism" means diluting it too much IMO. It's not about my grandma's casual racism, it's about hate. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

That was my line of thinking in going with "nazis" in the first place. Thinking about it now, I'm giving more weight to the argument that "nazi" has a precise meaning already while "racist" is more general, and thus more easily co-opted for a general use. I'm am not rejecting the argument that casual racists are being swept-up in this usage unfairly, but until a better alternative (hint hint, if you've got one...) comes along, I'll stick with "racists" for now. Of course, once I push it to WP space, it will be free for anyone to edit so long as the people watching that essay (do people do that? Probabl- Wait, I have three essays on my watchlist, so yeah) don't revert.

I also fully intend to make WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS, WP:NOHATE, WP:NOFUCKINGRACISTS, WP:KLANSMENNOTWELCOME, WP:FREEPUNCHFORNAZIS, WP:GOAHEADANDTRYTONAZIHEREIDAREYOU and any other funny/biting/common/easy-to-remember wikititles redirects to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

• White genocide conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe a mention of this may also be a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 10:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Best attempt at a broad counter-argument

I'd been considering the best way to argue against this, because in my experience, it's helpful to have the best counter-argument possible on hand...because for some reason I do have a genuine adherence to a type of purist rational discourse paradigm. And apparently being the Devil's advocate is my thing.

So I suppose I would argue that the more insidious form of discrimination is that which is passive but pervasive. Women in Red is obviously a thing. The WMF doesn't even track ethnic or religious diversity among editors, so much so that I had to beg a researcher on meta to include ethnicity and religion in their data set for an unrelated study simply because we don't have anything. I started making a spreadsheet once (that I can surely still find if anyone is interested) about racial diversity (using more-or-less the US Census Bureau definition) in featured biographies, and the short and sweet of it was that in the first 200 or so articles I went through in alphabetical order before giving up, if you're black, you better win a Nobel Prize, or be a pro athlete if you want an FA. (Even MLK is only a GA currently.) It was even worse for Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asians.

I'd love to know what kind of representation we have among editors who are Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Sikhs, and Buddhists...but we just don't have any idea.

That type of discrimination is particularly virulent because it goes unnoticed, like a bad termite problem that never gets addressed until your house starts falling down. Meanwhile black and brown little kids that are looking up information on people like them, have comparatively dry wells here, in the same way that until recently, and even now in many ways, they had/have dry wells when it came/comes to representation in popular media, and especially in representation among lead characters.

Bombastic racists aren't a termite; they're a wrecking ball. They're normally easy to spot and easy to take care of because they violate basic policies. And as is pointed out above, you can't actually block them for their personal beliefs if they don't let those beliefs violate basic policies...if they just go edit articles on cars or something.

You could also argue that this essay has it own type of SYSTEMICBIAS, in that white nationalism is (obviously) a very Western-centric phenomenon. It ignores what is often virulent racism among many non-Western classes. Violent Muslim persecution in southeast Asia, ethic violence in India, more ethno-religious violence in India, and...basically the Balkans...which deserves nothing more than a link to Balkans. That we should have an essay on a distinctly Western phenomenon, is itself somewhat Western-centric.

Alternatively, I expect there would be broad community support for guidance similar to that which the WMF has for its employees. Simply put, we don't tolerate active discrimination among these classes, and we're liable to block you for it. So when someone comes saying editors are racist against Pakistanis, you better come bearing some pretty good diffs, or we're liable to block you. GMG^talk 22:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. I have some responses:

• For starters, this essay is intended to be informative. The purpose is to explain why these particular sorts aren't welcome, and why admins generally block them as soon as it becomes obvious what they are. It is, essentially, to allow admins blocking such an editor to have an essay to point to, so as to explain why a nazi got blocked as soon as they put a swastika on their user page. It's a courtesy to admins, really, and a way of codifying what is currently left to individual judgement (this is not to suggest that the admins have been exercising poor judgement thus far), and thus either left unsaid or explained by typing out the same points for the thousandths time.
• I agree that passive, systemic discrimination is more damaging than overt white supremacism/nazism/etc. This essay is not intended to address that problem, and an essay would do a poor job of it, anyways.
• I agree that white nationalism is a Western-centric problem. But as we are mostly Westerners on en.wp, it is a problem that we must deal with.
• I also agree that a non-discrimination policy could be a very good, and likely very popular thing. Some would argue that it's already covered under WP:civil, but I've personally seen racists of all sorts very civilly refuse to engage with non-whites, so there is a gap in policy there (I think: I may be wrong and there's a policy page at WP:NONDISCRIMINATION or something similar). Again, that is not the issue this essay addresses.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've personally seen racists of all sorts very civilly refuse to engage with non-whites Really? I don't doubt you. I would be interested to see an example if you can think of one off hand. I am pretty straightforward on my user page about being ambiguously non-white (good book BTW), but I don't know that I've ever noticed it. That may be a problem with my own perception though. I only tip-toe into articles dealing with the most contentious US politics topics, where you are much more involved, and I'm happy to add sister project links to random articles for weeks at a time, and shy away from talk pages all together. But I do wonder if this is just treating one symptom of what a blue link at WP:NONDISCRIMINATION might treat the cause of. GMG^talk 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's actually a lot of examples I can think of. My uncle was an active member of the KKK, and when I brought a black girl by my parent's house once while I was on leave, he (who had been planning on eating dinner with my folks and me) politely excused himself and left. He later told me he "couldn't" eat dinner with a "savage" and tried to give me a speech about miscegenation. I used to know a guy who was a member of an outlaw MC, and I saw him politely lie several times about why he didn't want to be seated in a black or hispanic server's section at a restaurant or bar. I've got more I could recall, but you get the idea. People are less confrontational in everyday life than we often imagine them to be, and in my experience, most racists' interactions with non-whites are fairly polite. And that's not me excusing them at all: I'm sure many Nazis were fairly polite to most of the Jews they met, even as they herded them to the gas chambers. For someone who is non-white, I suspect this may be a bit of an invisible issue, as by design, you're not supposed to recognize that the polite person who seemed so busy all of a sudden was actually a racist who couldn't work up the nerve to break the social contract just to express their racism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, well yeah. I meant on wiki, editors being overtly but civilly racist to other editors because they'd disclosed their ethnicity. That'd be a pretty good indication that CIVIL isn't really cutting it, that there was a layer of the issue which wasn't the type of obvious identity politics barreling toward ANI from a mile away.

I guess with more nit picky stuff, "contrary to the five pillars" doesn't really work. It's contrary to 5P2 and 5P4. I'm also not a huge fan of the "private website" line of argument. That smacks too much of "bad libertarianism" and is intuitive but not rationally compelling. It's...how to put this...it's too easily framed as a type of mob rule, which it isn't. It's not fundamentally an issue of violating community norms, in the sense that if community norms shifted to become, for example, more radically revisionist nationalistic a la Croatian Wikipedia, it would suddenly be okay. It's rather a foundational issue that on a collaborative project, anything that is inseparably anti-collaborative is inseparably antithetical to the project at a core level. For example, I would comfortably argue that an editor who plasters their user page with, not atheistic, but virulently anti-theistic propaganda, is running afoul of this same principle. I would however, expect community norms to be more sympathetic to that as a form of free expression, because I expect the community is, on average, and certainly on noticeboards, more tolerant of far left extremism than far right extremism, when they're both equally anti-collaborative, even though I can sit comfortably in my nice centrist armchair with my warm centrist coffee and call them both spades. GMG^talk 13:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can show you plenty of evidence that overtly racist editors are engaging very civilly, if you'd like to see it.

Regarding the "private website" argument: I tend to agree. I've never seen that as a compelling argument, but rather more akin to a declaration that life's not fair. It's just a statement of fact, after all. It certainly doesn't answer the question of whether someone should be silenced, it just sidesteps the question of whether the silencer can be legally punished for the silencing.

I also agree with you about the community norms. I've already said something very similar in a thread higher up: Basically, I believe that nazism, white supremacy/nationalism, overt racism and other hateful ideologies are bright lines that should not be crossed. And while I would never draw a moral equivalency between the two, I think that "virulently anti-theistic" propaganda should also be considered to exist on the wrong side of that line. I'm an atheist myself, but I have no tolerance for atheists who can't recognize that religion would never have become such a fundamental part of human life if it were anything like what they describe.

With that in mind, I don't think that anti-theism would be "far-left" extremism. I don't think that religiosity is an inherent part of the political spectrum. That being said, actual far-left extremism should be just as unwelcome. An editor who insists upon calling Trump a "piece of shit" in wikivoice and won't take no for an answer is just as bad as one who insists upon calling Obama a "n***er". But there's also a fundamental difference between left-wing and right-wing extremism. For example, while right-wing individuals often think that left-wing extremists want to force people to become gay or transsexual, that's simply not true. Whereas left-wing individuals are convinced that right-wing extremists want to murder or deport all black, brown or Asian people and that's actually fairly spot-on (some of those right-wing extremists simply want to move them to certain states, or deny them certain rights, but the majority want to kill or deport them). Also, left-wing extremism tends to have a variety of other incentives: environmentalism, animal rights, worker's rights, war opposition, etc. Right-wing extremism tends to be fairly narrowly focused: it's always either white supremacy or a nebulous and little-examined desire to return to "traditional" society, which , upon examination, often involves more than a hint of white supremacy.

Much of the problem is the muddying of several different dichotomies. We've got conflict on the the political left-right spectrum (which isn't even an accurate description, as politics has at least two dimensions: libertarianism-authoritarianism and progressivism-conservatism), then we've got multiple fronts in the culture wars (religious-secular, family-community and various subculture-vs-subculture fronts)... It all gets confused, especially when you consider that the majority of people don't subscribe to every belief on the general left-right spectrum that defines the overall conflict. For example, I'm an outspoken liberal, but I'm also opposed to any laws that make it illegal to own something, or to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else, which is a decidedly right-wing position. It's all a hot mess, which makes it hard to define concrete positions and make general statements about the different sides. It's not a single conflict at all: it's 50 different conflicts all rolled up together where certain groups tend to be clumped together in a loose alliance.

Oh, and you're not a centrist. No more than I am. ;) We're both liberals who have some right-wing views, and aren't afraid to admit that the left is every bit as stupid as the right (in theory, if not always in practice; but absolutely in practice at least sometimes). And there's (obviously) nothing wrong with that. It's certainly far more desirable than being a full-on liberal or conservative, because those people are literally following others, and not examining the issues for themselves. The only people who are truly centrist are children who haven't yet realized there are sides to pick. Or alternatively: I'm actually just as centrist as you. This is another part of the problem I just mentioned: You are I have quite similar political views, yet we define them in two different ways. Not just differing in the details, but in how we even approach the subject of defining our views.

So I think the way for a project like WP to deal with them is in a "bright-line" sense. We define (without consideration for politics, religion, culture, etc, but only considering what is helpful and harmful to this project) certain behaviors and beliefs that won't be tolerated, and then we enforce those, regardless of the current political climate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely left of center in the context of Southeast Kentucky. But I was definitely right of center last time I meandered my way to Portland, Oregon. I consider myself either solidly centrist or just somewhere on the Y or Z axis of the political spectrum. Probably the latter if I'm being totally honest, and considering that my biggest influences politically are people like Dan Carlin, who is well off the political spectrum somewhere on the Y or Z axis himself.

I agree that rabid anti-theism isn't inherently leftist. Rabid race based nationalism isn't necessarily inherently rightist either. Given enough time and historical accident they could eventually switch places. But through time and historical accident, from the French Revolution to Richard Dawkins, rabid anti-theism in our human timeline is a distinctly far-left phenomenon. I am technically a soft-atheist, but only in as much as I reject Deism as inherently meaningless, while being neither true nor untrue. Although I'm more properly a type of apatheist, in that I reject basically the entire spectrum on the same grounds, including any type of proactive atheism. But people like Sam Harris start to cross a line for me at some point, and just end up looking like a leftist version of Ben Shapiro. And when folks like the farish left in Europe start banning religious dress in public spaces, well...that's some Nazi shit right there, and it doesn't matter that you did it trying to be as "progressive" as possible.

So I certainly don't think the right or the left either one has a monopoly on racism or religious discrimination. To steal and corrupt a line from Dawkins himself, the only difference between religious based discrimination on the far left and the right is that the far right manages to discriminate against one less religion than the far left.

But more to the point here, defining a standard of being anti-collaborative is an amoral and apolitical standard. And I believe in the purest way possible that if you're forming first-principles, your first-principles need to be amoral and apolitical, and your morality and politics should then flow from a consistent application of that standard, and not the other way round, where most people in my experience define their morality and their politics first, and then go backward from that to whatever first-principles justify their preexisting beliefs. GMG^talk 14:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Speak of the devils and they'll show up and circle jerk for an hour about how they're basically just different sides of the same coin. GMG^talk 14:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the ""intellectual" dark web" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, about 20 minutes into the Harris/Shapiro video, about 10 minutes ago, was the first time I heard the term. But this is both of them on their best behavior. Get them in a friendly room and they open up quite a bit more. Like this video of Shaprio at Liberty University, that according to YouTube, I only made it seven minutes into before cringing on over to something else. GMG^talk 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rabid race based nationalism isn't necessarily inherently rightist either. Given enough time and historical accident they could eventually switch places. I'm gonna have to stop you, there. I will agree that rabid racism isn't inherently right-wing, but nationalism of any stripe is. And racism is (generally speaking) antithetical to left-wing politics, which is grounded in egalitarianism. The Ur-example of left-wing politics, communism, has been described as state-enforced, absolute economic egalitarianism. That's not to say that the left can't get bigoted (they can), but that the bigotry has to work extra hard to take root, and will never become as pervasive and deeply ingrained as it does on the right.

Also, I'm the guy who constantly reminds people that the Democrats are centrist, and I feel like a backwoods, 'neck reactionary in Portland, San Diego and San Francisco. It's not just you, it's anyone who doesn't think Kale should be one of the major food groups.

But more to the point here, defining a standard of being anti-collaborative is an amoral and apolitical standard. And I believe in the purest way possible that if you're forming first-principles, your first-principles need to be amoral and apolitical, and your morality and politics should then flow from a consistent application of that standard, and not the other way round, where most people in my experience define their morality and their politics first, and then go backward from that to whatever first-principles justify their preexisting beliefs. I agree. This is why I've never written an essay denouncing creationists (I actually just recently supported the unblock request of a creationist with whom I was in a dispute at the time because the edit warring that got them blocked was out of character for them), the WP:Lunatic charlatans, minimal-government-fiscal-conservatives, anti-vaxxers or any of the other groups I find morally or politically dubious. As I said above, hate-based racism is just inherently at odds with the concept of collaboration, and thus presents a special case. There's two mentions of morality in there, but it's in the contexts of (a) general advice about how the morality of the typical editor will conflict with the morality of racists, and (b) how being a a highly moral person with highly racists beliefs will inevitably result in behavior that the majority consider highly immoral, which is really a subset of the first point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The lazy answer to left wing nationalism is something like the USSR or Cuba. The better answer is the French Revolution, which was nationalistic to the core. Vive la France. The idea that the survival of the essential elements of the nation state as they saw it lies in the imposition of this new radical anti-monarch ideology, and if you disagree with us you're going to be short one head. Nationalism is simply the belief in the primacy of the nation state. It's not essentially rooted to any other political ideology or religion.

Egalitarianism isn't essentially leftist either. Radical libertarians are among the most egalitarian on the spectrum, and they're most often right of center. I'm also sympathetic to the notion of a type of tyrannical egalitarianism that defines egalitarianism in a way that is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. One of the biggest problems with the left is that they fundamentally misinterpret social constructionism, by which I mean a literal reading of The Social Construction of Reality (which everyone should read). Socially constructed does not equate to arbitrary and subject to capricious change; it equates to subjectively and collectively real in a way that is most often indistinguishable from objective existence. I reject basically the entirety of post-modernism as tyrannical egalitarianist nonsense, where you have defined away meaning, and you should be shut out of responsible adult discourse because you don't have any.

Actual common sense egalitarianism in most countries is a thing on the left and the right. Even though we may think differently, my neighbor, who is virulently homophobic, didn't think to kill me when I rented the house next door to him to a gay couple. That is substantial progress across the long arc of human existence. But I don't think you can get off ascribing any essential capital-G Good to either the left or the right. Hitler from the right exterminated 17 million people, and single-handedly started a war that killed 80 million in total. Stalin on the left starved 12 million people to death in Ukraine. Genghis Khan killed, by some estimates, 90 million people in China and did it by hand. How do you draw any conclusion from that which says not that the right or the left has an essentially evil element to it, but that we have an essientially evil element to us, and given the right circumstances, I will kill you, and you will kill me, and we'll have no reservations about it?

As the USSR is the lazy answer to leftist nationalism, "Nazis are singularly bad in a special way" is the lazy answer to intolerance. Intolerance is bad. Commons sense egalitarianism is good, and we should recognize that we all have the potential for both. GMG^talk 16:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Small point: "when folks like the farish left in Europe start banning religious dress in public spaces" To me, it seems to be the right-wing parties who try to do that in Europe, such as the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, and only those dresses which belong to religions different from their own - nun habit is ok, burqa is not. It is one of the xenophobic noises they make to attract certain voters. Who are those farish-left folks? (But, to return to a point made above a few times, maybe what is right-wing in Europe, is left-wing in the US?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too in depth, but I will say that there's nothing inherently Good or Evil about either political spectrum. Nor does any have an inherent claim to more rationality. But in the modern world (and I mean "post 9/11" specifically), where "right-wing" individuals would be considered radically left-wing by most pre-modern people and remarkably open-minded by the average person during the modern period, and where left-wing extremists are generally confined to... I actually can't think of a marxist guerilla insurgency that hasn't disbanded off the top of my head though I'm sure there's still one or two, there are a few general points to make.

• Liberalism has become the face of left-wing politics, replacing Marxism. This shifts the left "up" a bit in the authoritarian-libertarian scale towards libertarian.
• The right has shifted towards authoritarianism in the past half-decade or so.
• This changes the dynamic a bit, pushing the right edge of the Overton window back to include ideas that had previously been rejected (ethnic nationalism).
• There has been a continuation of the leftward shift that has been going on for centuries. It's even sped up with technology, leaving the "center" position further to the left, even as the Overton window grows in the opposite direction.
• Very few movements are entirely left or right wing, and those that are, are almost invariably considered "evil" to one degree or another. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ghadafi. I suspect that has a lot to do with the tendency of those leaders to apply "Good" and "Evil" labels to political ideals.
• It's getting harder and harder to apply the same principles defining traditional left- and right-wing politics to modern politics, because they're moving around the spectrum and the shifting shape and position of the Overton window is moving ideas to and from the center.

And of course, there's the most important point I made, which bears repeating:

• As I already said, the problem with racism isn't that it's a traditionally (or even inherently) right wing thing. Hell, it's not even The problem it's that it's divisive and breed conflict naturally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm...I dunno. I think I'm rhetorically exhausted. I never really intended to get quite this invested in the argument. The Overton window is an interesting concept, and I've never really sorted out my thoughts on the issue in any detail. I think we mostly agree, as we usually do, and the level of granularity that we have to reach in order to disagree is exhausting but interesting. GMG^talk 00:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I almost read the whole thread (not its last messages since 24h or so), but I also have the impression that a more general nondiscrimination policy that goes beyond than WP:CIVIL would be a great thing. I'm not necessarily saying that it shouldn't be supplemented by something about neo-nazism (like this), or that it would not include information about that, of course. I understand that the rise of neonazi activism on Wikipedia is a problem in itself. —PaleoNeonate – 14:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think me an GMG mentioned the same thing somewhat recently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes exactly, GMG pointed at something similar for WMF employees, but we appear to miss an equivalent for editors? I agree with him that we need it, if so. —PaleoNeonate – 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

See also meta:Friendly space policy, although that one is only for IRL events. GMG^talk 15:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess I would also clarify that I am in no way advocating that we make Wikipedia a "Safe Space™". People who come bearing crap arguments and crap sources should promptly have their arguments and sources publicly and succinctly eviscerated, but in a way that is civil and on topic regarding edits and not editors. But that's not the same things as saying that overt group identity based discrimination isn't right out by any common sense application of CIVIL, NPA, AGF, and the like. We just don't seem to make that explicit anywhere. GMG^talk 15:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, context is indeed different. A little humor: after posting my previous post, the "if so", made me think of the chains of suggestive questions in the "ancient aliens" series, interspersed by an "if so, ..." implied "yes", ending with: "ancient astronaut theorists say: yes!" (also parodied in a South Park episode, and in the mouseover text for the alien top icon on my user page). —PaleoNeonate – 15:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just gonna leave this here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: I haven't read the full thread, but I'm no stranger to being the Devil's advocate. I just wonder: what if a user would put nazi imagery on their user page, but only edit articles about cars, like GMG said? At first glance one would probably think "ban the fucker!!", but should we? And if we did, should we also ban devout Christians? Or what about other religions and their extremists? What if a known child molester were to register on Wikipedia to write about furniture? Or people who very clearly side with Israel, or Palestine? I feel a bit uncomfortable to block users for what they think or believe, no matter how wrong or miserable. The second they screw up anything in article space they can go fuck themselves. But if they don't? As an "informative essay", I think it could be improved. It's probably better to write a wider policy or take an existing one (like NPOV) and just explain how nazis fit into it. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I started a draft in my sandbox (please ignore the mess) of what I was thinking. I haven't finished it yet though. But I don't like singling out any one group. I much rather would have a principle that is amoral and apolitical. So if someone who is radical Evangelical said Gays are a curse on this earth or someone who is radical anti-theist said Christians are genetically morons and should be exterminated, vs someone who put's a Nazi flag on their user page, they're all the same to me really. They all draw a line that says I refuse to collaborate with this group. And that is unacceptable in a purely pragmatic way.

Imagine you are someone who is Jewish, and discloses that on your userpage, but you get in a dispute with someone over cars, and they have a swastika on theirs? Collaboration is gone. My point is that I don't give a shit if you are a radical. I still want you to edit Wikipedia and help us, I just want you to keep that shit off here. Because on here we're supposed to all work together. GMG^talk 01:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks good to me as a policy proposal, but it leaves out any explanation of why we generally block anyone pushing a white supremacist POV, even civilly. This page is intended to be just an essay. I might steal some of what you've written there, and try to re-frame it a bit to cut down on the wordiness of mine. I'll let you know if I do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Homer sez! Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree. If one contributor has a selfie on their user page that shows their skin color or a black lives matter userbox and another flies the confederate flag on their user page, the end result is the same. The question is where to draw the line. Will Pepe the Frog be okay? Could you openly support Israel, Turkey, China, Putin or Nicolás Maduro? If I had the carnivore userbox on my user page, would that be a problem because it would upset PETA members? Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that pro-Palestinian editors, PETA member editors and such would be able to understand that your view on those subjects is not necessarily going to inform your participation here, and that the inability to recognize that would be their problem, not that of the editor indicating their views. Also, Pepe has been co-opted so hard that there's little meaning other than "alt-right trolling" to it. It would be unreasonable to suspect that anyone on the internet prominently displaying a Pepe is saying anything except "I'm alt-right and I like to troll". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, Pepe is tankfully fair use. So that's taken care of for us. But more to the point, in the purist post enlightment way possible, it's not a bad thing to disagree with people. In fact it's vital that we do. In instances where we do develop isolated echo chambers of overly like minded editors, it can be fairly corrosive of the project. Despite the stongly worded recent commentary of a certain admin on the modern plight of AN and ANI, one of the worst offenders on the project is WP:FTN, where you pretty often get a squad of the same regulars that, while they don't edit necessarily in a way that is counter to policy, they do tend to enforce policy in a way that is bereft of nuance.

Other than that, I'd say a policy against hate speech could well chug along on the pornography test: it's hard to define but you know it when you see it. GMG^talk 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm one of those regulars at FTN, and I can quickly provide a couple examples of me defending the woo (read: arguing against a skeptical POV when that POV is going too far), as it were. Nor am I the only one. The problem is that the stuff that makes it to FTN is usually the stuff where there's no ability left on the part of some skeptical editor to AGF with the person pushing woo, and so they come gather up a mob to shout the other guy down. It's not the most upstanding way of deciding the issue, but it generally results in better decisions than not having FTN would. If you don't believe me, go check the archives and count how many threads get "meh" responses or no responses at all, and then compare the qualities of the complaints therein. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm no stranger to FTN either, though I more often watch and participate on articles, rather than on the board itself. And I'm not saying it's every thread, or that we really need fair and balanced™ when it comes to bigfoot. But the times when I've found myself stacking up against a half dozen experienced editors and just telling them they're wrong, it's often that crowd. GMG^talk 18:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This all describes why I spend less time on FTN than I used to. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I can get behind that. When I've squared off against experienced editors, it's frequently skeptics. But I'll point out that there are a couple other issues experienced editors often line up on, including politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Small nit

"These beliefs are -without exception- either demonstrably false or unsupported by evidence."

The last of those beliefs is "That entire groups of people should be wiped off the face of the planet."

Of course, every non-psychopathic non-asshole disagrees with that one, but it is a value judgement, not the type of sentence that is capable of being true or false or of being supported or unsupported by evidence. How about something like this?

"These beliefs are -without exception- either demonstrably false, unsupported by evidence, or unhinged sentiments that are the consequence of demonstrably false beliefs."

I like all the rest of the essay. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going to re-add my original wording, which was "demonstrably false or impossible to prove" and merge it with the existing words. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Finer points

I have two comments / questions:

• On this one: ...Odds are, that person is not a racist, but rather either an editor who happens to share a perspective (not even necessarily a belief) with racists..., I'm not sure if I'm following. I.e. someone may share perspectives with "nazis", but not be a "nazi"? This seems odd. Perhaps reword to what would suggest you can still AGF, such as "...an editor who used an unfortunate turn of phrase..." / "misspoke" / "was not aware of cultural sensitivities when communicating in English" or something to this effect.
• Re: There is a partial list of such pages below. -- I do not currently see a list. Is there a plan to add it? Or this sentence could simply be removed.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first: People who are not racist (in the sense that they don't think certain races are less capable than others) are frequently duped into thinking that certain claims by racists are true. Such as "there is a scientifically valid classification of humans called 'race'."

Regarding the second: There was, right up until I forgot. Thank you for reminding me, lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: point one, would it be appropriate to say "prone to conspiracy theories" or "pseudoscientific beliefs", as more straightforward? "Sharing perspectives with racists" sounds like a round-about way of saying "racist"; that's why I had a question about this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It may be that that's a better way of putting it. I understand what you're saying here. What do you think of "Odds are, that person is not a racist, but rather someone who unwittingly picked up a few beliefs from racist conspiracy theories or pseudoscience..." ? I think it's the addition of "unwittingly" that really helps make clear that we're not drawing a meaningless distinction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this ("unwittingly" etc.) makes sense to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Move to Project space?

Given trying to edit this brings up a big user oversight blocked notice and the page gets crossed out if your preferences are set right should we consider moving this to project space? I'd hate for the user's block to diminish the validity of the essay. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, regardless of block. Even if MPants wasn't block or even if he comes back, if it stays here, new users are likely to dismiss it based on its location ("it's just that guy's opinion") rather than the reasoning of the arguments (granted, if Nazis reasoned to their fullest ability, they would not be Nazis). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I would support this. I wrote a significant portion of the blocking section, and think that its good advice for all admins to follow and is justification that would make more sense in project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree. There's a danger that anyone who comes across it here will judge it by the status of the creator, rather than on its own merits. ——SerialNumber54129 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I’ve done the deed. I’d also suggest that WP:NONAZI be retargeted here. Admins coloqueally use ur to refer to blocking racist trolls anyway and it hasn’t been used to mean WP:NPA in a while. I’m also going to remove the endorser line as it seems less appropriate for a project space essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Short cut retargeted too. ——SerialNumber54129 22:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I created WP:NONAZIS with the S as the primary listed shortcut. The no S and No"F"ing ones still work but don't need to be listed. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I also created WP:BLOCKNAZIS to link to the section on blocking since that explains the rationale that many admins use when making blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Good essay but no warning?

TonyBallioni reverted[1] my addition of a warning from WP:NATIONALIST that I copied from WP:CIR to be careful when citing this. I think such a warning is appropriate, both to advise people linking the page, and to somewhat mitigate the damage if it is linked willy-nilly. I can see that this may be more of purely an "essay" than what CIR and NATIONALIST were intended as, which is a place to link when action may be required? I guess we need to see how this essay matures and evolves. Take for example someone who is editing Race and intelligence or Race and crime and admits they feel there is a difference - is it ok to link this article which seems to say they should be blocked for that? These are very contentious topics and I think MPant's style of confrontation may bleed over into that space. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MPants was blocked for oversightable material, not for confrontation on this essay. We've already cleaned it up a lot. I'm also not a fan of the banner on CIR or NATIONALIST: it looks really tacky and makes the essay seem less serious. If people can't read the section of this essay that basically says we'll block you if you cite it inappropriately (WP:CRYRACIST, that's their problem.) I'd be fine with adding a line to the hat note about being careful not to use the essay when not justified or something along those lines. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if all three of the above essays stand on their own and make sense, they might be flashed in people's faces in content disputes rather than applied in reference to obviously problematic and NOTHERE editors. So I think it is good to make clear not to slap people around with it unless they really look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that people are more discerning than this and would not go around linking to this essay willy-nilly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Per K.e.coffman. Also, we have WP:CRYRACIST. We can slap it back to people just like what we already do using WP:CRYBLP. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Emphasize on hate

I find it odd that an essay about racism, especially some of the most virulent forms of it, have no single occurrence of the words "hate" or "hatred". Per Bishonen, K.e.coffman and Doug Weller's exchange here, we're not talking about grandma generation's racism. As hatred is the primary motivation for racism, we might need some rewrite to emphasize our stance that any form of hatred or intolerance is absolutely unacceptable here. Thoughts? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggested wording? We can tell you if we hate it or not. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of the essay is not to describe the state of those who are Nazis, extreme racists, or other forms of genocidal maniacs. The purpose is to describe the impact that they have on the project. It is a depersonalized essay intentionally (or, at least the parts I wrote are, and I assume the other parts are similar.)

The point of this essay is not to paint these people in any more negative light than they already paint themselves. It is simply to explain that their presence on Wikipedia is objectively disruptive and that showing them the door is entirely in line with our policies and guidelines. I don't think we need to comment on their mental state/motivations to do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This essay is so convenient

Now all you have to do is convince everyone that the editors with whom you disagree are Nazis. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Now spend a minute reading the article beyond its title. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This essay is more about how the presence of the far-right has a corrosive effect on the project via WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE among other significant and important policies. It's not about calling editors nazis, it's about why opposition to nazi content is central to the success of the Wikipedia project's stated goals.Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Convincing evidence is always required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the essay also includes a section on not accusing people of being racists to win a fight. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoint-based blocks

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.

---

The opening paragraph of this essay explicitly argues that editors who hold racist opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia and should be indefinitely blocked on sight, even if their edits comply with policy. This has led to the essay being cited on noticeboard discussions, for example [2], to support that editors be blocked for using sources published by organizations that the SPLC classifies as hate groups, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Now that it has been moved into project space, we need to be realistic about the fact that editors are beginning to use this essay as a rationale for blocking people. (Note that I'm not trying to make an argument about whether the Federation for American Immigration Reform or the Center for Immigration Studies satisfy WP:RS. The issue is that because of this essay and the SPLC classifying these organizations as hate groups, editors are arguing that citing sources published by them should be a blockable offense.)

In this RFC, every editor who responded expressed the view that blocks should be based only on a person's behavior, and that viewpoint-based blocks are not compatible with policy. User:Jweiss11 and User:Leaky caldron suggested that when the proposal in that RFC inevitably failed, this essay should either be moved back into userspace or re-nominated for deletion. When it was nominated for deletion as a userspace essay, user:Nyttend had expressed the view that the essay should only be kept because editors are given a lot of leeway with what they can post in their userspace: [3]. Of course, now that this essay has been moved into project space, that's no longer a valid defense.

It's not a good situation for there to be a widely-cited project space essay that's also widely-regarded as incompatible with policy. I would like opinions from other editors about how to address this issue. Aside from the suggestions made by Jweiss11 and Leaky Cauldron, a third option would be to modify the essay into a narrower prohibition against displaying Nazi imagery or citing sources from actual neo-Nazis. Those actions are inherently disruptive, so changing the essay in that way would avoid the advocacy of viewpoint-based blocks, while preserving the useful parts of the essay. 2601:42:800:A9DB:7C8C:99A8:4EE9:72F1 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2601:42:800:A9DB:7C8C:99A8:4EE9:72F1, you are rewriting consensus there for that RfC you just cited. When TonyBallioni closed it, they wrote; Pointy proposal that has devolved into a discussion no good can come from. It's also still an essay here. As the user in your first diff succinctly stated, it is an advisement. It isn't policy and shouldn't be quoted as such. In case I am not being clear here, you have not shown any diffs that adequately show it being cited as if it was policy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That RfC was closed for reasons that I can’t get into here, though yes, it was pointy and several of the people commenting had previously endorsed the rationale for blocking in the MfD. A lack of consensus for a proposal designed in a way that was intended to fail does not delegitimize a fairly standard practice. Additionally this is clearly logged out editing and I’d urge everyone just to ignore this thread. If the IP wants their views here taken seriously, they should log into their account. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A good editor is someone who's views are hard to figure out because they are neutral in how they edit. If it becomes evident from how someone edits (or what they post anywhere) that they are any kind of Nazi they need to be blocked. This essay is not widely regarded as incompatable with policy. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2019 (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.

Indef semi protection

To cut down on the drama I've requested this page be indef semi protected so only logged in users can edit the page and the talkpage. No point letting named users post as IPs here Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. I declined that request here. I didn't note this in my decline statement but I will add that talk pages in particular, are protected only rarely and with great reluctance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Things I don't like about this essay. Part 1: the list of pages

The essay includes a long list of "pages often edited by racists". This is severely problematic.

1. It invites readers to visit those pages and try to figure out which editors are being charged with racism. Since no editors are named here (nor should they be), every editor of those pages is guilty until proven innocent. Only a minority of readers will be able to identify subtle racism without significant effort, and they will often get it wrong. Even when it is obvious which editors are being accused, we are violating this very page's injunction against making direct charges rather than using appropriate noticeboards.
2. Just as a list of child pornography sites will be very useful to people who want to look at child pornography, genuine racists will use this list to find pages where their views are "needed". So actually the list will increase problems on those pages.

Zero^talk 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed on the list of pages. It was something I planned on addressing in the next few days as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The list has a good use - so concerned editors can watchlist pages. That is best accomplished on the editor side here: Wikipedia talk:No Nazis/pages Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

How does that help? Zero^talk 11:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It puts the list were it can be found by those who know what it is useful for but not for the casual reader. Legacypac (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of racism without evidence are not permitted anywhere in the project. Zero^talk 11:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've edited some of these pages and I do not consider myself to have been accused of racism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Were my words really that unclear? Your reply doesn't match anything I wrote. Zero^talk 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On that note you can also follow "related changes" from this page, which shows changes to pages linked from the target: related changes. I'm not sure if there's a Special: link for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying that certain topics are interesting to racists is not earth shattering or accusing anyone of racism. I don't think that very few editors can recognize racist editing and most of them will get it wrong. Only racists can't see racism, for the rest of us it is easy to spot. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "racist editing", I said "subtle racism". I didn't say "most", I said "often". Leaving aside your invalid use of strawman arguments, you don't know what you are talking about. Repeated studies have proved that average people notice racism much more after they have been made sensitive to it, and even then they attribute different importance to identical events aimed at different groups. You can do your own googling. The claim "only racists can't see racism" is completely false. Zero^talk 00:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle

I think this is relevant because it is a sort of counterpoint, regarding POV pushing. Benjamin (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well... Nazism isn't just another POV, they harm our community. WP:POLE regrettably doesn't counter the main points of this essay. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but I still think it's relevant and related. Benjamin (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• The essay does not seem to be particularly relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Benjamin that it is relevant and related. Should be included on the See Also section. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with others here that the two aren't related. Including the essay in the See Also section, would imply that the two directly have something to do with one another. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 11:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Both essays deal with POV pushing. They don't have to be diametrically opposed to be related or relevant. Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

CRYRACIST

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.

---

This should be removed or refactored. It is one thing to bar calling another editor a "racist" (of any type) - which is a personal attack. However discussion of content is another matter. Describing Holocaust denial, Holocaust distortion, White supremacist material, or any other such material - should be allowed in a factual manner. The present essay actually enables editors who seek to enter such distortion into Wikipedia, and use of this essay constituted a chilling effect towards those editors who seek to challenge historically/socially inaccurate material inserted into Wikipedia. Holocaust denial and distortion should not be seen as a mere "content dispute". Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

See every single time above this that we've been over this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering that I’m also the person who wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I highly doubt that. What the current essay does is show that both Holocaust denial and false accusations of the same are inappropriate and will result in blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh? Are blocks here to be made only after meticulous and through checks that the claims are in fact demonstratively false? It is one thing to block someone who falsely CRYRACIST (after the content, and RSes on the matter, was thoroughly vetted and verified). It is another to block merely on the suspicion, not borne out from examination of the evidence in question, that the assertion may be false. If we are to block editors, based on this policy, on the suspicions that their claims on content may be false then we are enabling insertion of such content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we’re saying that calling users things like “racist trolls” or “racist vandals” over a dispute on content where it is not blatantly obvious is inappropriate. If we don’t block people for this behaviour we are enabling easy steamrolling and chilling of our normal dispute resolution process. We block nazis and Holocaust deniers on sight. We also block people who make claims of that in a content dispute against other editors. Careful analysis of sourcing is always allowed and encouraged. Calling another editor an anti-Semitic vandal results in a block unless it is clear that is the case. This essay was not written as a way to enable one side or another to win content disputes: it was written to prevent Nazis from using our policies against us. The section about abusing this essay to win a dispute is also needed, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that calling an editor a "racist vandal" is generally a personal attack. However calling content "racist vandalism" should not be seen as a personal attack. For instance, should someone modify The Holocaust's infobox to change the number of Jewish victims from 6 to 4 million (possibly citing some source of either a dubious quality or in a dubious manner) - then describing the edit as such should not be seen as a personal attack. Likewise for other historically or racially (e.g. edits to African Americans in a manner not congruent with mainstream sources) inaccurate edits. WP:AVOIDYOU applies to editors (e.g. calling someone an "anti-X"), however as AVOIDYOU states - describing content should be seen as a personal attack. We should generally prefer on Wikipedia to err on the side of removing possibly racist content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If it’s a content dispute that requires talk discussion it’s not vandalism, and accusations of the same are inappropriate and personal attacks. If it doesn’t require talk discussion and everyone agrees, then report to ANI so they can be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust denial should not be seen a content dispute. In the hypothetical above - e.g. someone changing the number of Holocaust victims from 6 million to 4 million, even if ostensibly sourced to sources containing the cited number, it would be an act of vandalism. Perhaps providing definitive proof of such vandalism would require an in-depth talk page discussion (citing the multitude of sources that are in disagreement with 4), however such a discussion won't take place if we block those who call this out. Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re preaching to the choir, and the section you want removed is not inconsistent with that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Using sources that are racist is not a problem if done correctly. The other day I cited and quoted a precivil war white ≥supremest in white trash but I did it in context to show what the argument was back then, and no one would think I was pushing his agenda. If someone tried to CRYRACIST over my edits there they should be blocked. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The section currently reads "Claims of racist trolling and vandalism....". Calling content vandalism is a comment on content, not an editor. As such, the current essay runs foul of Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is policy and expressly permits comments on content.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Policy explicitly disagrees. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to call it "racist disruption" with respect to our policies. Racist comments are not necessarily vandalism by our definition, although they are almost certain to be disruptive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) NOTVANDALISM says that calling someone a "vandal" is a personal attack, it does not refer to labelling of content as such, merely defines the term as used on Wikipedia. Misuse of a Wikipedia term directed at content is not personal. Certainly good faithed Holocaust denial may exist if an editor is misinformed, however we should not tolerate auch content in mainspace.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering: no one is disagreeing with you on the Holocaust denial point. What we’re saying is that if this essay or the ideas expressed in it are used to silence opposition in content disputes, the person doing it will be blocked. If that has a chilling effect on people using false accusations of anti-semitism or other form of racism as a way to get ahead on this project, that’s the whole point. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We should WP:AGF regarding such claims, and only act if they are actually truly proven as false claims. If we act on the suspicion that such claims may be false, then we favor the wrong side here, and we possibly allow defamatory content to persist in mainspace.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Icewhiz. The essay as written does not respect WP:AGF. XavierItzm (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• My 2¢ I am not opposed to the basic idea behind this essay. I just think it is too narrow and, as noted above, fails AGF. Being bluntly honest, Nazis are very convenient bogymen. But to my mind the essay should address social/political extremists of all stripes who can't check their WP:AGENDA at the door. Since getting the bit I've had a few run ins with your stereotypical antisemites and white supremacists. But the fringe wackjobs that I have had to deal with the most, are by far the Sovereign Citizens. If I had a nickel for everyone of those pseudo-intellectual clowns that I have had to block, I could stop buying lottery tickets. This essay should be shorter in its word count and broader in its scope. Very simply anyone with social/political views that a reasonable person might label as fringe, and who demonstrates an inability to edit in an NPOV manner, should be shown the door. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the part that’s being objected to above on AGF grounds is saying that we should assume good faith on people who call other editors anti-semites. I hope I’m not the only person who sees the irony here: asking us to assume good faith on blatant assumptions of bad faith. The point of CRYRACIST is the exact point you are making here: most editors are not nazis, and this essay and the parts that deal with it should not be used to justify content disputes. I’m also personally of the view that when it’s being called both McCarthyism by people who want to welcome actual nazis on this website on the one hand and too nazi-friendly on the other, that it likely strikes a good balance. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You are correct in your point about this section. I probably should have posted my comment as a new section. Clarifying, my position is that we should not presume bad faith, even among persons who subscribe to what we might regard as odious views. While it may be entirely reasonable to subject suspected extremists to a certain degree of increased scrutiny until we are satisfied that they are here to build an encyclopedia and contribute constructively, I think that is as far as it should go sans evidence of disruptive behavior. And I also think we should not spend so much time focusing on Nazis. Extremists come in all sorts of flavors and from every corner of the social political spectrum. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t express it that way, but I think we’re in rough agreement. It’s impossible to know if someone is a racist troll unless they self-identify, and I think the essay does fairly well about striking a balance here. At the same time, we do have actual white supremicists, nazis, and Holocaust denying POV pushers who should be blocked, which is the point this essay is making. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are such. I have bumped into, and blocked a few myself. I just see extremist POV editing as going beyond Nazis and others of a similar ilk. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with this essay is that you can't build a moral system when you start with moral precepts. If you want to build a moral system then you have to start with amoral principles and apply them consistently in a way that makes a systemic morality based on that application. If we have anyone whose primary purpose here is to push a POV, then we don't want them here, or rather we want them to re-evaluate their motivation and return when they've fixed themselves. That applies across purposes and even when the POV the person is here to push is one we personally agree with. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that the intuitively satisfying morality is the best morality, because we don't block Nazis because they're Nazis. We block them because they're toxic and toxic people aren't conducive to the goals of the project. GMG^talk 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  Huh, I don't see anyone trying to build a policy with a new moral system. This essay is just an extension of WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. Whether Nazis are toxic off-wiki is no business of Wikipedia, which does not adopt cultural relativism. I oppose most of this essay because it contradicts WP:FRINGE's point that even Nazi opinions deserve a place on WP (obviously adhering to WP:FDESC). On the other hand, I also oppose the moral counter-arguments that all basically sound like this: if Hitler created Wikipedia, it would have a "No Jews" page. I'm not sure if your comment has anything to do with the topic at hand, the CRYRACIST section, but I may have misread your comment. FWIW, I oppose the wording in WP:CRYRACIST, and believe that it should focus more on reactionary disruption than on good-faith criticism of racism. I most strongly oppose the final paragraph in the section, because NPOV doesn't have two sides when one side is racist. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  All CRYRACIST says is that we block for WP:NPA violations. Good faith disruptive behaviour is still disruptive: this is a principle in virtually every arbitration case. If someone is using accusations of racism to bludgeon legitimate content disputes (and yes, this does happen), then they should be blocked, just as people who post swastikas on their user pages should be blocked. I have tweaked the last paragraph a bit per your concerns, however. If you disagree with that, there isn't much more I can do. Using dispute resolution to solve problems involving legitimate disputes over the nature of sourcing is already policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  Umm...I mean, in a very core way our elaborate systems of policies, guidelines and essays, especially as they relate to user conduct, are trying to build a system of morality as it relates to Wikipedia. Something like CIVIL or BITE are inherently moralistic standards, and they're not shared by other communities. Go on Reddit or Twitter and see just how many times you can call someone a "fucking retard" for disagreeing with you until you're given some kind of sanction or expulsion, if in fact you ever are. But the whole discussion just seems overly narrow, as reflected by the scope of the essay. Racist trolls and vandals are a serious threat to the encyclopedia. as if for example homophobic vandals and trolls are somehow less so. As if someone whose entire purpose on the project is "fuck France and fuck French people" doesn't have a judicious block heading their way. Equally so someone who attacks another user as being an anti-French bigot as a way of winning a content dispute. (That last one is not hypothetical although I don't really feel like digging up the ANI thread. Rest assured I hate French people and am driven relentlessly by my deep rooted biases.)

  Having said all that, I think that if you haven't seen calling someone a Nazi, or a homophobe, or a mysogynist isn't often code, at least in the West, for "someone who doesn't toe the line perfectly with my tribe", and is used as a euphemism and an epithet for anyone who wants to discuss uncomfortable nuance, then you haven't been paying close attention. In the case you haven't, then find your closest garbage spouting post-modernist and call them out for their nonsense, and see how quickly you become the vile reinforcer of the colonialist patriarchial Euro-centric hegemony. GMG^talk 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Historical distortion is not a legitimate content dispute - whether good faithed or bad faithed. We should be encouraging users to call out such distortions. Equating between a user calling out, in good faith, racist content - and a user (foolishly - whether he is blocked or not) posting a swastika on their user page is obscene. As an actual example - I removed here too (rationale + source on commons) "content" that turned a Soviet election notice in Yiddish (filmed by the Germans in 1941) into a "Jewish welcome banner, Białystok, during Soviet invasion" (1939). Such a misrepresentation has an academic name (which is well founded here) - however it would seem that complaining (or even using established technical terms for said content) about such false content would be a "personal attack". Chilling effect indeed - chilling removal of such content (which in some topic areas is rife throughout the topic on Wikipedia, that image is far drom a singular example).Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• It seems fine to say "removing a hoax" in an edit summary; but if one wants to say "Editor X is inserting anti-semitic hoaxes into articles", this should happen at an admin noticeboard and accompanied by evidence in the form of diffs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps the prudent course of action - but it seems we'll be blocking editors for calling a WP:SPADE a WP:SPADE prior to getting there, and once we get there - we treat it as a "too complicated" and tied to a Wikipedia:Content dispute (e.g. see [4][5]). As a possibly recent illustrative example - this diff in Jewish Bolshevism (itself a canard) inserted information supposedly supporting the canard. The cited source, however, [6] has an attributed quote of Hugo Ball (and not to Albert Boime the author of the piece, and had Boime been alive (deceased 2008) - this would be a serious BLP issue), whom Boime describes as antisemitic with "old stereotypes" flowing from his pen. To add insult to injury, the apparent actual source for this (URL link in the diff) is a "review" in unz.com which is a republished piece from [7] the Occidental Observer - quoting our lead "The Occidental Observer is an American far-right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective. But, I suppose, this is merely a Wikipedia:Content dispute that is perhaps "too complicated" to disentangle, so I've been politely discussing this edit at User talk:Icewhiz#Re: Your Edit on Jewish Bolshevism. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll note that sources with faux references abound. We've tackled Mark Paul (who is full of citations) at RSN and in a RfC. I'm not sure if we've ever evaluated the RSness of the Occidental Observer, however it too - piece - contains well formatted citations ripe for use in Wikipedia or other contexts. The 2,575 word piece on the observer is supported by 23 citations to sources that generally would be considered reliable (many of them academic). However, surely this is but a good faith content dispute.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Real-world example

I in part share similar frustrations. For example, there used to be an editor who was open about their real-world identity here on Wiki, while editing controversial topics from a certain POV. Given that their identity was available, I googled the name and found some disturbing media coverage pertaining to their RW activities. Once aware of this, I emailed ArbCom who informed me that my email was forwarded to WMF Trust & Safety. Neither was heard from again, despite follow-ups.

The editor in question was eventually indef-blocked in an unrelated incident a full year after my contacting ArbCom. Given that the matters were apparently (not) acted upon in camera, what are the avenues that editors can pursue if they suspect Holocaust-denialist, racist, and other fringe POV? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:ANI would be the best place if there’s no private info. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• If I'm guessing correctly as the identity of said editor, he was only blocked after another editor was oversight blocked. While I am not privy to the information posted on-wiki, quite a bit was but a simple google search away. Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• What IceWhiz said. ∯WBG^converse 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Back to AGF/CRYRACIST

Before the discussion meanders afar, I'd like to summarize that, by my count, Icewhiz, XavierItzm, and Ad Orientem have all agreed the essay does not respect AGF. User GreenMeansGo has an ontological objection against the essay which probably won't be followed upon unless GreenMeansGo breaks it down into a specific policy objection. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To summarize my position - Calling content vandalism or racist(* or any other similar descriptive) is a comment on content and not on users, and while edgy does not always run foul of WP:NPA. Calling someone a racist(*) may (depends on evidence) be an WP:AGF violation. However, what's currently in CRYRACIST - "Unsubstantiated claims of racist vandalism and use of unsubstantiated claims to gain an upper hand in a content dispute or noticeboard thread is disruptive and a form of personal attack and will often lead to the user making it being blocked." - is even a worse violation of WP:AGF. When serious charges of racist conduct or content are raised (even if presented without evidence) - they should be investigated first - the accusing user should present his evidence (rather than being blocked out of hand and being prevented from even presenting such evidence), the evidence should be weighed carefully (and this may require examining content - racism is almost always a "content issue"), and following careful consideration of the evidence action should be taken (towards either, neither, or both parties). Blocking someone for calling out racist(*) content, while not investigating the content and the editor who inserted the content, turns Wikipedia into a safe have for racist(*) content. Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First, Ad clarified that he was talking about the essays discussion of extremists as not meeting AGF, not CRYRACIST. Second, I’ll repeat, the irony of asking for AGF on blatant assumptions of bad faith is a bit much. Finally, this is just an essay that expresses a view that is held by part of the community. I will block off of it and I know other administrators who will as well (Galobtter has made similar blocks of late, and explicitly thanked me for writing it.) I will continues to block based on the principles of both BLOCKNAZIS and CRYRACIST, and I suspect many other administrators will as well. Having them written down as an explanation and complimenting one another makes sense. You don’t have to agree with it, but it’staying. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do not like the potential usage of the essay as a tool to block editors and view this as some sort of thought-policing initiative. If anybody believes that the content of the essay is indeed the current view of the community; he/she ought to take the initiative to change this into a policy/guideline via a RFC. I vehemently disagree with the entire lead and IMO, this clearly advocates editors to launch wild goose chases into discovering off-wiki-activities of on-wiki-users to take a shot at painting them as racists and then, silence them from debates in contentious areas. I fail to realize why we ought to give a flying fuck about an editor's own views (and activities) unless and until it's demonstrated that the same's interfering with their editorial activities. If there is a problem with editors who hold racist beliefs about interpreting nominally clear information that pertains to those beliefs in a drastically different manner than an objective reader would and subsequent frequent introduction of errors, we need to block on the grounds of those errors. There's no reason for admins to gaze at their crystalballs and predict stuff. ∯WBG^converse 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A few things: first, you're commenting in the section that is about people trying to get people blocked by using claims of nazism and racism as trump cards, and how we shouldn't block people for that, which seems to be in line with what you are saying: I'm not trying to dissuade you of your views, but given that this section is not about what you are saying it is, I want it to be clear on that part since the last comment here was incorrectly interpreted as opposing blocks for personal attacks based on calling people anti-semitic vandals.
    Second, the off-wiki stuff is a valid argument, but the only way admins could know it is if people self-disclosed. Otherwise it is in ArbCom's ballpark. DGG added a line earlier about on-wiki which was reverted, but I think it's probably worth adding because your concerns are valid in the off-wiki ballpark. If someone self-discloses as a neo-Nazi, I'm blocking, and it would be held up on appeal either at AN or on a user talk (having made blocks under these circumstances that have been reviewed both.) The very act of self-disclosure is disruptive, and warrants a block.
    Finally, something I'd like to add is that the situations this essay is talking about are dealing with the worst of the actual worst who do try and use our own policies against us. I'm talking about people like this and this and this. Those people need to be blocked rather quickly, and is who the essay is targeted at. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) This essay is not supposed to be used as a weapon in argumentations and editors who does it should be admonished. On the other hand, yes, intolerance must not be tolerated in any community, and this essay is entirely about how far-right editors can turn Wikipedia's own rules against its purpose. Literal Nazis - whether they display or express racist views on-site or elsewhere - should absolutely be shown unwelcomed by the community and indef blocked on sight as a preventative measure. How can you continue working with someone on an article - without a revolting disgust in the gut - if you already know the person is a prolific Stormfront user or a Identitarian? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• This essay is higly problematic because it is used by WP:BATTLEGROUND to "win" content disputes by tagging editors who have a different POV, but who have made no racist assertions and cited no FRINGE or racist sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Examples include [8], to which Tsumikiria sidid not object, although he edited just underneath.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to yourself as the "editor who have a different POV and cited no racist sources", your citation to Federation for American Immigration Reform, a SPLC-designated hate group with close ties to White supremacist groups, really contradicts your assertion. Now, It'd be nice if you can dig up some diffs to prove that anyone really used this essay to gain a upperhand in a content dispute against you, instead of ones that make you personally feel startled. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

At [9], Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:33, 3 March 2019 calls me a NAZI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Patently false. I did nowhere close as to call you a nazi, nor did anyone else in that ANI thread IIRC. At no time did I cite this essay in order to win a content dispute against you, and you fail to give diffs that anyone ever did it. All I said was that this essay may serve as an advisement because the content of this essay applies to your POV-pushing behaviour in immigration topics. Your citation to Federation for American Immigration Reform, a SPLC-designated hate group with close ties to White supremacist groups, really contradicts your assertion that you have cited "no FRINGE or racist sources". Now, if you want a retaliation because I filed that ANI complaint, this is a rather poor way of doing it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• You said WP:NORACISTS which, as you know, links through to WP:NONAZIS. You push your POV by slandering other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but it's possible that by rehashing the immigration ANI / AFD here, EMG is violating the existing topic ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen a rehashing of anything. What the community has decided is what the community has decided. Citing past diffs does not imply a challenge to consummated closures. The point is that this essay could be used in a way that might be interpreted by third parties as coloring editors (and not their edits), in violation of AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/CRYRACIST. For example, consider these edits by Tsumikiria:
- "Under the advisements from WP:NONAZIS, this should warrant a block, at least." [10],
- "At this point it might be appropriate to cite WP:NORACISTS as well" [11]
Observe NORACISTS redirects to NONAZIS. XavierItzm (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying that it's okay to be a RACIST, but NAZI is somehow more offensive? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A potential solution? 30/500 protection for related articles

Many of the potential NONAZIS / CRYRACIST issues would go away if the relevant articles were under 30/500 protection, similar to what's SOP in Israel-Palestine subject area. The disruption would go down dramatically. Is this a viable approach or more of a pipe dream? I can probably dig up half a dozen ANI threads to show that this would be valuable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely better than listing them in Wikipedia:No Nazis#Pages often edited by racists. Though new accounts (and IPs) are the lesser problem here - they usually get reverted quite quickly. It's the long-term contributors that cause the real damage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (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.

WP:VERYFINEPEOPLE

The Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9#Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE closed with a split result. Given a number of editors found it problematic, and another shortcut is displayed, there is little to no reason to display this shortcut on the page. It can continue to exist and be used by those who want to use it but we should not display it here. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to restore this - make a case here please. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The redirect can still be used(due to no consensus on deletion). The shortcut has, however, been identified as misleading and contentious.

There is definitely no consensus to keep the shortcut, we already know that from the deletion discussion. The default move is to not include it - shortcuts are a measure to highlight useful links for those who want to link a section or page in a shortened way. The "shortcut" here is longer than the page name(useless as shortcut) and additionally a contentious link that may confuse people. Can we remove that, now?Lurking shadow (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If I interpret correctly, AfD works by "There is no consensus to delete". It's another matter for its inclusion in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If I see a shortcut, I know that I should be able to use it without irritation or other problems. If there is no consensus for a shortcut then editors have a problem with that shortcut. Which means it should be removed. If there is no consensus to delete a redirect then it is definitely not an acceptable shortcut.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We should not display a controversial shortcut. The RFD shows that some good faith editors find it problematic so there is no good reason to force the display of the shortcut on a highly emotionally charged topic for am essay. Display here detracts and distracts from the point of the essay, politicizing it. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Racism is bad" is an inherently political statement so that reasoning doesn't wash.--Jorm (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, care to expand on that statement? Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I expand on? Do you not grasp that holding a position about human rights and empathy is political, or that your argument that "politicizing" an already political essay doesn't make sense?--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Racism is aberrant, not a political view. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. In my experience, racism is anything but an aberrant viewpoint; it seems fairly common and the fact that we have to constantly discuss it here indicates that it is becoming more mainstream. I guess you use a different definition for "politics".--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have a particularly strong view on the redirect one way or another, but I think there's a better argument for not including it than the RfD: the shortcut box would have four redirects and that is a bit excessive. I can't imagine ANI having WP:HAPPYPLACE and the like there: it would clutter it and cluttering with jokes is less than ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a shortcut for a section.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Should be removed. It's an inside joke that won't make any sense to the vast majority of readers. This essay is not intended to be humorous. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ah, I misread where it was. My bad. I still think two redirects aren't needed there, but it is less of an issue than at the top. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: as the creator of the redirect, I would be fine for it to stay out. I did not realise that it could be so divisive. I still think it's apt, but would not want to see edit warring over it. But I do hope that people continue to use it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate While I appreciate the attempt at humor this is going to be seen by more than a few as a political shot at the Clown N Chief. Best to give that a pass. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Response

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have read this essay, and while I can agree with some of it, I believe it overstates its case. I think this is a bit sad, because having some really dubious stuff in there detracts from the effect of the solid points. So, point-by-point: - Intelligence. Put simply, we just don't know. Wikipedia's own page on Race and intelligence says that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other about whether race affects intelligence (largely because of confounds and the wide variation in intelligence in general). Frankly, I don't know if we want to know the answer to that question, because if it's "Yes" in even the slightest degree it'll be a rallying cry for Nazi-like beliefs and the mere idea of a second Holocaust nauseates me. But let's not be dishonest and say it's "demonstrably false". There are a lot of physical traits that are known to statistically vary with what we term "race", from lactose tolerance to height to mitochondrial efficiency; much as I'd like to, it's hard to categorically rule it out. - Attractiveness. Beauty is subjective; it is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. The eye of the beholder is, in general, sensitive to race. I don't believe there is such a thing as objective beauty, but I'm not going to lie and say that my personal, subjective rating of attractiveness is race-blind. It's not. If that's a sin, we're all sinners. - Censorship. Yes, any kind of official action by an organisation controlling a platform to remove content it doesn't like from that platform is censorship. That is what the word means. One can certainly argue that censoring hate speech is a good thing, but let's not arbitrarily redefine words in a no-true-Scotsman. - Pigeonholing racists. The essay says that racists "inevitably" come to Wikipedia to push racist ideology. I think this is more of a case of selection bias, in all honesty. Racists who come to Wikipedia and don't push racist ideology are not recognised as racists. Racists can have a life outside of racism, just like anyone else. Of course, due to that same selection bias, usually (not always) if you can tell someone's a racist it's because they are pushing racist ideology, but I think one can question some of the edge cases e.g. whether a Wikipedian who spends all their time on-wiki improving articles about algebra and gets doxxed as a white supremacist has actually harmed the encyclopedia. - And finally, pigeonholing non-racists. Frankly, we're a pretty diverse group, and to speak for all our reactions to racism is really a little presumptuous. Non-racists can have a variety of reactions to racism and racists, depending on exactly what we're calling racism. I think the vast majority of non-racists will abhor the literal Nazis and the Holocaust (some people are just amoral enough not to care; you don't need to be racist to be an arsehole), but reactions to someone believing conspiracy theories about Jews can range from abhorrence to annoyance and even to pity. So. I think that racist POV-pushers on Wikipedia are a problem. I think the big issue with them is that they're POV-pushing, which is antithetical to Wikipedia, but I recognise that racists make up a huge proportion thereof and that their POV is an especially objectionable one. I think blocking people pushing racist POV onto Wikipedia is entirely reasonable. So I actually agree with the meat of this essay. The problem I have is that it's tainted by these few places where it overreaches into inaccuracy. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Magic9mushroom (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Free speech

This section "That the concept of free speech entails freedom to post race, gender, or identity-based slurs, insults, or promotion and glorification of violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship." is not a belief that only racists believe. And this belief is not racist. Anarchists also believes that for example. So that's like a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.175.163.63 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You do not get to use cries of "but muh freeze peach" as an excuse to be an asshole. Only assholes think this way. Anarchists (of which I am one!) do not believe this. Anarchists believe that all actions have consequences, including - and especially - speech. You may want to actually learn what the word means and what the philosophy entails.--Jorm (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but either way, the belief that this section describes isn't racist. It's a belief that racists have sometimes, but this belief in itself isn't racist. That's a stupid belief, but we banning people just for stupid beliefs is wrong. That's not just racists that have this belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.175.166.175 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't be banning people for being free-speech absolutist libertarian assholes. But we would certainly be disregarding that as a defense for racist imagery, and would describe anyone using that argument to defend someone who shares racist imagery as defending racism. Furthermore, Wikipedia is absolutely not an environment of unrestricted free speech. We have all kinds of rules about what you can say when and where. If you aren't satisfied with that state of affairs, perhaps this isn't the project for you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

And furthermore, XKCD: Free speech Bishonen | talk 22:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

Large majority of crimes

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "No Nazis" page states the following as a core belief of racists, "That a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites." That is not a racist belief; it is a obvious consequence of demographics. Whites make up about 11% of the population of the world. Of course non-whites commit "a large majority of crimes"; they make up the overwhelming majority of people. What the essay writer probably meant to say was that "a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by non-whites" is a common racist belief. Or maybe he or she intended this essay to only apply to a specific nation with a large white majority. Either way, that part of the essay should be changed. As it stands, it comes across as nonsensical. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

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.

---

Is it racist to make a statement such as "White average IQ has been found to be higher than Black average IQ"? This is an active topic of debate in academic circles, Charles Murray has discussed racial differences in IQ, and Wikipedia's own article on this subject states that "there have been observed differences between average IQ scores of different population groups". I think it is completely false (and racist) to say something like "literally all white people are smarter than literally all brown people", but that's not what social scientists like Murray and Herrnstein are saying. This should probably be clarified, there was a case where college students committed acts of violence against Murray because they thought he was someone who he wasn't. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html Drbogatyr (talk)

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.

Additions on cultural appropriation and whitewashing of history; a tool commonly used by white supremacists

I propose the inclusion of these such accusations:

• That white people founded civilizations that were created by non-whites.
• That white people created or invented something created by non-whites

An example of the first point, would be the idea that Great Zimbabwe was founded by whites or Arabs, sometimes claimed by white supremacists so as to prove blacks are incapable of creating civilization. This views are often dishonestly corroborated by colonial literature and academia. Often an editor may use colonial/outdated sources as a means to propagate outdated racist beliefs.

An example of the second point would be either downplaying or flat-out ignoring/hiding the roles played by non whites in the creation of a thing, such as the role of black Americans in the creation of Rock & Roll.

White-washing history & culture is a big issue in academia, literature, and pop-culture. White-washing is often always supported by or propagated by Nazis and other white supremacists.

Please give input to decide whether these two points should be included. Bajirao1007 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Originally part of a new section created at the same time as this one) Personally, I think these would belong in the "beliefs that are quite common, though not universal." White supremacists would make these claims with regards to civilizations or inventions they can't just dismiss, but these claims are also made by folks who aren't deliberately racist as much as fucking braindead unfortunately ignorant (such as folks who think the Mesoamerican pyramids or Mississippian mounds had to have been built by Ancient astronauts but never make that accusation toward even older European castles and cathedrals). The first list of beliefs should be things that, if one believes, they are unarguably a white supremacist. Any beliefs that non-white supremacists might also hold should go in the second list.

The second list should also avoid too many beliefs that, while potentially held by white supremacists, are at least as commonly held by non-racists (for example, the Nazis liked Fanta). This is where I start to become uncertain one way or the other as to whether or not the suggested content should or should not be included. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at examples from OP, I am leaning more toward inclusion if we provide similar broad examples so as not to get them confused with folks who are only accidentally being racist. Or maybe with some phrasing like "even when presented with solid evidence to the contrary." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the "even when presented with solid evidence to the contrary." would make a good addition so as to clear confusion. I’m in support of that if we do include the examples. Bajirao1007 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the "solid evidence" qualifier as well. Overt racists share a lot of bad ideas with the rest of us, but that doesn't make these bad idea "core beliefs". The Solutrean hypothesis is one example which comes to mind. It's very popular with American neo-Nazis and unsurprisingly it's used by neo-Nazis as a way to get a foothold and make their ideas more palatable. Examples which explain this as a tactic, instead of as a coincidence, could be very helpful. On the other hand, making this section of the essay too broad might dilute its impact, and the second list already runs long. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course one must use up-to-date reliable sources per WP:RS, and too old sources should not be valid when they were made obsolete. However, I do oppose to explicitly adding the concept of cultural appropriation to this article. It is a concept subject to controversy (academic and non-academic). The whole cultural appropriation issue as a mainstream controversy is still not something so widely spread outside a small set of countries (e.g. US, UK). --MarioGom (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The second point is more explicit in my opinion than just vaguely meaning cultural appropriation. “ That white people created or invented something created by non-whites” if we add the “even when presented with solid evidence to the contrary”. Bajirao1007 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is not going to be a popular comment. I think we are drifting dangerously in the direction of establishing a wiki-code for unacceptable beliefs and thoughts. It has always been a fundamental principal that blocks are neither punitive nor proactive. I find a great deal of this inconsistent with that. While I appreciate the good faith and intentions of those who have publicly endorsed this essay, and despite much thought and consideration over its good points, it is primarily for that reason that I have never been able to append my own name to the list above. If someone is pushing an obviously odious and false belief in their editing they can and should be dealt with accordingly. But posting a list of beliefs that we are effectively labeling as heresy to the point of auto-blocking those suspected, makes me very very uncomfortable. Adding to that is that this list, and more broadly speaking the essay itself, largely ignores the reality that racism exists in many different flavors depending on time, place and culture. In the United States it is certainly true that the by far most common specie is white supremacy. But it is hardly alone. There are also fringe groups and beliefs associated with racial and ethno-nationalism of other groups and ethnicities, some of which have their own history of ugly bigotry and violence. Yet none of these are mentioned. Nor IMO, should they be. My personal belief is this essay would be better served if it were reduced to a few sentences or perhaps two paragraphs that could be summarized thusly... "Anyone who attempts to promote obviously fringe beliefs on the project, either in the mainspace, or in talk page discussions, and persist in doing so after warnings, will be shown the door." Trying to assemble an itemized list of beliefs that will get you blocked on the spot is deeply problematic for many reasons, among the first because such a list is never going to be complete, and it will favor the ideological prejudices of the day. I can think of a number of ideologies that I find as odious as Nazism, but which are not mentioned. And again; nor should they be. In closing, I stand by Wikipedia's longstanding principle, that we only sanction disruptive behavior. When opinions, no matter how odious, are classified as ipso facto disruptive, I think we have gone a bridge too far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bigotry in general is incompatible with Wikipedia's values, but white supremacy has specific, recognizable symptoms that should be acknowledged. Other beliefs are also terrible. That's not what this essay is about. We can talk about white supremacy and trust that readers will know that other problems also exist. There is a reason that white supremacy is singularly important, and singularly disruptive, to the English Wikipedia.

So this favors the ideological prejudices of the day because we are editing in this day. Turning this into some abstraction would make sense if this were an article -but it isn't. It obfuscates things to say that these odious beliefs "are classified as disruptive". They are disruptive. Recognizing that, or classifying them that way if you want, doesn't actually change the situation. Saying in plain language that these are disruptive just helps editors to recognize what's going on. This is an essay about specific problems faced by Wikipedia. These are problems that Wikipedia faces in part because the real-world faces these problems, and also because white supremacists are media savvy enough to take advantage of the project for promotional purposes. It is reductive to ignore these specific, damaging problems. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Broadly I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. But after reading your response all I find myself able to say, is that there are points on which we do disagree, though I hope respectfully. I don't see this insidious threat that sort of reminds me of the Red Scare. Which is not to say that White Supremacists are not a problem. They are. (So were Communists... but that's a topic for another day.) But it is not a problem on the level that requires abandoning our customary approach to disruption, which has always emphasized behavior. All of which said, I freely acknowledge that in my dissent, I am also in a very decided minority. It's a position I am well accustomed to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The idea of a wiki-code of unforgivable heresy would be good reason not to be too specific when listing examples (that and the inevitable "but this specific concept wasn't listed"). It also does incline me to think that if it is included, it should be in a third list of "ideas white supremacists might share with some non-white supremacists," noting that if someone shows some of those signs but nothing in the first or second lists, suggesting they're a Nazi would be a personal attack. That would add some nice balance while still also providing completeness. This would require moving the bits about a massive Jewish conspiracy and free speech to that third section, which I'm not entirely comfortable with but it's the sort of discomfort that suggests maybe that's where those belong. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well it does seem to be that most of us agree that we should include these points on the page. Will it be ok for me to make these changes? Bajirao1007 (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer not expanding the list to more and more ambiguous issues. Note that the proposed items should be covered by WP:FRINGE and WP:RS anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good faith

SlimVirgin, no opposition to the idea, but reverted over the specific wording since this essay is cited a lot. I can foresee circumstances where an editor from one South Asian ethnicity group legitimately believes everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. This is certainly a good faith concern, but it’s still disruptive. I’m not sure of a better way to word it. Maybe something like at editors who have substantive concerns about racist conduct should not be worried about raising these concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I added "Editors expressing concern in good faith about racism should not be blocked." If editors have been blocked for that, can you give examples?

My concern is that the authorship of this essay almost certainly reflects the population of enwiki, which means it was largely or entirely written by white men. It isn't acceptable for editors who are not commonly the targets of racism—and therefore who often don't see it—to tell other editors (especially in an essay) that they might be blocked if they do see it and express concern. Similar attempts to tell women they shouldn't point out misogyny have not been supported. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Had to look through the AELOG: the Highpeaks35 AE case here and the comments brought to light by Beyond My Ken there were the motivation behind the section. Undoubtedly good faith, but calling someone a white supremacist of the worst kind pretty clearly crosses the line from legitimate concern to personal attacks. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what's meant by "expressing concern in good faith about racism". This is a troubling essay. It offers caricatures of racism that anyone would agree were unacceptable, and it focuses on "racist vandalism and trolling", rather than the forms of racism found more commonly. Then it adds that editors reporting racism might be blocked, which hands racist editors (of the more subtle varieties) a weapon. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This essay was written because for a long time there was a substantial portion of the community that thought we should not block people who openly identify as neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers, and basically made the argument that those type of editors should be blocked on sight. This essay made the argument that we did not have to accept that extreme forms of virulent racism on Wikipedia, and that people who hold and promote them can be blocked without needing a full blown block discussion. It is focusing on that problem, not the problem of people causing systemic issues. There probably should be an essay written on how people use Wikipedia to promote racist agendas in subtle ways, but that’s not really what this was targeting. MPants wrote it, and then it was later expanded by others, to focus on the problem of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, alt-right trolls, and other extreme versions of this problem that have become rampant on the internet in the last 5 years. This essay has a fair amount of community support because it limits itself to those groups and provides an argument on how to deal with that specific problem.

The problem of how to deal with promotion of systemic and subtle racism is much more difficult and typically requires an extended thread at ANI and there often isn’t a clear consensus, even though I wish there was. This essay isn’t helpful with those cases and doesn’t try to be. I’m fine with adding wording clarifying that we don’t block people with legitimate concerns who come forward. I just would prefer a word other than good faith, because that describes basically every accusation of racism, even if done in a way that would violate NPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I’ve added this language, which I hope captures the idea that people shouldn’t be worried. I actually agree on it, I just prefer making it explicit that a claim should be supported. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This essay wasn't created until 2018. But we've always blocked Nazis on sight, as I recall. And we still don't block Holocaust deniers. The difficulty of relying on extreme caricatures is that people who oppose Nazis come to believe they know what racism is and don't see common varieties of it. It's like writing an essay on sexism by dwelling on rapists. Regarding "that can be substantiated with diffs", I don't see why people reporting concerns about racism have to be threatened with blocks at all. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of us do block holocaust deniers: I’ve done it before and had it upheld at AN. In 2018 there were several threads where blocking Nazis on sight was controversial. Not lecturing because I know you’ve been here longer than I have, but the context where this was written was in the rise of the alt-right internet extremists following 2015/2016 and where how to deal with them and other radical racist extremists was something that was debated in noticeboard threads. I can’t remember the exact context of MPants starting it, but it was essentially because views similar to those at User:Pudeo/Wikipedia is not a thought police had come up in a few threads involving neo-Nazis and their ilk. One of the critiques of this essay has been that it’s too extreme in how it suggests dealing with these individuals. It’s basically explaining why many of us block actual neo-Nazis.

As for why we tell people we’ll block them for using claims of racism in disputes if not substantiated: people do this and it has a chilling effect. Racism is serious, both from a extremist standpoint and a subtler standpoint, and we should deal with it. People shouldn’t use those accusations against others lightly, and we generally do consider them personal attacks if not substantiated. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal "Editors expressing concern in good faith about racism should not be blocked", I am opposed to it for two reasons. One is that, since good faith is something we are supposed to assume, it is too close to a free pass for making personal attacks. The other is that it contradicts WP:ASPERSIONS, which is based on Arbcom decisions. The examples there don't seem especially consistent to me, but I think the key points are (a) evidence and not just charges, (b) the proper forums for raising concerns, both of which are missing from the proposed sentence. Zero^talk 05:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mixed feelings

I have mixed feelings on this essay. On one hand, I can understand how it can be detrimental to an online space, or any space for that matter, to tolerate the presence of people who openly advocate for the extermination or oppression of others on the basis of racial or ethnic classification. On the other hand, I've had some strange views myself over the years (still do). While I have "flirted" plenty with totalitarian ideological tendencies, ethnic and racial identity components have never really resonated with me. It's hard for me to place much blame or pride in ancestral or cultural background—given it's basically a roll of the dice and its exact classification can be rather arbitrary.

That being said, while I have held and still hold controversial views, I am not politically active. My past expressions of my views have never resonated with many people or gained much traction. My own behaviour has never been one of violence or aggressive harassment directed at others. For all extensive purposes, my own ideological notions and biases have not caused anyone any measurable harm. Sure, there may have been people in history who have caused harm holding similar views to my own, but I have had no influence on them. Almost every philosophy has had adherents who have done awful things.

Why I bring this up is because I believe my views would be far more idiosyncratic (i.e. "extreme") if I were exiled or made an outcast in society—or even on the Internet. Social tolerance and communication has resulted in my views becoming more moderate in some areas over the years. If I were cast out, I would have less exposure to dissenting ideas and would adopt an increasingly bizarre worldview.

I have and have had held connections with people who hold differing views from my own, sometimes the differences are so extreme that they are completely opposed to one another. Yet, I do not ban these people from my life, I do not block them. Nor do they block me. We express our different views with civility, refrain from attacking one another, while at the same time, are open to criticizing each other's views. If I were not to have this tolerance, I would be completely unable to communicate with others in society, in fact, I would be unable to tolerate living in society itself.

Why I say I am mixed on this essay is partly because despite the above opinion and personal experience, I am a bit of a hypocrite. There are some views that I find too difficult to tolerate. People who believe in the sexualization of minors or sexual activity between adults and minors, I cannot find any tolerance in me for them. Truthfully, for as long as someone held such views, I would want nothing to do with them.

On the specific topic of racism, I do not think it is wise to ban people holding such views from a space given how prevalent the view is across the world. To ban it in my view is rather in favour of Western egalitarian ideals over other worldviews, and thus is not reflective of a global perspective. It's one thing if someone is here to deliberately sabotage the neutrality of articles by advocating for their own ideology, but I do not think holding a racial prejudice and discriminatory belief alone should be grounds for removal of editing privileges.

If I have misinterpreted this essay, be sure to correct me. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This post has been closed because the user who wrote it has a WP:COI issue with this topic. The user who wrote this has been permanently blocked by an admin for violating this very essay with his "anti-LGBT bias, anti-semitic bias". See here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also mixedly disagree. What bugs me most is: The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are: * That white people are more intelligent than non-whites. * That white people are more industrious than non-whites. ... The first claim means that many the contributors to Race and intelligence are racists and should be banned. (Disclaimer: I have not edited it, as far as I can remember.) That it forgets, worse: denies, about Yellow, Red, Black ... (add the colors of the rainbow) racism. That it is non inclusive (!). Wikipedia should be open to everybody, as long as they operate by 5Ps and do not break the laws. That includes racists, cyclists, pedofiles, kulaks, "appearing to be leftist, but practically rightist" (terminology from Cultural Revolution) and, dunno: sentient vicious imprisoned ladybugs who can type, unless WP:NOTTHERE. In short, we should operate under On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -> We should thus quickly remove or rephrase this essay, as it is referenced in many places. Zezen (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. The user who has been indeffed has responded to this thread, but not started it. The user who started this is a different user. Well, no big loss. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad, Hob Gadling. Fixed. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

At least one over-generalization

"Racists on Wikipedia inevitably try to advance their ideology"

Inevitably is a very strong word.

If you mean "Racists with Wikipedia accounts inevitably try to advance their ideology on Wikipedia or through related activities, such as meet-ups and other off-Wiki communications" then this paints too broad a brush.

If that's what you are trying to say, replace "inevitably" with "frequently."

If by "Racists on Wikipedia" you mean people who have already demonstrated their racism on-Wiki or off-Wiki Wiki-related communications, well, that's almost like saying "editors who save their edits inevitably make changes to Wikipedia." It doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Perhaps changing it to "Editors who have demonstrated racist ideas on Wikipedia will almost inevitably continue trying to advance their ideology if allowed to do so."

If by "Racists on Wikipedia" you mean people who are racists who come to Wikipedia with an agenda but haven't expressed it yet, then it's a fair statement to make, and an important one in the context of this essay. Perhaps rewording it as "Editors who come to Wikipedia with a racist agenda will almost inevitably try to advance their ideology within the project." I took the liberty of adding the world "almost" to account for the few who come here with a hidden agenda but never carry it out, perhaps due to a change of heart, perhaps to do real-world changes preventing them from doing so, or perhaps for other reasons. "Within the project" includes Wikipedia-related off-Wiki forums, including email, meet-ups, irc channels, and the like.

Since the statement can be easily misread, I recommend rewording it. But first we need to know the original intent of the statement.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the essay in depth so I am not sure if I am prepared to endorse it as a whole or not. However, it does need to be "technically correct" so nit-pickers like me who frequently don't see the forest for the trees won't discount it merely because of the nits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree

I strongly disagree with this essay. First of all, when the essay says: Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. and Declaring oneself to be a racist ... crosses the line into disruptive editing In my view, simply declaring a belief, even an idiology, can never in and of itself constitute disruptive editign, nor a valid reason fort a block, Indeed blocking on such grounds ought in and of itself to be grounbds to dedydop the blocking admin.

Now it is true that most racists or fringe extremists engage in personal attacks, POV-pusing, attempts to remove valid content from articles, vandalism, and other forms of disruptive editing. Such behavior is indeed worthy of a block. But a hypothetical editor who declares him- or herself to be a follower of some racist ideology, or simply to believe in the inferiority of some racial or ethnic group, but who carefully follows NPOV, does not make personal attacks, and does not distort sources in articles or otherwise edit in the service of his or her beliefs is not editing disruptively, and should not be blocked simply for expressing a belief.

Secondly, the description of what a racist is, particularly the list of core beliefs uniting the various types of racists is very US-centric. There are racists who are not white-supremacists. Particularly in other parts of the world than the US, racism may not be a matter of white vs non-white, and may often be closely associated with religious prejudice. The situation in n the Middle east, where prejudices for and against Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, Iraguies, and various nother groups are common and often open comes to mind. The large and complex problem of racism in the Indian sub-contenent, with many regional, ethnic, religious, and caste groups being the victims of prejudice by others also comes to mind. Many other examples could be cited from other parts of the world.

For both of these reasons I disapprove of this essay as currently written. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent comment. I enjoyed reading it. Tradedia^talk 00:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The summary overview says "They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view" — what does this mean exactly? Anyone who lacks a neutral point of view is "inherently incompatible with Wikipedia"? I always thought it was Wikipedia itself that has a neutral point of view, not the people who create it. Should people only be allowed to edit articles if they have no opinions on the subject of the article whatsoever? 80.3.103.8 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There's this concept of manners of degree. A user who happens to think Epstein didn't kill himself but doesn't edit political articles doesn't really affect things. A user who has an opinion where on the Proto-Indo-European homeland was but realizes they might be wrong or thinks that other views are worth discussing is generally fine. Most of the editors who I know identify as religious often edit articles on other religions simply because their religious belief causes them to be interested in religiosity in general. Having opinions is fine so far as one can allow other opinions to exist. Nazism doesn't simply want other opinions reduced, it seeks to eliminate the people that might hold them.

A user who thinks that melatonin makes one less intelligent or Semitic ancestry makes one less moral can't be trusted to edit articles relating to race or history -- nor can they be trusted to work with anyone but white gentiles (which means serious problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). A user who thinks that the powerful must subjugate the powerless and direct them to persecute minority scapegoats as a distraction can't be trusted to edit articles relating to politics or society (nevermind how that user's behavior is going to relate to WP:AGF, WP:WL). A user who "can't" see those how such users would be a problem can't be trusted to edit anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you use religious people as a comparison group, since it isn't hard to think of systems of religious belief that hold a certain leader or text to be the ultimate absolute authority, and that any contrary opinions deserve to be silenced and suppressed by violent force. And given how often I see the word "racist" used as a meaningless buzzword to silence any rational debate and avoid having to confront uncomfortable truths, it's surely rather ironic for anti-racist moral crusaders to accuse people they view as being racist of being intolerant of other viewpoints. A good example would be when people try to offer any criticism of Islamic doctrine. Racial beliefs are only one category of belief that fascism attaches itself to — religious beliefs are another. What about Muslims who delete well-established scientific and historical truths from Wikipedia because they contradict a literal interpretation of the Quran? Are they in any way less unwelcome? 80.3.103.8 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

See, here's the problem with that comparison: if then-president George Bush had converted to Salafi Islam, Osama bin Laden would have considered that a victory and maybe called off attacks on US forces for a while (but yeah, not counterattacks). Racists wouldn't care if a black man identified as white, even if 93.75% of his DNA was European, the best they'd treat him is letting him be an Uncle Tom to make them feel better about generally hating black people. And this is obvious to anyone who is not trying to defend racism. This isn't to say that extremists of any sort (religious or otherwise) are welcome here, but Nazis are especially unwelcome here because their extremism, again, targets qualities that a person cannot reasonably be expected to change (and bear no particular effect beyond vitamin D intake vs skin cancer risk). Also, it's pretty dishonest to try and twist my previous response to "so religious extremists are welcome here?" Doing so makes it pretty clear what your goal is here. Any further alt-right trolling will result in a WP:NOTHERE block. If alt-right trolling wasn't your intention, consider this a call to wake the fuck up. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you're willing to assume all racists are inherently incapable of being WP:CIVIL, but also believe that their opinions are mutable. If their opinions are mutable, then they must be capable of listening to differing viewpoints and therefor are able to follow WP:CIVIL. In that case, banning them pre-emptively would be a violation of WP:AGF. If their opinions are immutable, then what is the difference between their opinions and other immutable characteristics, like race? Note that 'they should change the aspect of themselves that is immutable' is a tautologically impossible demand. Fullmetalalch (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

People who delete facts because they reject them are unwelcome for a different reason than Nazis. This essay is about one subject, and some of the commenters here try to make it about other subjects. And: Not tolerating intolerance is very different from not tolerating people because of properties they cannot do anything about. A Nazi can turn a new leaf and become welcome, while somebody with Jewish ancenstry or dark skin has no chance in a Nazi society. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson—you are telling your fellow editor to "wake the fuck up". And you are saying "Any further alt-right trolling will result in a WP:NOTHERE block." You are illustrating what is wrong with this essay. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this essay. Allow me to loosely paraphrase Alan Dershowitz: the key to defending free speech is defending the free speech of those with whom you disagree—defending free speech universally, across the board. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and, especially, see [12]. Bishonen | tålk 14:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen—relatively free speech is inexorably tied to collaborative editing. Our use of Talk pages depends on a degree of freedom in speech. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So those who want free speech for as many as possible, regardless of their skin color, religion, nationality, gender, sexuality... should not be able to say "we refuse to work with the fringe minority who willingly choose to want to limit all rights for those who aren't white cisgender heterosexual gentiles"...? Yeah, that makes sense. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What you are saying is not clear, at least not to me, Ian.thomson. What do you mean by "refuse to work with"? Conversely, what would you mean by "work with"? Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If an editor abuses WP:FORUM they are subject to sanctions for that. We confer with reliable sources as concerns all content. Another editor's identity is irrelevant. I wouldn't know their "skin color, religion, nationality, gender, sexuality" or whether they were a "white cisgender heterosexual gentile" unless they told me. And even merely telling me is not problematic in and of itself. They would have to go on at length expounding on their views for their comments to qualify as being in violation of WP:FORUM. I don't make the distinctions you are making. I favor a Wikipedia welcoming of all sentient beings that know how to use reliable sources in order to contribute relevant content to articles—and we have to bear in mind that article Talk pages exist in the service of articles. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you just never heard of Nazism? They want anyone who isn't a white heterosexual gentile dead, and they are not going to cooperate with any RS that doesn't try to "prove" their ideas of sexual or racial hierarchy, Holocaust denial, or whatever any given Nazi user is here to prove. Don't try to spin this into "I love everyone and you're the one making this about race and everything else" when this discussion is about Nazis, and you're basically saying "Nazis are welcome, everyone else just needs to hide who they are." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly: "relatively free speech" and "a degree of freedom in speech". You are using words that imply it should have limits. Ta-da! There they are.

Different countries have different standards of free speech, reflecting their Overton windows at some time in the past. In Germany, holocaust deniers will end up in jail. English Wikipedia, which has contributors from all over the world, does not have to have the same rules as the USA. Why should it? So you disagree. Okay, fine. Nice having talked about it. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts as an editor based on my life experiences

I think WP:No Nazis is a good thing. I have ancestors who were murdered in the Holocaust so I do believe we should address these issues and I am thankful that this essay and the editors who are members here are doing so. One thing that kind of throws me off a little though is the assertion that racism is only a white issue. That is so far from the truth. I share an American Indian heritage as well and I have seen some definite racism within those communities directed at others, whether they feel justified or not. There are distinctive racist views in almost every religion, society and culture. The essay addresses one and labels it racism, which it is, but is not racism in its totality. Just like there is gender discrimination and every gender can be an offender of that, so can every race be an offender of this type of behavior. I wish we could start looking at each other as one race, the human race. That is my desire, prayer, hope, every day. It's a commonality we all have and if we can't disagree and then come back to that common place then we will never begin to make a difference in this heart condition we see that is killing the human race, even as there is more of us in the world now. Otsalanvlvi (we are all connected as family) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a footnote to the effect that there are non-white racists and that they're not welcome, either; but white supremacism is the primary form of racism to get institutional support in English speaking countries.

The "both sides" argument waters down that white supremacists and chauvinists cause way more damage to people's lives than a non-white person who is reacting to institutional racism or a woman who is reacting to institutional chauvinism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, My intention is not to water down ANY act of racism and I don't believe my statements did that. It is all horrific and destructive in purpose and deed. In regards to sides, there are only two sides and they aren't based on the color of a person's skin but their character and the content of their heart. I praised WP:No Nazis for the fight you all have taken up. As a woman and a non-white, though we do have a small German ancestry (somebody down the line married a German), I can appreciate what you are doing. Hell, I'd stand with you in protest and have been involved in quite a few. I was sharing from my personal experiences and I definitely would not discount the impact or damage racism/chauvinism causes on the personal level of anyone who experiences either. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:No Nazis → Wikipedia:No racists – This essay refers to all types f racism, not only those endorsed by - or even compatible with - the Nazis. 147.161.8.182 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean... you know there’s a lot here to this thought? I love the current title but I will admit it is very centered on a specific cultural understanding. “No racists” says near enough the same thing and has a broader appeal, language and culture wise. Jorm (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to agree, and if this was going to be a policy it probably would need that title, but "No Nazis" triggers the specific brand of editor we've been having the most trouble with (particularly over the past four years).

"No Nazis" also makes it clear that it's advocates of white supremacy that are the problem, and in a way that makes their enablers uncomfortable (not going to name names but you can find examples in some previous talk page discussions). "No racists" would allow said enablers to throw the essay at editors of color who are open about how white supremacism has negatively affected them with claims that that's somehow Anti-White Racism.

If it were up to me, I'd go for a separate "no racists" policy with "no Nazis" being a guideline elaborating on that policy. If other projects adopted the "no racists" policy, they could adapt guidelines as necessary for their predominant cultural situation. For example, while the French and German Wikipedias would still have "no Nazis," it'd make sense for the Mandarin Wikipedia to have a "no Han supremacy" guideline instead.

We could go with "no white supremacists" instead, but that waters down the punch of the title and raises the bar for WP:NOTHERE blocks justified by this essay. Almost nobody who should be editing wants to collaborate with a shitbag Nazi fuckhead. However, more of the normies are (sadly) willing to work alongside someone who just happens to hold the opinion that western civilization is the best thing to happen to humanity, that maybe genetics might explain that, and maybe urban people and illegals would commit fewer crimes if (((globalism))) wasn't forcing normal people to live with them. And while we sadly can't block someone just for privately holding those beliefs, acting on them allows us to label them as Nazis, which makes normies more comfortable with blocking them as WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe moving the essay to "No racists" would dilute it too much. There are many (too, too many) casual racists. However, as User:K.e.coffman said two years ago in a previous discussion on this page, "their views are not welcome, but they are not necessarily extremist and do not include (implied or actual) calls for violence / desire to create a 'white ethnostate' etc." I'll also ping another editor who took part in that discussion, @Doug Weller:. That's everybody who did, with the exception of the creator of the essay, who has left the project. Bishonen | tålk 10:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC).

I agree with Bish and Ian, any change will water this down and lead to wikilawyering. Most white supremacists call themselves nationalist (and the media gets confused over this also). Culture wise I think the current title is pretty clear. The IP who is proposing this has only one other edit under this probably static (according to the geolocation link) IP, the other being an edit to a fairly obscure project page. I love good faith but given the current situation... But in any case, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and it ain't broke. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Bish. This essay is aimed at a particularly virulent and violent strand of racism, not your aunt who doesn’t want to be home alone when the people of a different skin tone are outside working. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2020 (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.

Proposed new section

=== What to do if you are a racist ===
Don't let it show in your editing.  Avoid editing related topics.  Avoid participating in related discussions.  Avoid linking anything about your non-Wiki life to your Wiki life.  Consider staying away from "real world" Wikipedia events like [[Wikimania]] where you might have to be around people that make you uncomfortable.

Basically, if nobody knows you are a racist and you don't "tip your hand" then nobody will complain.

By the way, I would apply the two paragraphs above to anyone who is a member of any "pariah thought pattern" group whether it's racism or sexism or other "I/we are better than other groups"-isms or something else that makes nearly everyone silently scream "that's just WRONG/EVIL" - if you want to edit Wikipedia, either change your real-world attitude like the one-time-racist Alabama governor George Wallace did, or keep that attitude to yourself. To a lesser degree, it also applies to anyone who comes here to push a point of view when doing so will be disruptive, whether or not the editor is doing so in the main encyclopedia or in other name-spaces. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna Oppose adding this. It's basically giving racists an out, where they can just clam up about it. Let them expose themselves so they can be removed from the site, rather than trying to sneak in edits favoring their worldview. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Eh... If they needed to have that explained to them, they're not going to be helpful elsewhere.

Also, Nazis have a tendency to make things political that otherwise wouldn't be. They were unhappy that Star Wars was starting to feature people of color and women in prominent roles, and went after Kelly Marie Tran over that.

They also like to go into those controversial topics and just say that they're just presenting facts, or professionally published alternative views, or whatever.

We don't need them creeping in, quietly discouraging minority editors from participating, and slowly becoming a significant portion of the base that they can trick us into thinking they were a silent majority all along. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: WP:BEANS —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYRACIST

E-e-excellent essay section. I added a note that "The advice in this section also pertains to other accusations of an -ist or -phobe nature", a few reminders about assumption-making, and some shortcuts. This is really good material and it generalizes so well (just by mentally swapping in some words like "sexist" and "homophobe") that adding the note and shortcuts basically obviates the need to write any additional essay about this kind of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume this the basis for this block of edits.

I see a big problem here. Nazis love dogwhistles, and the entire point of a dogwhistle is plausible deniability. It is incredibly common to see this on Wikipedia and every other social website that allows pseudonyms. Yes, someone might be born in 1988, and they might be a South African trying to use American English, but they may also be trolling by pretending, or both! In which case they will take advantage of your good intentions. One of the main points of this essay is to explain how these kinds of snotty and disruptive games are contrary to Wikipedia's goals. We should assume good faith only until we have a reason not to. If someone shows us that they are a Nazi, we kick them off the site. Trying to document every conceivable way we can assume good faith is missing the point, because we know very well that trolls will actively take advantage of this over and over again.

Remember that our editors are from all over the world and all backgrounds... No, I think this is a mistake to mention this here. It implies that this behavior is somehow acceptable on Wikipedia if it's done under the pretense of tolerance. Again, we've seen countless editors who started out by pretending to be minorities or similar to gain sympathy before they reveal their true intentions. They only drop the facade after the damage is done and good faith has been exhausted. We are not obligated to tolerate bigotry or sexism under the guise of multiculturalism, and most experienced editors are wise to this trick. The Paradox of tolerance is linked in the see also section, and that also explains why this is a deeply flawed approach. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Since your objection appears to be limited to the three new sentences, the rest of the changes should be restored. And I think his point is to avoid paranoia. For example, if someone has a username with 88 in it and otherwise acts completely fine, they of course should not be blocked. If someone with or without an 88 in their username goes around being a Nazi, then they would be blocked. And the fact is that people's backgrounds, such as having a different first language, does influence whether they initially understand certain words to be offensive. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So you object to saying that "sufficient evidence" is required? [13] I also see no reason not to mention that the principle of CRYRACIST applies to crying other "isms" and "phobes" too. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously playing that game? Yes, I object to vaguely padding this out with redundancy. This wording only weakens the point and leaves room for wikilawyering. In this context "sufficient evidence" is already far too subjective. We have already seen many, many examples of people arguing over exactly how sufficient "evidence" is. I do not see any benefit to encouraging this. If evidence is obviously sufficient it's not really worth discussing, is it?

I also strongly object to the emphasized The advice in this section also pertains to other accusations of an -ist or -phobe nature. As I said in my edit summary, this waters-down the message too much and undermines the purpose of the essay. It is inappropriate to expand the section calling for restraint to cover other forms of bigotry not already discusses. This essay is not a comprehensive catalog of how to let objectionable behavior slip past, nor is it appropriate to use this section to argue for false equivalence. We already have many essays explaining these policies, most of which are already linked here. Nothing is actually being established by this change other than the dubious idea that people should think twice before identifying bad behavior unless it's screamingly obvious.

If a significant number of editors are "crying _phobe", and this is actually shutting down legitimate discussion, then start an essay to discuss exactly how we should address that. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. The last thing WP needs is another 27 essays that say the exact same things this one does just with different terms swapped in. Or even one such duplicate page. If anyone did that, we'd just take it to MfD for merger, and the result would be merge. I can't make any sense out of the idea that it "waters-down", to point out that good advice about one particular brand of problem generalizes to the set of essentially identical ones. We do this all the time, in essays, in guidelines, in policies. It's why we have a few hundred of these pages instead of 10,000 of them. If you doubt that crying -ist/-phobe isn't exactly the same problem as crying racist (a subset of -ist) and that it's chilling legitimate discussion, and worse (off-site harassment, etc.), then you're not paying enough attention to goings-on for you to be speaking with such emphatic certainty that you're right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we do already have a lot of essays (and policies) on this, which I'm sure we're both familiar with. That's my point: your personal elaboration doesn't need to be included here. You didn't add a link to another essay or policy, you just added your own opinion, based on the assumption that it belonged. You were challenged, and it's up to you how to respond to that challenge. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, given that I've essentially conceded on adding the advice/examples material but just got met with more stonewalling that seems aimed at "you will remove every byte back to WP:THERIGHTVERSION or I'll never let up", I'm not interested in conceding further. You've been a black hole. The fact that this section (not the entire essay) generalizes perfectly to a whole class of "false accusations of -ism" stuff isn't just some random opinion or assumption. It's a carefully considered factual observation, about something for which we've long lacked a good WP:FOO link.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What "game" do you think I am playing? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Sufficient evidence" is a vacuous phrase. It's filler. If there was wide-spread agreement for what qualified as sufficient evidence, half this essay would be completely unnecessary. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The actual game being played here is WP:NOTGETTINGIT, by Grayfell. It's not plausible to me that anyone actually can't understand that reminding people to have solid evidence rather than vague witch-hunt-ish suspicions (i.e. abject WP:AGF failure) is sensible, especially in a piece that leans toward "get as close to 'fuck AGF' as you can possibly skate by with" already. I don't at all disagree with the central theme of this essay, but it is very edge-surfing. Further, it's just self-contradictory/hypocritical to complain that "sufficient evidence" is vacuous (i.e., needs additional explanation/depth) out of one side of one's mouth, then out of the other object vociferously to the provision of clear (and not at all hypothetical) examples of insufficient evidence. This is just weird thrashing, and it sounds a lot like WP:OWN / WP:VESTED sentiment. I'm not going to dig around in edit history and try to determine percentage of authorship, but if this is something like a 95% Grayfell-authored piece, and Grayfell is going to try to utterly control every character in it, then it needs to move to User:Grayfell/No_Nazis, and the community can create a replacement page here that other people besides Grayfell can have some input into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC); struck a bit, as later posts kinda-sorta make it clearer where this resistance is coming from, though it all seems to utterly miss my point. 10:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig around in edit history and try to determine percentage of authorship, but if this is something like a 95% Grayfell-authored piece, and Grayfell is going to try to utterly control every character in it, then it needs to move to User:Grayfell/No_Nazis, and the community can create a replacement page here that other people besides Grayfell can have some input into. You can't bother to look at the history, but how long did you spend typing replies, all to try and chastise me for daring to revert you? My revert of your edits are literally the first time either of us have ever edited the essay itself. Do you want to maybe strike some of this or rethink your approach here? Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See way below; I'm trying another approach. PS: I'm not objecting to you reverting me. I'm objecting to blanket reverting, which you've been around long enough to know is uncool. And just reverting more when met with opposition from an additional editor. And not being willing to negotiate at all. And seemingly "trying hard not to understand" the difference between an essay about racists and a section about asshats abusing bogus accusations of racism to screw with people, or that this specific section applies nearly word-for-word perfectly to bogus accusations of a similar nature (even though the banhammer-racists-on-sight material is less generalizable, being about essentially the worst-possible vandal/troll class). The last parts are the most important.

Analogy: You have a company policy on protection of trade secrets. It has an addendum on how to detect and avoid falling for social-engineering attempts to get staffers to reveal such data. The advice in that section is entirely (beyond a word-swap or two) applicable also to avoiding soc-eng attempts to get you to reveal passwords, or to give out staff home phone numbers, or board members' travel itineraries, etc. (which is good – no need to write essentially duplicate material on that). The generalizability of that section is utterly unrelated to the fact that your trade-secret protection processes are otherwise special and particular (all about intellectual property law, mass data storage security, etc.), and are not generalizable to your password/credentials/2FA policy, or your policy on maintaining staff contact information, or your policy on itinerary secrecy and vetted travel agents. You can simply add a note in the first policy saying "These anti-social-engineering tips also apply to not giving out passwords, home phone numbers, travel plans, etc.", then in the other policies say "See the addendum on social engineering, in the trade secrets policy." Doing that does not in any way "water down" the soc-eng advice as it pertains to trade secrets, nor "water down" the trade secrets policy as a whole. It makes your entire policy system more cohesive. It gives you "shortcuts" to point to an "anchor" that addresses something important but generalizable which happens to live in a more one-topic document (but which people should read and know anyway, even if they mostly handle travel planning).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've sat on this for a few hours. Grayfell, This is a reasonable enough discussion to have, but there is no cause to blanket revert everything (much less thrash around with revert-warring against multiple editors to keep re-reverting factual statements and even basic copyediting, of frankly crappy writing, with disingenuous editsummaries stating you addressed this on the talk page when you did not (though you now have attempted, kinda-sorta, to do so, unconvincingly). Anyway, the fact this section speaks directly to all sorts of -ism based aspersion-casting, and is essay material we do need yet shouldn't have to repeat verbatim at what would be redundant new essay pages just with different -ism words swapped in, is a very good reason to just say so and have shortcuts. That's completely separate from the matters you initially raised above.

On that material, you seem to be arguing for reckless assumption that anything that fits one's confirmation bias is perfect reason for WP:BATTLEGROUNDING without sufficient evidence, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of this section. It's about bad-faith (or at best stupid/incompetent) accusations that another editor is a racist; it's not about why WP doesn't tolerate actual racists and will act swiftly to ban them. I'm wondering why you have not just deleted the entire section, honestly, given the hawkish conviction of your material above. Various details: A reminder that one is not a mind-reader (and two examples) is not "Trying to document every conceivable way we can assume good faith" (and the reminder actually works fine without any examples, which I guess would be ... documenting zero ways to AGF? Your objection suddenly is empty, without the point of my addition being affected at all). You mentioned dogwhistling, but your throwing in of "under the guise of multiculturalism" is one (at "the encyclopedia of all the world's knowledge, that anyone can edit"? Really?) Next, if someone were trolling so subtly that it couldn't actually be reliably detected, then it would not actually work as trolling. If most editors are already actually wise the tricks you outline [which, again, this section isn't about], then nothing said in this essay will impact that, including the reminder and examples I gave.

And your argument contradicts your own "We should assume good faith only until we have a reason not to" statement. Some super-vague blind assumption someone makes about another editors' motivations, on a single piece of supposed evidence like a date, or perfectly normal and non-racist English in that person's own WP:ENGVAR, is not "a reason not to", a reason to pretend AGF suddenly isn't a policy. If the community actually agreed with anything like that, then we would, say, have an editfilter that looked for any use of the string 88 outside of a URL, and a body of admins and other people would stand by ready to leap on any instances anyone could ever have the faintest suspicion about. And you've basically taken the very bait I was saying should not be taken, leaping on the 1988 example and going off about dogwhistles and faux deniability and trolls and etc. I picked that "born in 1988" example for a reason, based on real-world incident of a transwoman author writing a short story and getting attacked by Internet blowhards as surely a neo-Nazi and anti-trans because her author summary said (correctly) that she was born in 1988. So, you're proving for me why some cautions like this belong in this section.

As a civil liberties activist for much of my professional life, this is reminding me of illiberal reactionaryism I've seen many times, a sort of self-reductio ad absurdum that amounts to a desire to burn civil society down pre-emptively in the name of preventing fascists, etc., from doing any harm to it. (The entire Trump presidency has been a bunch of this, and so was the USA-PATRIOT Act long before it, as some examples.) It's just one of those "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" things. The paradox of tolerance is widely regarded as fallacious for multiple reasons, though it is an interesting thought experiment, much like Pascal's wager.

But in the end, I really don't feel very strongly about these points as they apply to this page's content. It's fine for some essays to be a little over-the-top. I mostly care only about the fact that this section of the page is entirely generalizable to other ideological battlegrounding that people wrongly leap into on the basis of just subjective assumptions about other editors (and often with considerable harm to them), out of a desire to WP:WIN, push an agenda, get back at someone by smearing them, etc. I.e., the wolf-crying this section exists to prevent.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've tried turning the bold note, about broader -ist applicability, into an italic hatnote instead. It's less visually intrusive but still makes the point. Maybe this will appease Grayfell a bit. As said above, I really don't care that much if the advice about evidence gets put back in. It's not crucial.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted because I do not think your changes were productive. Placing your own hatnote closer to the top of the section is making the problem worse, not better. You can call this a blanket revert if you want, but since I do not think any of your changes were improvements, I reverted all of them. Nothing about your changes suggests to me that they deserve special treatment.

Your response makes a lot of unfounded, and frankly insulting, assumptions about my motives. Your comments about confirmation bias are simplistic and presumptuous. If I were actually saying anything like this, your response might address that, but I'm not. There is some irony here, since this specific point largely overlaps with WP:CIVILPOV.

Previous discussions rejected the idea of renaming this essay to NORACISTS. Likewise, this article is not the same as WP:NOBIGOTS. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists have caused specific problems on Wikipedia. I know we are both aware of this, because we have both had to deal with some of the same trolls. Perhaps you think they must be treated exactly the same as any other type of troll, but even if that were the case, it is beneficial to explain exactly why they are unwelcome here. This is the purpose of this essay. Watering it down with other information is undermining that purpose. In this regard, there is clearly prior consensus that this is not generalizable. I dispute that you have made a good case for that here.

To briefly summarize the other issues, nobody is disputing that evidence is necessary to accuse someone of being a racist. Nobody here is, in good faith, defending calling people racist as a way to shut-down any discussion. Implying that I am disputing that is a loaded assumption. Likewise, nobody is saying that calling someone a sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe, etc. without justification is acceptable. So with that in mind, who the hell was talking about "Some super-vague blind assumption someone makes about another editors' motivations..." This is another assumption. Some vague example of a trans writer on an unnamed other website is so, so very far away from relevant that it's hard for me to understand why you mention it. Anyone can find examples of people who have behaved badly somewhere at some time. So if you think I've "taken the bait", then you didn't understand what I was saying.

So emphasizing something which is not disputed is not helpful for a lot of reasons. It adds bloat to the essay, for one thing, but it does this in service of simplistic version of AGF that has never existed and has never stood up to scrutiny. This idea of edit-filter for "88" is, of course, absurdly nonsensical, because as I hope we agree, we have to use actual human common sense. Since that's the entire point of both AGF, and this essay, trying to paint this as reckless assumption tells me again that you didn't understand what I was saying.

Your bold text suggest that your edits are to prove a point about ideological battlegrounding. I cannot stress enough how little your personal history as a civil liberties activist matters to this discussion, and adding your own unrelated political talking points poisons the well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a platform for free speech. It is especially not for the kind of free speech absolutism your dismissal of Popper's paradox suggests. It also suggests that you don't actually agree with this essay. If you don't agree with this essay, why are you editing it at all? Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems to just be WP:STONEWALL. No attempt to address your concerns, here or in editing, have any effect. Concessions just lead to renewed demands with broken-record wording. So, the only thing you will be satisfied with is absolute WP:WINNING with no compromise on a single thing? First you complain about it being a stand-alone boldfaced thing, then when it's made small and italic, and done as a hatnote (which no one reads unless they have a reason to), and you claim it's worse? Please. This isn't hard: Having a note that basically says "by the way, this section's don't-be-a-dick advice is applicable to false accusations of anything like neo-Nazism, so you can't system-game your way out of that just because we don't have a separate page for your pet -ism", is not "watering down" in any way. It's integrating this page and community norms together more strongly (as well as obviating need for any near-duplicate page on sexism or homophobia or religous hate-mongering or whatever). It really is not any more complicated than that.

Blanket IDONTLIKEIT reverts (even nuking basic cleanup like proper punctuation) are what's not productive. If you think I've assumed your motives and mischaracterized you, read what you've written about me ("free speech abolutism"? I've suggested nothing of the the sort. "you don't actually agree with this essay"? Immediately after I said I did.) Let's just agree to do better. But please actually read more closely. You keep taking stuff personally that isn't about you, but about the bad-faith actors this section is written to address (e.g. "confirmation bias", "blind assumption someone makes about another editors' motivations", etc.). I have not suggested you deny people need evidence or should avoid making bad-faith accusations; rather, you're resistant to the section saying it clearly; the stance doesn't seems really compatible with this section even existing. I.e., I don't believe your OMG WTF reaction represents even a local consensus of people who care about this page; it's just you. The previous discussion did not reject the idea of renaming it; it ended in no consensus, and it was thinly-attended. (I would have opposed the move. It's better to have an evocative, attention-getting title than a bland one, on something like this.)

You can't have it both ways: Your central concern is clearly that racist douchebaggery is a special case (i.e., it doesn't all generalize), and you think I don't get that. But I do. This section isn't about that at all; its' about bad-faith accusations of racism, and virtually single word in it does generalize to other highly similar aspersions. It really nails it. It's why I kept the generalizability note to this section. Yet (in your OP) you complained about it being in the section in particular. Does not compute. If "it's hard for me to understand why you mention" the '88 story, when I explained exactly why it's pertinent, is the kind of thing that makes me cite WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I don't think it's intentional; given that you misread pretty much everything I was saying about bad-faith accusers as if they were things I was saying about you, maybe you just need some coffee or something. [Skipping a lot of this as unproductive, and mostly about the advice/examples text I don't care much about. It could be interesting to argue out, but WP isn't a webboard. Even the '88 thing was part of that material.] It's interesting that we're both saying "you don't understand what I'm saying", "it would be easy to take your apparent motivations the wrong way", "you don't seem to get the background principles", etc. The chief difference is your top point seems to be "you don't seem to agree with or even understand the point of this essay, so why are you trying sculpt its content?", and my version is the same except with "section" in place of "essay". Not sure how to improve the communication from this point. I will confirm I do get the point of the essay, I support it existing, I know it is about a special class of banhammerable b.s. It's also walking a fine line, which makes this section necessary to prevent abuse (bad-faith accusations). But that kind of abuse is the one thing in it that does generalize. That is all.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

POVFIGHTER

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing#POVFIGHTER. Summary: A provision has been added to WP:TE that appears to have implications for this page and editorial activity relating to it. 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

Very strange and naive

This essay is very strange and naive to me, and frankly I am not sure if it is something that belongs on Wikipedia. The "core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are" are listed with no reference and there is no reason why a person could not believe some subset of those things but not all of them. Wikipedia should not welcome people who harass other people, but should allow contributions from people that have far-right or non-conventional views on race. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is only making you look even more suspicious.

Context for other users, OP thought InfoWars wasn't that crazy, listens to David Duke's podcast, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That might be your preference, but the general consensus, from Jimbo Wales on down to regular admins & editors is not to tolerate racism, sexism or anti-Semitism on this project, whether it is blatant or subtle. Editing on Wikipedia doesn't require any specific political perspectives, but "non-conventional views on race" are likely to be contradicted by established science and social science and, above all, Wikipedia is guided by reliable sources, not "non-conventional views" which are seen as original research or even pseudoscience. This is not an appropriate platform for anyone to express their political or non-conventional views on any subject. There are plenty of other wikis, message boards or forums where you would be probably welcomed, but it's not appropriate here. See WP:GOLDENRULE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I cannot imagine an editor who believes in a "subset" of those racist beliefs being capable of working collaboratively with non-white editors. This seems like a case of the paradox of tolerance. Wikipedia has no obligation to be tolerant of nakedly intolerant positions. Grayfell (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who disagrees with this this essay, as you can see. In particular, both me and the other person cited the "core beliefs uniting the various types of racists" list as problematic. He says it is very "US-centric". I would say it is very "arbitrary" not "US-centric". I don't really care, since this is an essay signed by 27 people, but I would strongly advise rethinking that list. I would let Jimbo Wales speak for himself. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are users who disagree with it. It objects to a certain type of user, so at least that type of user objects to it. Also, compulsive fence-sitters, one of the types of user who want WP:FALSEBALANCE. Disagreement is not a problem for the essay.

At the moment, those other, non-US racists do not seem to be a big problem here. As soon as they start infesting the English Wikipedia in large numbers, the essay will be adapted.

But maybe you should decide if you are in favor of being more welcoming to right-wingers, as your first contribution suggests, or less welcoming, as the last one does, excluding also non-US racists. It almost seems as if you are simply against the essay, for reasons that are your own, and are trying to find any valid reasons instead, regardless of whether they fit together. Well, the ones you found aren't valid either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not welcome people who harass other people, but should allow contributions from people that have far-right or non-conventional views on race.

No. Hell no. And fuck no. We should not be giving racists a platform for their hateful bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a platform for reliably sourced encyclopedic information to be consolidated for free and accessible viewing. Whether you believe some content is 'hateful bullshit' is irrelevant. The only thing that should be relevant for wikipedia is whether what is being added to the wiki is reliably sourced, and given adequate weight given the consensus of field relevant experts. Take your whining elsewhere. Fullmetalalch (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Right back at you. WP:WEIGHT absolutely matters, and it's why racist apologia is not welcome here. If you cannot grasp that, this is not the site for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what you consider 'racist'. If you mean 'moral judgements on the worth of individuals based on immutable heritable characteristics' then I'm with you all the way. If you mean 'scientific research that concludes that a trait one might consider positive or negative is not evenly distributed among humans, and is immutable and heritable', then again, take your whining elsewhere. Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a very interesting set of contributions, including arguments that the White Genocide conspiracy theory isn't racist in nature. I expect you're probably not long for this place. Jorm (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when the fuck did I say that? Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I said "racist" when you said "based in hatred."

"As far as I can tell, the only references to white genocide being a conspiracy theory 'based on hatred' is from Eli Saslow." Are those not your words? Jorm (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You're misreading what I said. I'm not laying claim to the idea that white genocide is or is not 'based on hate'. I'm speaking exclusively about the state of citations in the article. Please read my contributions more carefully in the future. Fullmetalalch (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fullmetalalch, I see. I apologize. Jorm (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

apology accepted. Fullmetalalch (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That second one is a weird definition for racism, and I don't think any real person uses it. Depending on what "evenly distributed among humans" means, it may include everybody who accepts genetic disorders like Huntington's disease or sickle cell anemia as a real thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading the essay and this section of the talk page, I think I see what the OP was concerned about. The "core beliefs" of racists listed pertains only to white people; iow, the essay infers that only white people can be racist. I think it would be helpful to determine if that is a consensus opinion among the editors of Wikipedia. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that section lead is completely incompatible with W's own racism page. Racism is enormously larger in scope than any one specific kind of white supremacism, or white supremacy in general (even among the mere 1/4 of the globe who speak English). Some other editors suggested that the current version was best for dunking on white supremacists, which I don't think excuses the factual inaccuracy of the statement. Not going to edit, came here after seeing this linked on some talk pages. Ideolomeme (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Both wrong. the essay infers that only white people can be racist No. It states that a specific sort of people who have been a massive problem in the past have no place here. Yes, there are also other racists, who are not white, but those have not been a big problem here. They do not come en masse, they come as single individuals now and then.

This reminds me of a thing that happened when Holocaust denial was forbidden in Germany: the more conservative legislators insisted that the law should also ban denial of the displacement of Germans from Soviet-block countries. There had been no instances of such denials, and I am not aware of any later instances, but it was still added to the law. Of course, that was silly, and the insistence that this page should also exclude hypothetical or insignificant groups of users with similar ideas, on principle, is equally silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:" is followed by a list of 7 bullet points about white people, so yes, obviously it is erroneously conflating racism with white nationalism. This essay is about dealing with neo-Nazi trolls, not an attempt to redefine the word "racist" yeah? Ideolomeme (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that racists should have a place on Wikipedia I do agree that some of the ideas presented in this essay are strange, I'm non-white and I know for a fact that a very small subset of the positions listed as being 'racist' are mainstream among non-white people. While they may often be used as dogwhistles they aren't inherently racist, it's worth drawing a distinction between dogwhistles that require more context to determine whether or not a person is actually racist as opposed to views which are inherently racist in and of themselves. FAISSALOO_(talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Absurdly-flawed content

I find this article to be utterly flawed, to the point of making me question the integrity of the stewards and many contributors to the Wikimedia projects. For the following informal and brief critical review I am presuming a semantically-pure denotation of "racism", "Nazi", et al.

The first point to emerge in my mind is the absurd conflation at play here, and the incompleteness and shocking bias. It is titled, amusingly-concretely, "No Nazis", yet it keeps reiterating (at least implicitly) the utterly-false fact that the only sort of racist to exist is a "white" supremacist, which is utterly false based merely on common knowledge (there exist "black" supremacists, Arab supremacists, Han Chinese ethnocentrists, et al.). The same goes for nationalism (e.g., Indian nationalists, Chinese nationalists), and moreover one can be an ethno-anarchist, which the article does not mention at all. In fact, some real-life "indigenous" groups, esp. uncontacted ones, do arguably practice ethno-proto-nationalism (to the extent that loose community relations, elders, etc. can be deemed to constitute a "proto-nation"). Do note that, roughly and overall, Western nations/societies tend to be the least "racist" and South Asian, Arab, and many Sub-Saharan African ones tend to be the most, with CIS (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, et al.) and Northeast Asian ones (the PRC, the Koreas, and Japan) falling in-between.

If a taxon or quasi-taxon below that of the subspecies H. Sapiens Sapiens is meaningless and imaginary (human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, fixation index, folk racial taxonomy race or ethnicity [as typically used in daily life], etc.), why do:

1. researchers from respectable institutions (e.g., John Hopkins, Harvard, UCal) publish peer-reviewed papers pertaining to human population genetics (which can express data in terms of fixation indices and even folk racial taxonomy groups)?;
2. licensed and practicing physicians in the US read and adopt papers (compiled and issued by JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, et al.) which provide epidemiology data (inter alia based on folk racial taxonomy groupings, whether they result from genetic factors or not)?;
3. national census bureaus tend to record at least the folk racial taxonomy group (the Russian Federation goes beyond this coarse granularity, recording the actual ethnicity, like Buryat, Bashkir, or Russian) of citizens/legal residents/illegal residents/etc.?;
4. almost all humans, from millennia before to the present day, instinctively recognize the fact that people vary genetically to some degree (as the proverb goes, like begets like), and that such differences can be grouped in some way?; and
5. major governments and accredited universities host anthropological, cultural, and ethnographic research, and operate museums of anthropology and ethnography, such as the Ulan-Ude Ethnographic Museum of Buryatia, Russia?

Note that the common argument positing for the grouping to be taxonomically-invalid constitutes a case of Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy. Denying the existence of ethno-/cultural/linguistic groups is arguably dehumanizing, oppressive, and ironically Western-supremacist. Many people belong to a more-or-less defined group, such as an Inuit in Alaska, and are proud of their culture, language, and genetic heritage, and many other people regard that positively, oftentimes celebrating and praising a given group. In fact, some nations, inter alia the US and the Russian Federation, recognize certain such groups, and have policies in place to preserve endangered ones, such as the Chukchi of northern Siberia.

Being:

1. Guided by such a "body" of loose, partially factually-incorrect, dogmatic, and conflating Western- and Caucasian-centric content stemming from arbitrary Western cultural norms and common associations among Western nonacademic laypeople;
2. Unreceptive to rational argumentation pertaining to "uncomfortable" (to some) topics concerning identities of a particular species/subspecies (H. Sapiens and H. Sapiens Sapiens, resp.);
3. Orwellian in expunging non-asemic content, rather than rebutting it, whether successfully or unsuccessfully; and
4. Of an ad-hominem nature when considering content for incorporation in an encyclopedia purporting to be neutral, argumentation, feedback, etc.

sets a dangerous precedent and slippery slope for the integrity of not only Wikipedia, and not even only the Wikimedia projects, but the entire human noösphere (at least until a genuinely-intellectual and less-self-centered set of societies supersede it, consisting of cybernetically- and genetically-augmented posthumans undergoing superexponential progression, as will arguably occur in 1--2 centuries), and it ironically manifests a Nazi-like nature.

It is unfortunate that I have to write this meta paragraph, for it ordinarily should be irrelevant and superfluous, but quite-unfortunately this topic is sensitive to many anthropocentrists, whom descend into emotion and ad-hominem. It will likely be the target of attacks by those whom misunderstand or are biased and intellectually-unreceptive, for it challenges arguably-indoctrinated lay dogma of a particular cultural super-group (the West) at a particular era, which moreover emotionally is close to the figurative heart of anthropocentrists. This writing has been somewhat-informally composed by an admixed human (Turko-Mongol, Slavic, and possibly Paleosiberian genetic descent) of dual nationality, who is transhumanistic and not anthropocentric, who is a genuine moral and existential nihilist, who does not blindly abide by arbitrary Western culture and norms, who descends from a lineage of intellectuals (many of them of the life sciences) ranging from as far back the times of Russian Empire, and whose ancestors have been executed and/or persecuted by both the Bolsheviks and German Nazis. He is not a Nazi, has mostly-Jewish friends, and moreover has a less-than-positive regard for Caucasians and Westerners overall.

Thank you. I would appreciate attempts at avoiding a descent down Graham's Hierarchy, inter alia, mindless user account deletion, but be warned that I do habitually promote and fight for intellectual completeness and integrity. Rnabioullin (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as "reiterating implicitly". the only sort of racist to exist is a "white" supremacist is your own conclusion from the article, and your conclusion is, as you say, "utterly-false".
2. This exact thing has been discussed several times. Consult the other sections and the archive.
3. You talk too much. I lost interest after the first few sentences. If your premise is wrong, what follows is probably not worth reading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

1. I respectfully suggest reviewing the article, esp. the entries of the list following "The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:".
2. True. But I wish to formulate my own narrative at this time.
3. Obviously that is your prerogative. Thank you for that refined commentary.Rnabioullin (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:" That is how improvements are made. That is indeed a false statement. Nothing "implicit" about it. I'd ask MjolnirPants to OK a change, but he is banned. Folks, what should we do about that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Essays in the wikipedia userspace may be edited by anyone -- but it is polite to check with the author. Some essays are in userspace, such as WP:1AM or WP:YWAB. Anyone is free to edit those essays but I get the final say because they are in my userspace. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rnabioullin: Just a technical note, this is an essay, without the "force" of a policy or guideline. It is also not an encyclopedia article. That said, thank you for taking the time to critique of this essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have come across this article a couple of times and had a similar (albeit less sophisticated) reaction to the content as the commentator above. The essay is simply inconsistent with WP:WORLDVIEW.

I suggest a simple fix: replace the WP:OR text in the section WP:RACISTBELIEFS with a simple summary of our well-sourced article Racism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's an essay. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, agreed, and the purpose of essays is not to POVFORK our articles. This essay opens with The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are: with its own unsourced definition, which is not supposed to happen within essays. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I can't find that anywhere in WP:ESSAY. What part says you can't have an unsourced definition? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, it was more reading what it doesn't say - i.e. it does not say that essays can be used to redefine article content. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

But they can! That's the whole point of essays -- "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors... Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." WP:WMF and WP:CANCER paint quite different pictures of the same basic topic. And that's as it should be. I am surprised that someone hasn't created a "The WMF is perfect in every way and not to be questioned" counter-essay. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, WP:WMF is an information page not an essay and WP:CANCER is a userfied essay (and a very interesting one).

Essays are by definition the opinions of editors. But there are different types of opinions. Some people have opinions that the world is flat, that vaccines are bad, or that climate change is a hoax. This type of "opinion" - the type which contradict clear factual evidence - should not be made in Wikipedia's voice. They can be on userfied essays, but not on main Wikipedia essays. The same is true of the way racism is described in this essay.

PS - on your Wiki-cancer essay, I agree with many of your points. I sense a frustration from lack of traction. Having worked with many "bureaucracies" over the years, I can tell you that even though your core point is right you cannot expect to make headway in this form. Perhaps you are lobbying for this change in other ways that I cannot see; I would be happy to try to help.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I welcome any sort of help. In my opinion, the ever-increasing spending will continue to increase whatever we do -- until the day that the revenue stops increasing. What we might be able to do is to pressure the W?F to make it so that the endowment cannot be used as a piggy bank to fund continued increases in spending even after the donations dry up and the other bank accounts are empty. That would at lease insure the survival of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, have you discussed this with the community members who are or were on the WMF board (Raystorm, Doc James, Pundit)? I wonder if they have tried to build Board consensus around this at some point. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes. Extensive talks. I am not going to reveal who I talked with or what was said by who without their permission, but I can say that there was some support for my proposals (make spending transparent, limit spending increases, structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the endowment principal when times get bad) and some support for the view that there is no spending problem and that the WMF already cannot legally dip into the endowment principal. Despite repeated requests I have yet to see any document that says that, and at least one board member thinks that we can spend the endowment and that this is a good thing. I have been focusing on the making the endowment safe because in my opinion that is the part of my proposal that is most likely to be implemented.

This is getting off the topic of Nazis so if we have anything more to discuss we should do it on the WP:CANCER talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How about changing the wording slightly like this:

• Now: The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:
• Proposition: The core beliefs uniting various types of racists are:

That would remove the factually wrong statement and still keep the article pretty much the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't fix all of the problems, but an obvious improvement. I say go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention that I already did it when no one contradicted me for a while. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read all this, but for context, MPants wrote this about white supremacists. In original form it was a lot more blunt. One of the critiques was that people were confused by what he meant by nazi (actual neo-nazis, all white supremacists, what?) He changed it to be "racists" as he felt that was a clearer definition of what the essay was about than "nazi" or "fucking nazi",
  I think the two sections that are "my sections" WP:BLOCKNAZIS and WP:CRYRACIST, I think straddle this slightly better, as they were written with a narrow focus in mind and don't try to define a difficult topic. Regardless, yes, feel free to improve the wording by clarifying points or tweaking things to make the essay more internally consistent and logical. Please don't change it to be something that wouldn't have consensus of the page watchers just because you don't like the essay as a whole, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

It's snowing, in one direction; and that appears to be a near unanimous oppose to this proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

---

This should be a policy, and anyone who complains on this TP is generally disruptively editing. Let's make it obvious. Firestar464 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose making this a policy not because I don't agree with it (I do) but simply because it is written like an essay and not like a policy. Might I suggest writing up a proper policy candidate and running an RfC on that? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Guy Macon Hey, if you can help with the copyediting and improvement of the proposal, please do! Firestar464 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  No thank you. I support Thryduulf's suggestions below, but I don't see changing this from an essay to a policy as being an improvement. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per Guy Macon, but even as an essay this has significant issues. For example much of it appears to be based on the assumption that all racism is related to beliefs about white people being superior to non-white people, whereas in reality that is just one (albeit prominent) example. I suggest distilling from this the actual aspect(s) you want as policy, write a new, concise page based on that but with suitably tight, clear language that is as unambiguous as possible first. Get a couple of rounds of feedback on that as a proposed policy and only after those people commenting are satisfied that it would make good policy make it an rfc. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The essay talks about "neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians" as if the following don't exist:

• Black supremacy
• Racial antisemitism
• Melanin theory
• La Raza
• Black separatism
• Anti-Indian sentiment
• Anglophobia
• Discrimination based on skin color
• Korean ethnic nationalism
• Sinocentrism
• Gaijin
• Racism in Malaysia

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose even if it were cleaned up, simply as I think it's unnecessary. Plenty of community norms are essays (or info pages, which are functionally equivalent) and in widespread use (WP:BRD, WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE, WP:TE, etc). There is no need for an entire guideline, much less an entire policy, that Wikipedia does not endorse Nazis. But I guess it depends on how you word it and what you focus it around. I would probably support language being added into an appropriate, existing behavioural PAG to such an effect (though I suspect it already exists somewhere, but I cannot recite all the behavioural PAGs off the top of my head). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, it's surprising how many there are here... Firestar464 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not written like a policy and seriously doubt if it could be. Zero^talk 11:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Guy Macon and Thryduulf. It's not written like a policy, and it seems unnecessary to add - if someone's explicitly promoting nazism they're almost certainly breaking multiple other guidelines. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — This is written like an essay as opposed to a policy, and I don't see a problem with it staying as an essay, as "no bigots" falls under a number of formal policies, this is more of a summary of our policies on bigotry, specifically on the topic of white supremacy/neo-Nazism. It doesn't have to be a formal policy/guideline to be valid. — csc^-1 13:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Any user displaying these beliefs would almost certainly be violating existing policies. I'd be more scared of people hunting for off-wiki evidence of Nazism for users they don't like. Also, saying "Nazis are forbidden" could imply that other brands of racism are acceptable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) Good faith motivations not withstanding, there's a substantial gulf between the reading of this essay and a utilitarian policy that could be used to control disruption associated with bigotry, rather than amplify it, due to quasi-aspirational wording that would interface with actual existing behavioural policy in vague and uncertain ways. In short, this essay, boot-strapped to policy, would add nothing of value to existing controls, but rather would merely complicate efforts to apply them and control the negative spill out of disruption associated with exactly the behaviour it seeks to condemn. I'm skeptical that this particular essay could ever be reformulated into something which benefits the project (or for that matter, even the narrower interest of stalling the activity of bigots on the site) as policy, but even if that were a possibility, the current wording is worlds apart from where it would need to be--and not for nothing, but getting it there might extinguish much of the original meaning of the essay. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, also oppose the suggestion by two people for a possible second RFC on a rewrite. It we were to make this policy then there are a ton of other groups that could/and should be added to the banlist. No, don't build a list. Just block them all when they violate the generic behavioral and content rules. The RFC only been up for two days, but it's just about ripe for a Snow close. Alsee (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Bigotry as expressed in WP is either stupidty, disruption, or advocacy. The best way to handle stupidity i usually to ignore or silently revert ; disruption we knowhow to deal with; advocacy is usually easy to deal with also, but it is sometimes hard ot distinguish from a good faith effort to make an NPOV article on a fringe topic. The way to proceed depends on the circumstances--the extent, the persistence, and the visibility. Making something as variable as that int o a policy is not possible. This is one area we dopretty well in as is. The first step toward improbving itm ight be to suggest people not make more of it than necessary. Calling things to attention is not necessarily helpful. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The policy you appear to be proposing (because it's not at all clear) is that people should be banned from editing here because of their outside views, even if all the content they produce here "sticks to the letter of our policies." Who gets to decide what political views are beyond the pale? How would you even know? If the content you add here follows Wikipedia's rules on NPOV, reliable sources, civility to other editors, and so on, I'm happy to edit alongside you. I really don't care about your politics. Actually, I'm a lot more concerned by an editor who says "anyone who complains on this TP is generally disruptively editing." Hard to have a civil and good faith discussion with an editor so unwilling to listen to other views than their own. Chuntuk (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the essay contains an interpretation of existing policies, and functions better as an essay. Specifically want to request that it be noted that the closure of this as failing is not a consensus against the content, but a decision that it is best kept in the current form as an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2021 (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.

I know I'm late to the party, but for what it's worth, I also Oppose making this a policy. Don't get me wrong, in theory, I'd love to see a policy enacted by which we block Nazis as soon as they register or hit the "Edit" button, but the simple truth is that it's not always obvious who's a Nazi and who's not.

This essay is intended to help editors form reliable judgements (note that word: it's important) about the motivations of other editors. In the case of admins, this should always raise the question of whether or not those motivations are compatible with this project (hint: they're not), which will help inform the decision of how to deal with them. For the average user, this is an exercise in determining when to WP:AGF and when to head to WP:ANI.

In another sense, this essay is an explanation of why Nazis should be (and generally are) indeffed, instead of being allowed to play out their rope before the noose snaps shut.

Any attempt to boil this down to a discrete and systemic test, the failure of which should result in a block is destined to failure. There simply is no such test that will produce accurate results 100% of the time. For example, a Jain editor might have a userpage bedecked with swastikas, and might additionally find Naziism so profoundly wrongheaded that they feel like anyone supporting it could only be doing so in jest, and then find a reason to make such a joke themselves. Now we've got an editor who's userpage is full of Nazi symbols, making Nazi jokes. And when you go through their editing history, you might very well find some edits to a page that Nazis love to whine about, because there's lots of people who are interested in those topics who aren't Nazis.

I understand that's an extreme example. And it may be easily possible for us to discern the truth in that case, and simply warn the user against making further such jokes (which would be the appropriate response, IMHO). But that's exactly my point. The human brain is an incredibly powerful tool for discerning truth, and is far better suited to the task of weeding out Nazis than any logic of the sort "If user X does this, that and the other thing, then user X is a Nazi and should be indeffed."

Here's another example, a real one: There is a user who uses a common Nazi symbol in their signature. They also frequently edit in topics that Nazis are drawn to. They proudly proclaim their political and philosophical stance to anyone who cares to listen. On top of all that, they have a history of incivility. However, this user has a rock hard hate boner for Nazis. (Relax, that's a joke. I take no sexual satisfaction in the misfortunes of Nazis, only the regular satisfaction most of us are familiar with.)

Now, if someone were to propose a policy which was simultaneously vague and specific enough to block Nazis and other out-and-out-racists, without catching every editor who's made a joke in poor tastes, fallen for the bullshit pushed by bad-faith actors or just AGFed a little too much in the wrong discussion, I'd be 100% in support of it. But honestly, I just don't think that can be done, and that the best thing is to leave this as an essay, and for users and admins to cite it frequently when appropriate, to lend it enough weight that the inevitable attempts to undermine it fail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario

Suppose a notorious neo-Nazi such as Andrew Anglin or weev creates an account, and makes constructive edits on topics that have no connection with race or Nazism or any other such matter – for example, let's suppose they spend all their time here improving articles on obscure chemical compounds, or any one of a myriad other constructive and non-controversial ways in which a person could contribute. Suppose next, they out their real-life identity (and it is clear it is really them). Are they allowed to stay because they are constructively contributing? Or are they banned simply because of their real-life identity and off-Wikipedia views and actions, even if they've been perfectly well-behaved here? Mr248 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248: this is an essay, not a policy (see the above discussion) – nobody would be banned solely on the basis of it. The likelihood of an avowed neo-Nazi making non-problematic edits and not espousing toxic, WP:uncivil views or fighting over controversial content in a manner that would get them banned is extremely low though, which I suppose is partly the point of the essay. Jr8825 • Talk 04:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with replying to a hypothetical scenario by saying that the scenario is unlikely. I think it deserves an answer even if it was unlikely. We have had productive discussions in the past about the unlikely hypothetical scenario of Scientologists stealthily gaining a majority of the W?F board, a majority of the Stewards, a majority of Arbcom, etc. then suddenly revealing themselves.

The answer to the above hypothetical scenario is that we, as a community, should protect and defend any Nazi editor who has never made a disruptive edit from the inevitable attacks they will almost certainly experience because of their off-wiki behavior. Watching them carefully would be entirely reasonable, and they would be well advised to stay completely away for anything even remotely related to race or any other areas touched upon by Nazi ideology, but we do not punish editors for off-wiki behavior. This includes off-wiki behavior that we find distasteful.

I think that this essay does a poor job of differentiating between editing like a Nazi (not allowed) and being a Nazi -- but not being a Nazi on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally I agree with Guy on this. While most of us would hold a personal preference that Nazis stay the hell away from Wikipedia, we also have a cornerstone policy that people have the right to edit anonymously. So a Nazi who comes here and just writes articles about flowers should be left alone. Pushing extremist views into articles is another matter and we can't allow that. We also don't, as a matter of past practice, allow presentation of far-right symbols and slogans on personal talk pages, but it isn't at all easy to say where the boundary is. Zero^talk 03:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Purely as a matter of probability, it is almost certain that there's some number of editors in good standing who privately harbor white supremacist beliefs; and most likely some of them have acknowledged this off-wiki under other online personas or under their real names. If said person's views/activities were outed by another editor, and they had really never been disruptive, then no, it would be unfair to block or ban them (although as a practical matter they'd sure find themself on a short leash).

But in your hypothetical, the editor isn't outed by someone else. They out themself. And I think that's a different case, because outing oneself as a white supremacist would be inherently disruptive. Indeed, much more disruptive than your run-of-the-mill CIR disruptive editor. And the editor who did so would know exactly what they were doing. No Nazi says "I'm a Nazi" (or "I am this public figure well-known to be a Nazi") in a metaphorical office full of Jews, queer people, Black people, and so on, without knowing the effect that that's going to have, both directly (the discomfort their presence will cause many people) and indirectly (the megabytes' worth of noticeboard drama that would arise in a worst-case scenario version of this). And any argument that the person could make of, "Oh, I'm just here to build a better encyclopedia" will be belied by the very fact that they chose to say who they are. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "But in your hypothetical, the editor isn't outed by someone else. They out themself. And I think that's a different case, because outing oneself as a white supremacist would be inherently disruptive", the hypothetical does no such thing. It says "Suppose a notorious neo-Nazi such as Andrew Anglin or weev creates an account, and makes constructive edits on topics that have no connection with race or Nazism or any other such matter." It doesn't say that Andrew Anglin or weev self-identify as Nazis on Wikipedia. It fact it says the exact opposite; "constructive edits on topics that have no connection with race or Nazism or any other such matter". Writing "I am a Nazi" on your user page is an edit on Nazism, which the hypothetical specificly excludes. It's a good hypothetical. Please don't answer some other hypothetical that the OP did not post. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I also think one issue about "outing oneself as a white supremacist would be inherently disruptive" is that it is disputed who actually is a "white supremacist". Someone gets called a "white supremacist" by journalists/etc, and hence (if they are notable enough to have an article) their article applies that label to them, but at least some of the time the person doesn't actually agree with that label for themselves. (I wonder about the BLP issues of that, but that's a different topic.) So if your name is "Joe Bloggs", and journalists have written articles claiming that "Joe Bloggs is a white supremacist", and you are the actual "Joe Bloggs" they are writing about, but you don't feel the label "white supremacist" is an accurate description of your own beliefs, and Wikipedia has an article about you applying that label to you – is it then "inherently disruptive" to create an account under your real name, prove your identity, and then make constructive edits to articles about flowers? Is it "outing oneself as a white supremacist" if one outs oneself as one's real name, and the media claims that one is a "white supremacist", but one doesn't agree with that label? Mr248 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would go even farther. Even if If Joe Bloggs says on his web page "I am a Nazi and proud of it. White power!" and is the head of a well known Nazi group that is being prosecuted for terrorist acts, and then Joe Bloggs creates a Wikipedia account using his real name, never mentions on Wikipedia that he is a Nazi, and makes nothing but constructive edits about flowers and Pokemon -- never making any edit that is related in any way to what they do off wiki -- we are required to protect Joe from the inevitable attacks that other editors will engage in. We do not punish anyone on Wikipedia for anything they do elsewhere, and we only apply blocks, bans, or page protection to prevent future disruption of Wikipedia. This is part of Wikipedia:Five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone (even Nazis and terrorists) can edit, and Wikipedia editors should treat each other (even those who they know from reading other websites -- or even from reading a Wikipedia BLP -- to be Nazis and terrorists) with respect and civility. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Setting aside how people self-identify or don't, if I were to use the examples in the hypothetical: If a user had at some point off-wiki said The goal [of my movement] is to ethnically cleanse White nations of non-Whites and establish an authoritarian government. Many people also believe that the Jews should be exterminated or Look, I hate women. I think they deserve to be beaten, raped and locked in cages. (taken from our Andrew Anglin article), and then decided to say something that linked them to those quotes (such as, "Hey, I'm Andrew Anglin!"), do you not see how that would be disruptive to the encyclopedia? It'd be only one step removed from linking to their personal hate blog. There is absolutely no good-faith reason that that user would ever acknowledge their real-world identity. It would be pure trolling. Apparently it would be pretty effective trolling too. So sure. We don't punish people for things they do off-site. Here, we'd be punishing them for something they do on-site: linking themself to calls for genocide and mass rape. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 20:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No. I do not see how that would be disruptive to the encyclopedia, because it would not be. Not even close. I edit under my legal name. I have been on the Internet since the days of USENET. I am sure that if you dug deep enough you could find something I wrote when I was 13 years old that I now regret. And I have been impersonated multiple times. And I have used pseudonyms on other sites and later decided to out myself. And some of those pseudonyms have been impersonated. So am I not allowed to edit Wikipedia under my own name without someone declaing that something I or maybe an impersonator wrote on another site is somehow magically disruptive to Wikipedia? Good luck making that one stick. BTW, it isn't for you to decide whether I am or am not allowed to reveal my real-world identity. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

When Nazis come around, if you don't kick them out quickly and loudly, you are creating a safe space for Nazism. Jorm (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248, just to clarify a point in your hypothetical. "Suppose next, they out their real-life identity (and it is clear it is really them)." Is this connection to their real world identity done on-wiki or off-wiki? Ckoerner (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely up to someone whether to reveal their real-world identity. And up to the community whether to consider that revelation disruptive. Just about anything can be disruptive in the right context. The hypo here isn't about an editor who may or may not be the same person as someone who said the N-word 20 years ago, or something like that. It's about someone openly, voluntarily saying, "Hey y'all, I am that person who openly calls for the ethnic cleansing of non-whites." It has the same effect regardless of whether they say the second half on-wiki or off-wiki.

And "disruptive" is a question of fact, not of morality. You've been around long enough to know what would happen in an AN(I) section entitled "User:LongtimeEditor has revealed himself to be Andrew Anglin." (If you wanna put money on the end result, my bet is: no consensus for ban, but after about six hours of heated argument a single admin blocks unilaterally and there's no consensus to overturn either.) That's disruption. If someone does something that they know (or reasonably should know) will cause disruption, that's disruptive editing. The only way it's not disruptive editing is if the opposition to them were entirely unreasonable, i.e. that no one has reason to be concerned about sharing space with a Nazi. If that is your feeling, well, I'll just say that I think/hope it's the minority.

Edit to add: Also, how would this not just be considered a (standing) call to violence against other editors? Are you allowed to call for the death of other Wikipedians as long as you do it off-wiki and only later associate your account with that statement? If I said "death to every member of WikiProject such-and-such" on some off-wiki blog, and then later associate myself with that blog, that's fine? Or is there an exception for when the call to death only incidentally includes Wikipedians? -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 07:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again you are changing the hypothetical scenario of a person who has not violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines into a straw man where they have. Calling for the death of a wikipedia user is a blockable offense no matter where you do it. You want to block someone onwiki for offwiki crimes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia in any way. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr248: I think this is typically handled with a variant of Don't ask, don't tell. Merely stating on one's own user page that they are a Nazi would likely result in discussions getting derailed, which could be grounds for a block. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is not the same thing as saying "my name is X" and having some wikipedia editor search the web and discover that you are a Nazi. Some here are advocating blocking someone for using their real name alone, claiming that failing to use a pseudonym is disruptive even if their behavior was otherwise exemplary. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Searching the web for info on another user and publishing the results here is a breach of WP:PRIVACY. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure almost everyone here agrees with that -- I certainly do. Alas. in the discussion above Tamzin[14][15] advocates doing nothing about the person violating our privacy policy, but instead punishing the victim, even though the hypothetical victim did absolutely nothing wrong other than registering with their real name and thus make it easy for someone to searching the web for info on them and publish the results here. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's be careful about wording here, Guy: what you seem to want to be saying is that "Tamzin did not advocate for doing anything about privacy violations in this context", which is not the same thing as "Tamzin advocates for doing nothing about privacy violations in this context"--and assuming the latter from the former is an instance of the logical fallacy known as an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Tamzin did not address the issue of the WP:PRIVACY violation either way, but there are plenty of reasons why they might have done that which have nothing to do with giving a free pass to such violations: it might have been an oversight on Tamzin's part; they may have considered it tangential to the point they were focused on (afterall, you also did not address it across repeated sequential posts until Alexis commented on that aspect of the debate); or they might consider both parties in breach of different policies in that hypothetical scenario.

In any event, the manner in which you framed their comments fills that rhetorical gap with the presumption that Tamzin would see no problem with the conduct of the party making the WP:PRIVACY violation in any scenario that involves outing a Nazi's off-wiki activities. Perhaps Tamzin does in fact agree with that standard, or perhaps they don't--or perhaps they meant to be speaking to contexts in which the Nazi is so high profile that no one in particular has to out his offline activities in order for potential disruption to ensue after the Nazi self-discloses their identity, and thus Tamzin hadn't thought to address the outing element with support in either direction. Point is, until they clarify their position, you should be careful about summarizing their stance in a fashion that puts words in their mouth. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps Tamzin favors punishing both the person doing the outing and the person who did absolutely nothing wrong on Wikipedia or related to Wikipedia. All I know for sure is that they favor punishing the person who did absolutely nothing wrong on Wikipedia or related to Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying my thinking and identifying my unfounded assumption. Very helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

So, to follow up on two points (and in the future do feel free to ping me if you have a question of what I meant by something):1) I'm not changing the hypothetical scenario. The hypothetical scenario explicitly said someone "such as Andrew Anglin". That would mean someone who has spoken in support of various violent crimes against various groups that edit Wikipedia. So, if Calling for the death of a wikipedia user is a blockable offense no matter where you do it, and some Wikipedia editors are of color, are Jewish (waves), are women (mostly waves), etc., why isn't that enough? 2) Given the phrasing in the OP, that they "out their real-life identity", the usage of "identity" rather than "name", and the lack of a qualifier like "accidentally" or "due to blackmail", and that this real-world identity was the sort that many editors would recognize just by name and indeed that we have an article on, I proceeded with the assumption that there was no WP:PRIVACY issue here. It's no different than a talk-page post of "Hey, User:ProminentScholar, I saw what you said in that lecture and was wondering...", which is common enough. So, that's why I didn't address WP:PRIVACY: because I took the outer in the hypo to be User:LongtimeEditor themself. Now, if it were involuntary outing? I think if it's clear that User:LongtimeEditor really had no intention of anyone putting things together, then that's outing and should be handled with the standard suppression and appropriate sanctions for the outing editor. Borderline cases (say, where one could plausibly argue User:LongtimeEditor was dropping breadcrumbs) should be handled with common sense. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 22:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A more precise hypothetical

Since there seems to be some disagreement about what the hypo here actually is, I thought I'd write out something a bit more detailed (and something that doesn't require us to tiptoe around BLP). Consider:

• User:Example has been editing for 10 years and in that time have amassed 30,000 edits to enwiki and 1,000 uploads to Commons. They have been featured in DYK a number of times, and written three good articles. Their contributions have been almost entirely to articles about architecture. They have never edited an article subject to any DS or GS. Their disciplinary history consists of two warnings for edit warring in their early years, zero blocks. They have only posted on the drama boards once, an AN/I post validly reporting harassment. They have never said anything about their personal life.
• X. E. Maple is a noted white supremacist, casual architecture enthusiast, and amateur photographer. They are the subject of a Wikipedia biography. The biography reliably quotes them as saying, among other things, "Deport all Blacks and latinos," "Gas the Jews," "Enslave all women," and "Stone all queers"—although using somewhat crasser terms for these demographics.

Scenarios

1. User:Example adds the following infobox to their user page: {{User WWA|X. E. Maple}}. Someone asks if this is true.
2. User:Example adds the following infobox to their user page: {{UserboxCOI|X. E. Maple}}. Someone asks if they are in fact Maple.
3. User:Example adds the following text to their user page: "My name is X. E. Maple," without link. Someone asks if they mean that X. E. Maple, given that the name is uncommon.
4. On a single occasion in 2010, User:Example uploaded an {{own work}} photo to Commons where the EXIF metadata lists the photographer as "X. E. Maple". Someone notices and asks them the same question as in #3.
5. X. E. Maple is the subject of a profile in a white supremacist publication. In the profile, they mention that they edit Wikipedia but not about controversial subjects. They also mention their love for architecture. The profile includes a photo they took of a building, which exists on Commons as {{Own work}} by User:Example. Someone asks User:Example if this is true, citing this evidence.
6. User:Example adds a note on their userpage: "Fun fact! There's an article about me, and its title is an anagram of my name." Someone, out of curiosity, runs an anagram script and finds only one article: X. E. Maple. They then notice that User:Example has on a number of occasions uploaded photos as {{Own work}}, all of which Maple had previously posted to their Flickr account. Someone asks if this is indeed the article in question.

In each case, what reaction by User:Example, if any, would make this a case of disruptive editing? Assume that no evidence is discovered other than that mentioned in the given scenario. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 23:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To answer my own question: In #1, the edit is per se disruptive regardless of what happens next, although a convincing enough claim of an ill-advised joke might count for something. In #s 2 and 3, a "no" should be taken at face value, but anything else indicates disruptive editing (although I'm on the fence as to how to handle a "no comment" in #2). In #4 (a clear accident) or #5 (a possible joe job), a "yes" would still be disruptive but anything else should be taken at face value and probably calls for suppression. (Whether the other user should still be sanctioned in the case of a "yes" is a separate matter.) And in #6, same answer as #1; it's even more troll-y because of the extra steps. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 23:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the above scenarios requires any action at all.

This is one of Wikipedia's core principles: Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

The first ten words on our main page are "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

The only things that a well-known Nazi can do that would get them in trouble are:

• Anything (on-wiki or off-wiki) that would get any other editor in trouble (edit warring, spamming, impersonation, outing, copyright violations, etc.)
• COI edits such as editing the Wikipedia page about them, an organization they belong to, or the place they work.
• Some edit related to Nazism or Nazi ideology. Linking to the Wikipedia page about you does not qualify as an edit related to Nazism or Nazi ideology even if that page says you are a Nazi.

As long as they don't violate our policies and guidelines, Nazis are allowed to edit Wikipedia using their real name.

As long as he doesn't violate our policies and guidelines, Donald Trump is allowed to edit Wikipedia using his real name.

As long as he doesn't violate our policies and guidelines, Mikhail Popkov is allowed to edit Wikipedia using his real name (although he may find getting access to a computer to be a challenge).

As long as he doesn't violate our policies and guidelines, David Miscavige is allowed to edit Wikipedia using his real name.

This is a core principle and is not negotiable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You've made this point. I keep pointing out reasons it's not that simple (including, I would reiterate, the fact that calling for the death of other editors is against policy). I don't think you'll find anything I've said here that disputes the premise that, broadly speaking, a neo-Nazi should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. And for what it's worth, there's already at least one case where off-wiki conduct is sanctionable even if it never affects the wiki at all. Our main page can say what it likes, but ten years ago someone added an "almost" to the relevant text at m:Foundation issues, and has yet to be reverted. One could certainly say that that's a special case (one that was imposed unilaterally by Jimbo), but I'm just saying, the "anyone" is already a lie. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to the hypotheticals:

I wouldn't consider any of that disruptive, nor requiring intervention. However, the moment an LGBT, Jewish or Female editor would like to edit Architecture, but doesn't feel comfortable doing so because they know that X. E. Maple edits that article, now we have a disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No. We don't have disruption in that case. Our core value is "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" not "The Encyclopedia only people we like can edit".

Punishing people for expressing unpopular opinions off-wiki while never once violating any Wikipedia policy or guideline violates out core principles and is a slippery slope.

Do we punish Trump supporters for their off-wiki opinions? How about communists? What if I say that I am not comfortable editing a page edited by someone who seems to think that Mjölnir is better than Gríðarvölr? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A situation is which an editor is uncomfortable contributing to this project because they know another editor wants them and everyone like them to be murdered is not disruption? Guy, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call that "just plain wrong". None of the examples you listed involved genocide. Nazism does, and that's a very important distinction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct. A situation is which an editor is uncomfortable contributing to this project because they know from doing opposition research on the web and not because of anything that the person did on wikipedia that another editor wants them and everyone like them to be murdered is not disruption. Communists have murdered more people than Nazis have.[16] Are you going to say that they can't edit Wikipedia either?

If this ever went from hypothetical to real and you tried to punish someone for expressing unpopular opinions off-wiki while never once violating any Wikipedia policy or guideline I would have the sad duty of taking someone who I really like to Arbcom.

The good news is that the hypothetical is is unlikely to ever happen. Most Nazis are proud of being Nazis and push Nazi ideology when they edit, and everyone agrees that that is not allowed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

from doing opposition research on the web and not because of anything that the person did on wikipedia That wasn't part of the hypothetical. In all those cases, their identity came out on wikipedia (in sit. 3, it did so as a result of off-wiki activity by the Nazi, but still).

That being said, I would be considerably less sympathetic to a person who did opposition research off-site and decided, based on that, that an editor was a Nazi and they were not comfortable editing alongside them. Not entirely un-sympathetic, mind. But less so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Actual example

I am not wading through all the above back-and-forth. Instead, I am answering the initial question with an actual example: when I pointed out an editor was explicitly endorsing a known hate group, the result is that they were blocked from English Wikipedia.

So yes, if a known white supremacist figure showed up here, we would block them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The correct and only answer. Jorm (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. You are talking about an an editor who was explicitly endorsing a known hate group. We all agree about what happens in that case. You them waved your hands and tried to apply the same rule to anyone who is "a known white supremacist figure" even if they only edit Pokemon articles. Wikipedia blocks you because of what you do, not because of what you are. Any admin who blocks someone who did nothing wrong will end up desysopped for misuse of admin tools. It's right there in the blocking policy: WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unless and until someone can demonstrate the existence of Nazis who don't edit in Nazi-related topic or engage in any other Naziing around on WP, they're nothing but orbital teapots. And arguing about them is pointless and non-constructive. The existence of this essay does not strip anyone of their own best judgement, so the only thing to do is wait for this (highly improbable) situation to crop up and then use said judgement based on the circumstances.

I mean, honestly, I agree with you Guy; a Nazi who doesn't cause problems doesn't need to be dealt with. But I've never seen nor heard of a Nazi who doesn't cause problems. Whether that's because they haven't caused any problems for me to hear of, or because they don't exist, I really don't care. They don't matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Just white supremacists?

Surely this policy should be expanded to all ethnic groups not just those of Caucasian ethnicity. As Asia, black, Arab etc can all be racist as well. People can also be xenophobic as well for example extremists in Turkey and Greece have a hatred for the others nation. Poggg133 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's an essay, and in practice the sentiments expressed here apply to any similar pattern of editing where someone shows contempt for other groups of people to the extent of denying their right to exist. It's just that on the English Wikipedia, the vast majority of this behavior originates with people who conduct themselves as white supremacists. Acroterion (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bigotry is bad, and different forms of bigotry are bad in slightly different ways. It is not a value judgement to recognize these differences. Wikipedia's policies already try to cover bigotry, although with much room for improvement. Wikipedia editors have tried many approaches for dealing with different form of bigotry, and some work better than others. In fact, Wikipedia's editors already uses a very different approach to deal with the Balkans, which does include Greece and Turkey: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe.

One reason this is important is because ignoring these differences is itself disruptive. Often, misinformation based on false equivalence influences good-faith editors to make flawed or just wrong arguments (such as "the Nazis were actually left-wing"). False equivalence is a favorite tactic of white supremacists because it is so efficient at stirring the pot. It causes confusion and wastes time and energy, and everyone gets a little more cynical at the end of it. Since there is no simple, reliable test to tell the difference between good-faith editors making bad arguments and Nazis trolling for the lulz, we have to be willing to recognize Nazi arguments for what they are. Essays like this are very useful for helping other editors identify these patterns. If this essay is also helpful for other, related forms of bigotry, so be it, but that still doesn't mean they need to be treated as if they were exactly the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

While acknowledging that OP here is a now-blocked sock, and that this is thus not good-faith criticism, it did occur to me that our "core beliefs uniting various types of racists" list should really be phrased in a manner that applies to all forms of racism. The more specific list after it does a great job at covering more Nazi-specific forms of bigotry. (And while something like Black supremacist racism is quite rare here, I do think some people are underestimating just how much racism we get in the context of nationalistic POV-pushing (see, generally, WP:AE).) As such, I've BOLDly reworded the first list to not only say "white people", while preserving the Nazi-centric points in the second list. I welcome critique/criticism/good-faith reversion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone wants to write a short passage saying that one can swap out any race for any other, after the list, that'd be fine by me. But this "one group" or "some groups" crap fails right off the bat, because it's calling me a racist for saying "experienced editors are superior to inexperienced editors" and that's just nonsense.

Even the "one race" or "some race" version is no good, because this essay is specifically written about white supremacists. There's a note in the intro that already says that there are other groups like black supremacists whom this also applies to, but the essay is written to address the vast majority of the racists we encounter here. Changing the beliefs section makes it clash with the rest of the essay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Stop." in an edit summary (where there's no vandalism or edit-warring going on) comes off as rather hostile, at least to me. It implies that you think I won't stop unless asked to do so pointedly, which is odd given that I said I welcome reversion. "Crap" and "nonsense" also aren't the kinds of characterizations I like seeing of things I've written. I've already made the case for the content I added. I certainly don't object to improving ambiguous wording like "some groups". (And two can play at the false-positives game. You've restored a wording that would technically brand it racist to say "white Americans are generally in better health than Black Americans", an objectively true statement frequently mentioned by Black civil rights activists.) But anyways, I don't like spending my spare time arguing with people who insult me—and even in my rather intense back-and-forth with Guy in the section above, I didn't run into that problem—so I'll let my statements so far speak for themselves, and just hope someone with thicker skin than me cares to argue for them. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that. But check the page history: there have been a lot of socks and SPA IPs trying to change this, and the edits you made are functionally almost identical to a common edit of theirs. The "Stop." was borne of frustration with reverting the same edit by soon-to-be-blocked socks countless times.

And two can play at the false-positives game. You've restored a wording that would technically brand it racist to say "white Americans are generally in better health than Black Americans" No, it wouldn't. "In better health" is not synonymous with "superior". I chose my wording with care, and would point out that, assuming your counter example was, actually racist, your proposed wording change wouldn't make it any less racist.

But anyways, I don't like spending my spare time arguing with people who insult me Please read WP:ASPERSIONS before the next time you decide to falsely accuse me of insulting you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth I agree with Tamzin. I think it's a shame that this essay is written exclusively from the standpoint of dealing with neo-Nazis; Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and it follows that racists from around the world end up here trying to promote their views. The list at WP:DSTOPICS is an incomplete indicator of how broad racism and xenophobia on Wikipedia can be in scope and geographic region. I'm not necessarily convinced that neo-Nazis make up the "vast majority of the racists we encounter here", but whether or not that's true is, I suppose, irrelevant – the essay is pithily titled "No Nazis" after all. And besides, my experience is guided by the articles I've been involved with (they include a good number of ethno-nationalist conflicts but, with the exception of Donald Trump, probably have little overlap with the interests of the average white supremacist). Re: "experienced editors are superior to inexperienced editors", you're omitting the key part of that sentence, "inherently". But this is an argument that's been had many times over this essay and I doubt things are set to change. Jr8825 • Talk 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Experienced editors are inherently superior to inexperienced editors."

There ya go, I fixed it for ya. It's surprising (and a little amusing) to me that there's now two people who have completely missed the actual point of that example and think their misunderstanding makes for a compelling counter argument.

The amusing part is the way both of you feel the need to condescendingly complain about it, instead of simply asking for clarification. Of course, if you did, I'd just refer you back to my original comment where I explicitly spelled it out.

But, because I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you more examples to help you out; "Caring people are inherently superior to uncaring people," "Non-murderers are inherently superior to murderers," "competent people are inherently superior to incompetent people". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the subtleties of your argument which is why I didn't ask for clarification. I'm glad you've now decided to clear things up, but I still think it's a straw man. Also, I don't find it amusing when people do miss the point and I don't think it's civil to characterise other people explaining their views as "condescendingly complaining". Jr8825 • Talk 02:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the subtleties of your argument Your response betrays the fact that you did. My point had nothing to do with the word "inherent", for example.

I don't think it's civil to characterise other people explaining their views as "condescendingly complaining". Accusing other people of insulting them based on no evidence whatsoever, then citing that as a reason to refuse to engage is incredibly condescending. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your response betrays the fact that you did. Sorry, but I disagree. Jr8825 • Talk 13:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well yes. You would, wouldn't you? That's exactly how misunderstandings work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I added this a bit ago and no-one objected to it so far; and I think it succinctly avoids any and all possible confusion. Anyway, somebody wiki-lawyering their way about this claiming they're not "racist" but "[something else]" likely will get the same treatment (which is an expedited meeting with the banhammer) so doesn't change much AFAICS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus needed for controversial and disputed claims

Extended content

In this edit[17] MjolnirPants wrote "There is no consensus for this change. Get consensus first". I dispute the claim that the "core beliefs uniting various types of racists" include such claims as "white people are morally and ethically superior to non-whites" or "that the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people". It is an easily-observable fact that there are racists other than white racists. There exist people who believe Japanese to be superior to Koreans, Indians to be superior to Pakistanis, Blacks to be superior to Whites, etc. I strongly suspect (but I may be wrong) that MjolnirPants subscribes to the discredited "it isn't racism unless a white person does it" POV. I welcome a correction if my impression on this turns out to be false. I also question whether we are seeing a case of WP:OWNERSHIP. You can create an essay and then control all changes to it. Just put it in userspace, as I have done with WP:1AM, WP:CANCER, and WP:YWAB. But the moment you push the publish page in Wikipedia space you no longer own the words you wrote, and the usual WP:CONSENSUS rules apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Personally, I'd say that putting words in people's mouth -- like you did with MjolnirPants -- then claiming that you welcome correction about the thing you made up is, really, a bad rhetorical strategy. --Calton | Talk 04:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC) If you strongly suspected, based upon my behavior, that I hold a particular position that you believe was affecting my editing, what would you do? Stay silent in an attempt to be polite? Perhaps a question format would be more acceptable to you. Do you think that the "core beliefs uniting various types of racists" only includes white racism? Does racism among Japanese exist or doesn't it? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I strongly suspect (but I may be wrong) that MjolnirPants subscribes to the discredited "it isn't racism unless a white person does it" This is the single most illogical, most ignorant and divorced from reality claim about me I've ever read on this project, and that's including the periodic attacks from LTA's like Mikemikev. Even though this is a common-to-the-point-of-being-cliche catchphrase from the political right, the notion that anyone other than a few, mentally unstable people would believe such a thing is, itself, ignorant, illogical and divorced from reality. It's also directly contradicted by things I've explicitly said here and elsewhere, including the fact that I included a note saying the exact opposite in my very first draft of this essay. In the future, I would advise you that a little knowledge and a little logic would be appropriate ingredients to include in any arguments you make, if you want to convince people of anything other than your inability to form a coherent argument. As for the present, well to be frank, in the few weeks since I've returned, you've managed to erase any care I have for what you have to say about anything. P.S. I didn't push this to wikispace, as you damn well know. Why you felt the need to falsely imply that I had is something I won't speculate on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC) So far the consensus is two editors (User:Tamzin and User:Guy Macon) who oppose this essay opposing the claim that the only racists (direct quote: "core beliefs uniting various types of racists") are white racists, one editor (User:MjolnirPants) who support the content and one editor (User:Calton) who offered no opinion on the question asked. In another section User:Thryduulf and User:Jr8825 opposed the claim, and if I am interpreting their comment ("It's just that on the English Wikipedia, the vast majority of this behavior originates with people who conduct themselves as white supremacists") correctly User:Acroterion endorsed it, but none of them have has so far weighed in in this section regarding the specific wording by Tamzin that MjolnirPants reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC) If that's how you want to go about it, there's an entire list of editors who explicitly supported the essay as it is written at the top of this page. And I have actually offered a compromise (which I feel would actually be an improvement over the current wording) position which neither you nor Tamzin have even acknowledged. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) @Guy Macon: I haven't been following the discussions on this page since my most recent comment, but the heart of the dispute seems to be whether the purpose of the page is to discuss Nazis specifically, white supremacists slightly more generally (not all white supremacists are Nazis), or all types of racists (perhaps using white supremacists as examples). Until that it settled there can really be no agreement about whether changes of the type made in the diff at the top of this section are good. Personally I think the more general subject would make for a significantly more useful page, and that edit was a good (if not perfect) attempt to make it that, but evidently it is clear that there is no consensus for that view. Regardless though of why this is in Wikipedia space, it is here, and MjolnirPants should not be acting in a way that appears to show ownership of the page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC) MjolnirPants should not be acting in a way that appears to show ownership of the page. Reverting a bold edit (which has been reverted by multiple other editors on prior occasions [18] [19] [20]) and discussing it afterwards, followed by making an edit which addresses all of the concerns expressed thus far (except for Guy's utterly ridiculous accusation) is pretty much the opposite of acting like one owns the page, and I'd ask you to strike your ridiculous accusation that it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Or you could simply stop using language like "the core beliefs uniting various types of racists" when you say you are actually talking about one type of racist. I'm just saying. The wording that you insist on keeping in the essay implies that... No. I am not going to say what it clearly implies. That would just unleash another torrent of abuse and insults. Figure out yourself what you are implying. Figure out for yourself why it is that multiple Wikipedia editors object to your chosen wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I understand your approach, my preference is for precisely that, a single essay that opens by discussing racism generally ... and then segues into a large section about Nazis and white supremacists. I'll wait to see if others agree with me that this is a good path forward, however, as I appreciate it's not your preference. Jr8825 • Talk 18:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I am fine with an essay about Nazis and other white supremacists, an essay about all racists, an essay about both, or two essays. I am not OK with saying that all racists share a belief that is actually unique to Nazis and other white supremacists. I am completely at a loss as to why correcting such an obvious factual error is getting so much resistance. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned by your inability to distinguish between the meanings of the phrases "various kinds of X" and "all of the various kinds of X". Plenty of editors have shown that they can parse the phrase correctly, including in unarchived discussions right here on this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I also read "uniting various types" as meaning "what various types all have in common". Personally, I don't read it any other way. You accused myself and Tazmin of being condescending in the above thread, yet saying that it's our problem that we're unable to "get it" when it's "obvious" or "everyone else gets it" (both here and above) is absolutely condescending and offensive. I've tried to continue engaging with you despite the fact that I've found it pretty unpleasant and frustrating, and I've tried very hard to not insult or criticise you, but this treatment of others is just not on. Please be more considerate. Jr8825 • Talk 19:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC) For starters, that it exactly what it was written to mean. What it was not written to mean (and what it does not say) is "these are the traits that literally every bunch of racists in the world has". Again, I must remind you; I wrote this article specifically about Nazis and white supremacists, with only loose applicability to other forms of racists. In any case, that confusion is still reader confusion. The lede of this essay explicitly enunciates the groups being referred to by the word "racist" as " neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians," with "...others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities" the afterthought-esque generality that might contain, for example, Chinese people who are racist against Uyghars. There is a crystal-clear difference in the level of emphasis given to the different groups, what with all the Nazi-influenced groups being enunciated and the rest lumped together as "other groups". I understand that Wikipedians are a notoriously pedantic and literal bunch, but no reasonable person can deny that an essay called "No Nazis" that prominantly features an anti-Nazi image is not primarily about Nazis. The first draft used the word "Nazis" for reasons I clearly enunciated on this talk page, previously. The confusion you find in the current wording is a direct result of people pushing for the exact changes you're here calling for, ironically, to end the confusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC) @Jr8825: I've already started writing a more general essay on racism in my userspace, though I haven't saved yet. But if there's a consensus to keep it down to a single essay, it can always be MfDed. Do you think you could start a draft of your preferred vision? If it comes down to it, having the two options visible would make an RfC easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I'm happy to have a crack at it, but I won't be able to start until Thursday or Friday at the earliest due to IRL work. Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't expect to have my version ready to show people before Wednesday at the earliest, so don't sweat the timetable. I'm just glad to see efforts to actually improve it on this page, rather than empty complaints about it and me, or pointless naval gazing about how this essay is going to to be the ruin of Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC) @Guy Macon: I'll reply to the broader points here later on, but would just like to clarify one thing: I don't oppose this essay. I strongly support it. I think some version of it should probably be policy (probably just a sentence or two in WP:DE). I just don't think it makes sense for its definition of racism to be entirely about white supremacism, when we constantly block [pick an ethnic group in Asia or (South)Eastern Europe] supremacists. Still, the fact that you and I are in agreement on this despite (I gather) diametrically opposed views on this essay's overall merit is itself a point in favor of changing something. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC) We actually appear to be in full agreement about the essay's overall merit. I have disagreed with two details: the same error you spotlight above and the question of whether someone should be punished -- based only on someone going off-wiki and researching them -- for what they think but never even hint at saying, even if (rare as that may be) their actual behavior has been beyond reproach and they have only made good edits in the area of Pokemons. If I had disagreed with the main point of essay I would have ignored it. My problem is that I like it, but that it is so close to being entirely good and useful but marred by one or possibly two factual errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Ah. My apologies for mischaracterizing your position, then. Still thinking about overall feelings here, but it does occur to me that one option might be liberating the WP:NORACISTS shortcut and making an essay anew based on that broader scope. Or WP:NORACISM (currently redirecting to a userspace essay no one's ever cited), since, as much as you and I disagreed in the discussion about off-wiki activity, it's still ultimately just a line-drawing question about what extent of on-wiki support for racism is disruptive; indeed, someone not need be a racist in their heart of hearts for their racism to land them a block. (Consider someone who "edgily" puts an all-caps N-word on their userpage.) And an essay could easily be written that leaves that exact detail as a fact-specific inquiry for the admins/noticeboard-watchers weighing in on a particular case. (It's funny, since we last talked, I read something that alluded to a case in '05 (I think) where an editor was openly the leader of a white supremacist organization, with no on-wiki disruption, but was subsequently revealed to have been compiling an off-wiki list of Jewish editors, earning an indef that way. Perhaps going toward MjolnirPants' statement that they've never seen nor heard of a Nazi who doesn't cause problems.) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I sometimes wish it was a policy that editors be required to read a focused discussion before joining it. As is stated clearly above; An almost identical edit to yours has been reverted at least three times previously by three different editors. Four, if you include me reverting an IP edit; yours was the fifth. The fourty editors who have signed endorsement have all endorsed the current wording. The argument about consensus is spurious and without merit, as there is a very clear consensus, regardless of the fact that three editors decided to show up and hurl abuse at me and the essay in the past 24 hours. You guys are about 30 editors and a good handful of civil behavior short of making a convincing case that there's no consensus for the current wording. The wording causing confusion was added as a direct result of editors making the same push you are making here: to make this essay more general. The original essay was about Nazis and white supremacists, and while it acknowledged the existence of other sorts of racists, was never intended to be about them. Converting this essay into an essay about racism in general piece by piece is a bad idea that will only make it more confusing. The above claims are evinced by diffs I have provided and content on this very page. I did not move this to wikispace, and though I seriously considered doing so, ultimately elected not to. It was moved to wikispace by other editors, presumably as a response to the MfD. I have already offered to, and begun writing the essay you have proposed here. Another option will be worked on by Jr8825 near the end of this week, namely re-writing the lead and descriptive sections, then segueing into a large segment about Nazis and white supremacists (comprised of the bulk of the current version of this page), who stand out even among other racists as particularly vile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC) So you: 1) Insulted me in a way that made me choose to disengage from this thread; 2) Called my characterization of that insult "casting aspersions" even though I was clear about which comments I found insulting; and then 3) when I rejoined the thread just to clarify my position and share a stray thought, decided to lecture me on how to participate, and to recap the thread in a way that implies I'm incapable of reading it myself. Perhaps consider that there's a reason I avoided directly commenting on the rest of the thread, namely that I dislike interacting with people who are rude to me. And patronizing isn't much of an improvement from insulting. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC) So you: 1) Insulted me That's the second time you've said that, and it's been a bald faced lie, both times. Keep accusing me of this shit and I'll ask an admin to make you stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I was very clear about why I said it: You had taken a harsh tone and then proceeded to call my contribution "crap" and "nonsense." Those are insults. Calling that characterization as a lie is also an insult. If you'd like an admin to take a look at your and my conduct here, go right ahead. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC) So you consider criticism of your edits insults, even when it's been shown to you that edits functionally identical to yours have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors? That's not an attitude that really lends itself to collaboration, now is it? I also noticed you've been completely ignoring the fact that I actually apologized for my tone and explained my frustrations, as well. I guess "Okay, I guess I can see why you'd be frustrated" is just too damn hard to type. It's so much easier to whine about insults, isn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Criticizing edits usings terms like "crap" and "nonsense" is insulting, yes. I can't say that saying I'm whining is all too civil either. Now if you're not going to take this to ANI, please leave me alone. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Re: " 'So you: 1) Insulted me ' That's the second time you've said that, and it's been a bald faced lie, both times. Keep accusing me of this shit and I'll ask an admin to make you stop"';[21] Incivility by MjolnirPants: 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC): "The amusing part is the way both of you feel the need to condescendingly complain". 12:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC) : "Accusing other people of insulting them based on no evidence whatsoever, then citing that as a reason to refuse to engage is incredibly condescending.". 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC): "This is the single most illogical, most ignorant and divorced from reality claim about me I've ever read on this project, and that's including the periodic attacks from LTA's like Mikemikev.". 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC): "Even though this is a common-to-the-point-of-being-cliche catchphrase from the political right, the notion that anyone other than a few, mentally unstable people would believe such a thing is, itself, ignorant, illogical and divorced from reality." 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC): "In the future, I would advise you that a little knowledge and a little logic would be appropriate ingredients to include in any arguments you make, if you want to convince people of anything other than your inability to form a coherent argument. As for the present, well to be frank, in the few weeks since I've returned, you've managed to erase any care I have for what you have to say about anything.". 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC): "Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned by your inability to distinguish between the meanings of the phrases "various kinds of X" and "all of the various kinds of X". Plenty of editors have shown that they can parse the phrase correctly". 01:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC): "I sometimes wish it was a policy that editors be required to read a focused discussion before joining it.". 03:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC): "It's so much easier to whine about insults, isn't it?" I am pretty sure that this does not rise to the level where administrator intervention is required (as tempting as that may be after reading the blatant threat "Keep accusing me of this shit and I'll ask an admin to make you stop") but I am sure of the following: MjolnirPants has been uncivil, disrespectful and agressive towards other editors. MjolnirPants is incredibly thin-skinned, and when someone says that they feel insulted, doubles down on the personal abuse. MjolnirPants has WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this essay. I welcome MjolnirPants reporting me to ANI for expressing the above opinions (which of course will be characterized as "lies"). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Oh fuck off, Guy. You started this section with a blatant personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Complaints about Ownership

I never asked for this essay to be moved to wikispace. I did not move it to wikispace. Since being moved, it has been edited into confusion by people who can't decide what they want it to say. Since I appartently can't concur with an obvious existing consensus without being accused of ownership, then, per the claims of the very editor accusing me, I'll simply move this back into userspace where I apparently have a legitimate claim to ownership. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Unwatching page, setting muting on both usernames in my preferences. I do not wish to have any further interactions with MjolnirPants. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank god, you've finally said something reasonable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

Improving this essay

(edit conflict) My main issue with the page as it stands is that it contains at a statement which is simply inaccurate and false: that white supremacist beliefs are "the core beliefs uniting various types of racists". My comments in the above section were in support of Tamzin's concerns and her reverted edits, which removed that statement, as well as the general direction they were seeking to take the essay.

The problem is that the essay is trying to do two things at once: be a rebuttal to both white supremacists and to all racists generally. Given how important I think this essay is – and the number of times I've seen it pointed to, I'm concerned inaccurate statements such as the above will give racists, genocide deniers and xenophobes from non-white backgrounds who skim read it confidence in continuing their behaviour on-wiki, and will unnecessarily give Nazis ammunition for a number of reasons. Not least by allowing them to claim that it shows Wikipedia's community explicitly rejecting them while largely overlooking other racists, a false impression I think it needlessly encourages.

Because of this concern, I added the catch-all statement above the list of white supremacist beliefs ("that one group of people is inherently superior to another group of people") roughly two months ago. It wasn't reverted, but it's a flawed, crude patch-up where a broader rewrite is needed. There are two ways the essay could be adapted while retaining its central points – it can either be a rejection of only white supremacist neo-Nazis, in which case it needs to be more explicit in what it's setting out to do, and broad statements about other types of racists need to go. Or, preferably in my view, it can be widened into a rejection of racists, fascists and "Nazis" (in its broadest, less specific popular use – a scathing term for hyper-nationalists, scientific racists, antisemite conspiracy theorists etc.)

@Guy Macon: while I agree with your points about the essay, I'm not quite sure why speculating about another editor's beliefs is relevant to to changing it. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the essay is trying to do two things at once: be a rebuttal to both white supremacists and to all racists generally. The essay was written specifically as a rebuttal to white supremacists, while also being generally about racism. Honestly, what would make me the happiest would be if someone would write an essay about racism on WP more generally, take the WP:NORACISTS redirect, and allow this to focus back more specifically on white supremacists. But as that's been proposed numerous times and no-one's done it yet, it seems unlikely to get done unless I do it myself. Speaking of which, I made this edit after suggesting as much to Tamzin and not hearing back from anyone about it, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't realise that you'd just made that edit, and I appreciate it. I'm happy to work on a new essay – but to be honest it'd be far easier if it just built on this one and transformed it into something of broader scope, as Tamzin was trying to do and as your edit partly does. So, would you support reworking this essay so that it addressed racism broadly while still including white supremacists? I personally think it's unnecessary (and a bit redundant) to have two separate essays in the wikispace on what's essentially the same problem in different in stripes (white nationalists and Nazis are just a large subset or racists). Jr8825 • Talk 16:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that Nazis and white supremacists are just another subset of racism, and I believe they deserve specific treatment.

With respect to Nazis, the Holocaust was a fairly unique occurrence in history, in which a regime built on racism attempted to systematically exterminate multiple undesirable racial groups. While other racist governments or groups have, indeed, made efforts to commit genocide, none have ever approached the scale nor the existence in the public consciousness of the Holocaust. The use of Nazi symbology is, as noted in the section written by TonyBallioni, an immediate declaration of total, unrelenting hostility to any group the Nazis despised in a way that even similar symbols, like the Confederate flag aren't. (To illustrate this, compare the results in this google search for "black man with a confederate flag", which shows dozens of different images of the exact phenomenon searched for to this image search for "jewish man with a nazi flag, which doesn't seem to even have a single image of the phenomenon searched for.)

Any attempt to censor an editor for displaying symbology that's associated with other forms of racism is likely doomed to failure. Imagine trying to sanction the literal hundreds of editors with File:Flag of Palestine.svg on their user pages for anti-semitism, or inversely, the editors with File:Flag of Israel.svg for anti-Arab racism.

With respect to white supremacists; in the English-speaking world, they are almost universally influenced by Nazi and Neo-Nazi beliefs, to the point that arguments attempting to draw a distinction between the two stretch into absurdity (e.g. "there haven't been any Nazis since 1945.") Sure, they rarely identify as Nazis of any sort, and they often decry the concept of eugenics and system eradication of "untermencsh", but a shockingly high number of them end up getting caught giving Nazi salutes, saying Seig Heil, or even admitting to being admirers of Nazis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: To give a clear answer to your question, I'd be generally okay with a single essay that opens by discussing racism generally, gives a brief overview of the beliefs of racists (this would have to be approached differently than here), and then segues into a large section about Nazis and white supremacists, which would be comprised of the bulk of this essay. But I'd be happier with two essays (note that the latter approach would trim the contents of this particular one down significantly). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Jr8825: I apologize for any confusion this refactoring has caused. And for what it's worth, I apologize for my tone in the section higher up, where I spoke about you and Tamzin misunderstanding my example. I should have simply explained my point better, rather than harping on a misunderstanding of it. I've been quite frustrated with respect to this article, mostly a result of Guy's personal attacks and battleground mentality here (both massively out of character for him from what I recall from years past), but several other factors entered into play as well, including Tamzin refusing to acknowledge my earlier apology for much the same frustration.

I'm still curious to see what you can do with this essay. I might very well prefer your version to mine. On that note, I think I finished early (mostly by copying and pasting relevant sections from here) on my more general racism essay. If you would like to read it, it's at User:MjolnirPants/NOFUCKINGRACISTSEITHER. (Of course, the name will change, I just typed the first slightly humorous thing to pop into my head.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work I think it's perfectly in character. Jorm (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I can understand than perspective, and I won't argue about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What if the nazi changed their beliefs

What if a racist changed their beliefs overtime? Would they still be guilty of being blocked?CycoMa (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, This essay does not advocate for the immediate blocking of anyone suspected of racists beliefs. What it does is briefly outline what those racists beliefs are, explain why those beliefs tend to push editors who hold them into conflict with other editors and our shared principles, and then offer advice on how to deal with editors who display them.

An editor who used to be racist should not be blocked over it, and I say that as an editor who used to be rather racist (by the way, this makes you the first person on this project who has gotten an explanation for my unabashed hostility to racists). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion to project space

I propose moving this essay to project space (Wikipedia:No Nazis) as an essay. The page is well-constructed and makes good points. @MjolnirPants –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

See #Complaints about Ownership above. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• As long as some editors want to throw hissy fits and hurl dirt-stupid insults because they can't understand the extraordinarily simple concepts laid out in this essay, I want to be able to revert them out of hand. Or preserve their decision to stand up for those poor, downtrodden Nazis, as I see fit.

There's a part of me that really wants this essay in wikispace as well, but there are too many people who are too eager to defend Nazis' rights to edit because tHe WiKiPeDiAz NeEdS fReEzE pEaCh and Oh NoEs It'S tHe ThOuGhT pOlIcEz!!1!

One subject that's been brought up before is drafting an actual "block Nazis and racists on sight" policy proposal, but the issue there is that we're already doing that under our current policies. If someone could come up with a compelling reason why we'd need to make it explicit, I'd back that proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note that the licensing used by wikipedia text allows this userspace essay to be the basis of a new project space essay. If the community really wants a different version of this then they can fork it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support This essay sets a tone on Wikipedia's tolerance for hatred on the basis of race, something that is very much needed. ––FormalDude talk 04:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Also support moving this / forking this to project space. Loki (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's weird singling out a handful of ideologies as noncompatible with Wikipedia, esp. when you make it only about white supremacism without mentioning things like black supremacism. I believe several parts of this essay are not compliant with WP:NOTCENSORED. I also don't think policy should decide that racism can not be scientifically motivated (and therefore an acceptable viewpoint to hold by any editor), that's for articles like Scientific racism/Racism to debunk. Moving this to project space implies there's more support for this as a policy than there might really be, and will also undoubtedly help to create an impression that Wikipedia is officially a "social justice warrior"-affiliated project, even with the essay disclaimer. I don't think that giving this policy any more prominence would be beneficial to the project. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  What a shitty anonymous comment. Doesn't deserve a response. ––FormalDude talk 07:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Both. WP:OWNERSHIP does not apply to private essays. MP has a right to express and maintain his POV here, even to the point of blocking idiots from editing this essay. (If they disagree with the essay, they can write their own essay.)

OTOH, nothing forbids, with attribution, the copying, forking, and use as an essay in project space. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants appears to have left the project for good. I'm going to move this back into article space since it definitely deserves better than to be in the user space of a user who isn't active. Loki (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't move it myself b/c of the redirect at the destination. Made a request to do so tho. Loki (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This essay's future

This has gone back and forth between a userspace and proectspace essay twice now. The last time it was moved, it was because I made edits that, I maintain, were reasonable to make to a projectspace essay; MP mooted that by moving it to userspace, which I saw as a reasonable solution, so I dropped the matter.

I'm aware that a lot of the push to broaden this essay's scope has been whataboutism. I'm also aware that there's some people who (generally without citing any specific evidence) are convinced this essay will eventually be broadened to cover everything imaginable. I don't want either of those.

What I maintain, though, is that as a global project we should consider the full global scope of bigotry. I'm not talking about false equations of Nazism with communism, or "what about Black supremacists????" nonsense. I mean the people who daily disrupt our encyclopedia to promote nationalist agendas; see, generally, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. If this is going to be a projectspace essay, it should have the scope of one.

In my opinion, the best path forward would be to move this to Wikipedia:No racists or Wikipedia:No bigots (the latter of which was coincidentally liberated after a recent MfD), still leading with Nazis (as some of the ugliest and perhaps the most unforgivable kinds of racist we deal with), but no longer exclusive to them. Perhaps we could incorporate some content from User:MjolnirPants/No Racists. I also think that it would be better for the essay to take more of a descriptive tone, saying something along the lines of what TonyBallioni and Cullen328 said at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs: Explicit policy or not, it's a simple matter of fact that admins will block racists, and other admins won't unblock them.

If there's really a desire to have a projectspace essay that exclusively deals with Nazis, I think we should then get a consensus saying so. (Also, a few lines that have been added over the years, e.g. about the Arab Belt, should probably be removed.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the force of this essay is in its narrowness. In addition, I think Nazis really are specially terrible enough to justify a dedicated essay. However, I would support a separate essay dealing with international racism/other bigotry more broadly. If we just wanted to bring User:MjolnirPants/No Racists into project space as well I'd totally support that. Loki (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

E: It appears that there already exists WP:Nationalist_editing for the specific topic of nationalists, though the language there could definitely afford to be a little more forceful. Loki (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

So, I think you're really misunderstanding what this essay is about. It is about white nationalists, actual neo-nazis, the KKK, and others who support craziness like a race war or who think genocide is a good idea. That was what it was intended to be about, and as Loki mentions its narrowness is its benefit. Also, we don't need to have consensus to have it in project space. It was in project space for almost 2 years when MPants was blocked. Anyone can create an essay in project space at any time; all it means is that others can edit it more freely than if it is in their userspace, and that there can be back and forth on the talk page about what it should say in terms of the point it is trying to make vs. just one person writing it.

I'd also pretty strong oppose watering it down by discussing racism in general, because that would turn it into what it's detractors say it is, but it explicitly isn't right now: a license to block people who have a different opinion on a political topic than you under the guise of race. To be clear, I probably have more progressive views on race than the average English-speaker, but I also understand that in terms of practical approach to the issue, people can legitimately have different views than me and not be a racist. If you stretch this to cover garden-variety racism (think the stuff your creepy uncle says), it's going to get thrown up in discussions that are far outside of it's current scope, and that would ordinarily require community consensus to block long-term over.

Speaking as the main author of the BLOCKNAZIS section, I can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that part of the essay was written about people with swastikas and black suns on their userpages after we had to block a few of them and there were a few dissenters at ANI. It is basically a distillation of the standard argument we had used before it to block actual neo-nazis, not people who were nationalists or racist uncles.

Finally, adding nationalist agendas of the South Asian and Eastern European variety here is a terrible idea and far, far, far outside of the intended scope of this essay and what it was meant to be about (i.e. neo-nazis, white nationalists, the Klan, and similar groups.) As one of the few people who was willing to work in ethnic nationalist AE for a few years, I can promise you that the sledgehammer approach is not the way to go about it. This essay is advocating a sledgehammer approach to people who put swastikas on their userpages. It is not advocating we block everyone who actively edits in the Arab-Israeli conflict or in Eastern Europe, many of whom are clearly nationalists but play within the sandbox allowed by ArbCom for those topic areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with others about the relatively narrow scope working to its favour. In my view, the essay's original problem was that it wasn't clear enough – it conflated its narrow focus with broader problems (I'm thinking specifically about old wording such as "beliefs uniting various types of racists", which was placed before a list of things only relevant to Nazis/white-supremacists). When read literally, it gave a blank cheque to any racist who isn't a white supremacist. That text has been adjusted and I think this concern has been been effectively addressed by a few small, but important, wording tweaks over the last couple of weeks/months. The new short "other kinds of racists" section does a decent job of linking the essay to other situations it could apply to. Jr8825 • Talk 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with not watering this down. NORACISTS is a different thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to honor the creator's intentions and maintain their key points and POV. Anyone who does not agree with the essay's main thrust is welcome to create their own essay while those who wish to improve the essay by "aiding" the creator can gather around here and do so. That's one of the big differences between essays and actual articles. Never hijack an essay by watering down its purpose. That would defeat the very purpose of writing essays. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support merging User:MjolnirPants/No Racists here or moving it to mainspace. One other though I had was keeping a historical record of the page at User:MjolnirPants/No Nazis, so that we have a copy of the page before significant changes are made. Of course it is kept in the revision history, but I think it is a good idea to keep Mpant's original version of the essay maintained in his userspace for historical reference. ––FormalDude talk 07:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't support a merge, because this essay has a specific intent that is cited in block rationales that is very narrow and different than that essay, and you would be proving the critics of this essay correct if you expanded it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think it'd be fair to respect the wishes of the original author for this essay to be in their user space, and without any editing that deviated from its original intent. In my opinion, their position to keep it in user space was well justified. I would rather see a new essay or a fork of it in project space. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It was recently returned to his userspace. It had been in project space for years with that intent, and like I mentioned below, I also wrote a substantial part of this (the part that actually deals with blocking), so I think I have a dog in this fight too. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with FormalDude and MarioGom. It shouldn't have been moved, but copied with attribution. Please restore it with its history to MPants userspace while leaving this version here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose returning it to user space now that MPants has retired, but I'll fine with keeping a version of it in his userspace. An essay that is so widely cited and that lived in project space for years while an author was blocked, then returned, then retired with a scrambled password, is the type of thing where a project space essay is appropriate when it is widely cited. MPants was the primary author of the descriptive stuff, but I was the author behind the policy heavy stuff, and I think there are reasons to keep it in project space.
  That being said, I'm reading Valjean's comment to suggest forking it, which I think is fine. I'll go ahead and do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Tony, it's not a matter of either/or, but both. Keep the original, with history, in MPants userspace, and copy it here with attribution. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood you, but I did create an archive at his userspace, with attribution to this page (see here) as that was probably the easiest. I forked the no racists essay to Wikipedia:No racists if people want to have a separate essay on the evils of less virulent racism in project space, based on User:FormalDude's suggestion above. I'd pretty strong oppose a merge based on my previous posts to this thread. The blocking section (which provides the policy rationale admins use) was written with a specific type of disruption in mind: that caused by the Klan, neo-nazis, and white nationalists. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve

There is currently a discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve about item #1 of the WP:RACISTBELIEFS listed in this essay: That white people are more intelligent than non-whites. More eyes on the discussion would probably be helpful.

Note that the relevant part of the conversation begins about 1/4 of the way down the thread, with this comment: [22].

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Struck per FormalDude's suggestion Generalrelative (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

How is this is an appropriate place to ask for support in a dispute about article content? Based on the discussion directly above, this is intended to be an essay about the types of editors who display Nazi symbols on their user pages. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's definition of neo-Nazi should include the various editors who disagree with your edits related to race and intelligence? Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've struck the above notice per FormalDude's request, but to answer Gardenofaleph's question: item #1 of the WP:RACISTBELIEFS section is pretty clear. I will leave it to you and anyone else who cares to look to determine whether that belief is being pushed in the discussion I mentioned. Generalrelative (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative, suggesting you strike this comment as it is WP:CANVASSING. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nazis were not pro-White

Why list so many things about Whites under Nazis? Nazis killed millions of White Jews, White Polish, and other groups of Whites. And they probably would have done the same to White Ukrainians if they had a chance. Nazis were anti-White.Weagesdf (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Weagesdf, Nazis had their view of what it was to be white, and Jews, Romanis, and others did not count. See Aryan race. That theory is obsolete, like Nazis should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is obsolete. But the conception of being White still exists distinct from Nazi beliefs. To me, it feels like an attack on Whites to not differentiate between the two in the essay.Weagesdf (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

At no point does the essay conflate being white with being a Nazi. The difference is very clear. Neither does it imply that they could not have been prejudiced against groups now commonly considered to be white, given that their conception of racial superiority excluded them. Theknightwho (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The essence of Nazis is xenophobia, hate of people different from oneself. The Nazis in Europe did not have many non-White color-coded folk to hate in the vicinity, so their victims were those the could reach. If Hitler had managed to conquer other continents, that would have been bad news for the non-White people there. But the goal of the essay is not to keep the guys who started WWII from editing. Those guys are dead.

There are living Nazis in America, and they hate Blacks - because they are the most-visible available people different from themselves. That may be the reason for the "many things about Whites" listed.

It is really, really, really weird to interpret opposition to White superiority as an "attack on Whites". I would never ever see that as an attack on me, and I am White (pink, actually. Kudos to Peter Ustinov who filled in "pink" as his "skin color" on his US immigration form and got told that, no, he was "white". Crazy stuff.). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia articles which may be of interest: Nazi racial theories; Aryan race; Caucasian race.     ←   ZScarpia   10:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing this policy

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.

---

I am concerned that this policy, is one of the central examples of the left-wing bias that has taken over Wikipedia, and that is undermining its credibility as an Encyclopedia to the general public.

Ideally I think we should remove it completely. Else, in order to be consistent with the principles outlined in this policy, maybe we should include other nasty ideologies: Communism? Deniers of the Armenian Genocide? Catholics? Supporters of the CCP? Male chauvinists? You can see how the list could get ridiculous pretty quickly.

Plus, most Nazi editing can be removed based on reliable source and npv policy 186.102.37.91 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NONAZIS is not a policy. It states clearly at the top that it is an essay, and that essays are not policies or guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"No Nazis" is "left-wing bias"? That's a very telling statement. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, I did not fully understand the difference. I must have been confused because I thought WP stood for Wikipedia Policy. Nonetheless, this essay is cited copiously and is often used as a trump card in discussions about content. Might I suggest then adding a disclaimer saying that while Nazism is bad, NPOV and RS override our reservations about the personal characters of the editors proposing changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.37.83 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP is a shortcut, which can be applied to pretty much any page or redirect within the Wikipedia namespace. Pages in that namespace can include policies and guidelines, but also include essays, WikiProjects, noticeboards, and the manual of style. The MOS also uses the MOS: shortcut. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Echoing Muboshgu, how on Earth does "no Nazis" equal "left-wing bias"? Sumanuil. 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Well suppose Wikipedia had an essay suggesting that no communists should edit the encyclopedia, that referenced the millions of people who were killed under many historical communist regimes and their opposition to free speech and inquiry, would that not be an example of a right wing bias? And is that hypothetical scenario not exactly equivalent to this one?

Before anyone calls me a Nazi, I should say I am proudly Jewish. The reason this essay came to my attention was because someone brought it up when I was attempting to edit topics related to racial differences in intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.41.137 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone calling you a Nazi is asking for a block. I'm trying to figure out how "no Nazis" can be taken as a partisan statement, aside from opposing fascism, which should be uncontroversial. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Well consider the communism example I just gave. Communism was and is tragedy of comparable proportions to Nazism IMHO, but clearly banning communists from editing here would be wrong. One can have distasteful or even downright abhorrent political views, but does that mean one cannot contribute to creating the world’s largest encyclopedia? Consider another example, suppose I edited the article on Saudi Arabia and said the current regime had brought great prosperity to the country and provided a few reliable sources for the claim. But then the community found out in my private life I am a radical jihadist and even was enthralled by 9/11, does that mean that contribution is invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.144.100.122 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to evaluate communism without claiming that it must be treated exactly the same as nazism. I hope we're all mature enough that we don't need to need to treat everything exactly the same in order to make sense of the world.

Nazism is bad in general, and is also specifically incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. It appears you are trying to make nazism more accepted on Wikipedia by comparing it to other ideologies. This has nothing to do with the reason nazism isn't acceptable here, so this is a bad-faith comparison.

If nazis are incapable of hiding their abhorrent beliefs, they don't belong here. So if nazis want to edit Wikipedia, they can either try and keep their sad, contradictory ideas to themselves, or they can stop being nazis and rejoin civilization. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I assure you I am not here in bad faith. I just think an encyclopedia should be a temple of knowledge and intellectual honesty and integrity. This essay seems to me a text book example of ad hominem.

I would encourage you to find a specific, relevant disanalogy between Nazism and Communism, or even radical jihadism. Both ideologies have a staggering body count, historically both ideologies have been incompatible with Wikipedia’s goal of providing information to everyone.

More to the point, this is not about whether X or Y ideology is compatible with Wikipedia’s goals, this is about whether people who hold these ideologies should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. It seems to me that if their contributions comply with Wikipedia’s policies and principles, the ideologies that they adhere to in their private or even their public lives, are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.54.138 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

When you say "this is not about whether X or Y ideology is compatible with Wikipedia’s goals" you are wrong. This is, explicitly, about how nazism is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. As the essay already explains, nazis should be blocked "on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki." (emphasis added). Attempting to make this about "ideologies" in the abstract would be shifting this essay to be about something else while simultaneously ignoring what the article actually says. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We can happily agree that nazism is incompatible with Wikipedia’s goals, but it is something else entirely to say that if someone is a Nazi they should not be able to edit Wikipedia. Again, what I am looking for is consistency, and intellectual honesty. Consider all the other ideologies that are incompatible with Wikipedia’s goals, Stalinism, Titoism, radical Islam, the Spanish Inquisition, monarchical absolutism, agism, male chauvinism, scientology, juche, sakoku, the list goes on and on. Even Judaism claims we are the “chosen people”. It seems to me that if we are to be consistent with the principle underlying this essay, namely that people who hold ideologies that are incompatible with Wikipedia’s goals should not be allowed to edit, then pretty soon we find ourselves banning stalinists, titoists, monarchical absolutists, agists chauvinists, scientologists, jucheists, sakokuists, and even Jews. Would it not make more sense to simply say anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they adhere to the policies? After all, the essay states:

Nazis – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This belief is false.

Can we agree that Nazism, as well as many other ideologies, are wrong, and incompatible with Wikipedia’s goals, while still agreeing that anyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as they adhere to the policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.80.137 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You say, an encyclopedia should be a temple of knowledge and intellectual honesty and integrity. But when someone defiles a temple with swastikas, you are against throwing them out?

Can we agree that - That is a pretty general statement, and it is OK. General statements are one thing, and detailed essays are another. This essay is actually pretty thoughtful, and people have pointed several things you missed in it. Your "list of non-endorsers" would just attract people who, like you, read only small parts of the essay and therefore do not understand what it actually says.

Regarding Stalinism, Titoism, radical Islam, the Spanish Inquisition, monarchical absolutism - weell, those have been less of a problem in recent years on English Wikipedia. This essay is just focussing on more current problems than the Spanish Inquisition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• As I sort of hinted at with my recent edit to the essay, I feel that a central part of it is that Nazism is fundamentally WP:UNCIVIL - that is, specifically and intractably hostile to large groups of people by its very nature, in a way that simply is not true of most of the other groups you mentioned. Because of this, expressing Nazi beliefs in any form is inherently uncivil - editors cannot publicly endorse a belief implying that large swaths of their fellow editors are subhuman and should be exterminated, and expect to be able to continue editing simply because they have endorsed that belief politely or have avoided stating that conclusion explicitly. There's a huge amount of room for diverse opinions and views on Wikipedia, but ultimately we are here to collaboratively write encyclopedia and not to form a debate society, so expressing views that are completely incompatible with collaborative editing is not allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

But when someone defiles a temple with swastikas, you are against throwing them out?, well it would depend on the kind of temple, if it were a synagogue, yes, if it were a temple of knowledge, I would encourage them to lay out their best arguments, and if they can be torn apart, so be it.

I did not create the list of non-endorsers. However, I can assure you I have read the whole essay, and I have to respectfully disagree with you that this is thoughtful piece of work. In fact, I think it plays fast and loose with the term Nazism, and associates it with beliefs that have nothing to do with Nazism as a historical phenomenon, or that are true of political systems that no informed person would call Nazism. Just a couple of examples of “Nazi beliefs” in this essay, that modern lay culture associates with Nazism but that in fact have nothing to do with historical Nazism:

1) That white people are more intelligent than non-whites: This is a misconsception, the Nazis did believe in racial differences in intelligence, as did almost everyone at the time, even in democratic countries that fought Nazism like the US and UK. But Hitler himself said "I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own."

2) That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism: Needless to say this was not even an issue at the time. I doubt whomever wrote this is that ignorant, but it is a good example of how, IMHO, this essay is not intellectually rigorous, but rather an attempt to lump together political beliefs that are found distasteful, under the term “Nazism”.

3) That Jews are responsible for the creation of Communism: while it may be true that Nazis believed this, I do too… and I am definitely not a Nazi, or a communist. For better or for worse, (And in this case, I think it is for worse) the Jews have created hundreds of things: The Haber process, The General Theory of Relativity, a good percentage of the top-grossing movies, and communism. Marx was definitely, objectively, a Jew. Engels himself wrote:

Furthermore, we are far too deeply indebted to the Jews. Leaving aside Heine and Börne, Marx was a full-blooded Jew; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is now atoning in a Viennese prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozialdemokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag – people whom I am proud to call my friends, and all of them Jewish! After all, I myself was dubbed a Jew by the Gartenlaube and, indeed, if given the choice, I'd as lief be a Jew as a ‘Herr von'!

These are just facts. Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman and David Ricardo were also Jews… so what?

less of a problem in recent years on English Wikipedia. The fact that you can say this about my examples is contingent. As a professional philosopher, I am interested in examining the underlying principle behind this essay. That is what the thought experiments are for. Of course there are no Spanish Inquisitors editing Wikipedia. But the thought experiments help us see whether the underlying principle that “People who hold ideologies that are incompatible with Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit” can actually stand scrutiny.

Nazism is fundamentally WP:UNCIVIL Again, I have to put my philosopher hat on and separate contingent correlations from necessary connections. It may be that there is a tight correlation between being a nazi and engaging in “personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments.”, but there is no logically necessary connection between the two. Indeed, this essay itself acknowledges the existence of polite Nazis. Further, incivility is dealt with by the UNCIVIL policy, so there is no need for a separate policy that focuses specifically the subset that is Nazi incivility.

Regarding the other ideologies I mention, take what I think is the clearest example of one of these ideologies that “specifically and intractably hostile to large groups of people by its very nature”: radical Jihad. “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines the term as "fight, battle; jihad, holy war (against the infidels, as a religious duty)"”. Assuming no one here is Muslim, that means a war against us. If you hold on to the underlying principle, that “People who hold ideologies that are incompatible with Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit”, would you be in favour of having an essay that read NO JIHADISTS? No right or wrong answer on this, I just think we should be consistent.

On this note, I would be very interested to know what you think of the thought experiment I laid out above: suppose I edited the article on Saudi Arabia and said the current regime had brought great prosperity to the country and provided a few reliable sources for the claim. But then the community found out I am a radical jihadist and I even celebrated 9/11, does that mean that contribution is invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.144.100.122 (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I do not recommend trying to start a discussion with someone who defiles anything with swastikas. Most of them will not take it well when someone tries to be smart with them.

Your enumeration is starting from the assumption that this is about the people who started WWII and murdered millions of Jews. You are wrong. Those people are dead and do not need to be kept from editing here. This is about actual living Nazis, whose views are not 100% identical to those of the Gröfaz and his cronies but who endorse them and also endorse the things written in the essay. Maybe we need to spell out this obvious fact, in case another philosopher reads it.

Regarding item 3, in real life, if spoken by Nazis, "Jews are responsible" does not mean "the guy had the idea first and a few others who accepted it happened to be Jewish", it means that if a person is Jewish, that person is responsible for Communism and needs to be opposed.

But the thought experiments help us see whether the underlying principle that “People who hold ideologies that are incompatible with Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit” can actually stand scrutiny. Grayfell already told you, Attempting to make this about "ideologies" in the abstract would be shifting this essay to be about something else while simultaneously ignoring what the article actually says. But you happily keep pretending that abstract "ideologies" is what this essay is about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2022 (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.

Title change request for "Wikipedia:No white supremacists"

Even if the title is named as "No Nazis", but the context deems to be about the white supremacism and white ethnocentrism. As the history of the white supremacy is even longer than the Nazis, and the Nazis are not just a group/ideologues which endorse it, but other groups like the KKK and used to be socially accepted by many western countries for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.250.35.213 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:No racists may be of interest to you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Supposed characteristics of white supremacy culture in further reading

This link is not beneficial or helpful. There's a really good rebuttal to it here by liberal writer Matthew Yglesias (incidentally, this rebuttal qualifies as an RS no less than the original article) that summarizes my problems with it. Basically, there is no evidence that this article or its authors have recognized expertise in relevant academic fields. There's no evidence that its criticized behavior has anything whatsoever to do with race. It includes things like Worship of the Written Word, if it's not in a memo, it doesn't exist, emphasis on being polite, Individualism, Objectivity, the belief that there is such a thing as being objective, and so on that are arguably not bad and even beneficial. (Imagine a Wikipedia that disparaged the written word or gave up on objectivity!) To suggest non-white people do not believe in individualism or objectivity is itself rather racist. Yes, there is some good advice too, but again, this has nothing to do with race, and it certainly has nothing to do with Nazism.

Linking it here seems especially concerning because it is totally unclear what it has to do with the the No Nazis essay. It seems to be implying that individualism and objectivity is Nazism. I doubt anyone truly believes that, but what is the point of having it here? It adds nothing of use to the essay - which, I emphasize, is about blocking racists - and only confuses. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Crossroads here. This piece is aggressively ignorant about the actual cultural diversity of humankind and serves only to perpetuate the Eurocentric worldview is aims to undercut. Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from a workbook by some folks affiliated with a group called ChangeWork, an organization we don't have an article on. It just looks like some manifesto written up by a couple of well-meaning, but not well-educated individuals, who are concerned about white supremacy who posted it on a website. You or I could do the same thing. I don't think it is a reliable source as Wikipedia evaluates sources. This matter though would seem to fall under Wikipedia:External links. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking for examples of when accounts were blocked for opinions/ideologies expressed outside of mainspace?

I've been thinking about this essay and the sentiment behind it/preceding it. Just curious how many examples there are of bans/blocks due to opinions expressed outside of mainspace (not run of the mill incivility or vandalism). I'm familiar with some of the cases that led to Wikipedia:Child protection, which is only sort of related to this essay, and I remember the case of someone who was sitebanned a few years ago in part for posts on Jimbotalk, but are there others? I don't think there are many, but it's a hard thing to search for. Shoot me an email or send a message on Discord if you're so inclined -- again, getting into specifics here doesn't feel like a good thing to do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Amalekite (talk · contribs) was blocked in 2005 for off-wiki neo-Nazism, unblocked for lack of on-wiki misconduct, then reblocked shortly thereafter when evidence emerged that he had published an off-wiki list of editors he believed to be Jewish (with some wheel-warring after that, to boot). Discussed (as "Amelkite [sic]") on page 2 of Reagle, Joseph (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. History and Foundations of Information Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262518208. JSTOR j.ctt5hhhnf. OCLC 496282188. FWIW, looking at his deleted userpage, at the time of his first block it contained a copypaste of "The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens", so, I'm not sure if by 2022 standards we'd really call that no on-wiki misconduct. Although I guess it's still no mainspace misconduct... But this sure is. So yeah, times sure have changed. But that technically answers your question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There's at least two cases I remember from ANI where people were banned for their expressed support of Nazis or racist ideologies. I can't remember the names off the top of my head, and searching ANI is a nightmare. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Bedford (talk · contribs) was indeffed a few days ago, see AN/I discussion; the report was initially based on his neo-Confederate userboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Black Ribbon Day 2022

Never forget. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

neo-Confederacy

I added and was reverted by @Ad Orientem, a statement about the neo-Confederates who think the South won/or was right about the U.S. Civil War, based on the outcome of this discussion I think there is a community consensus that neo-Confederate ideas are hateful and fall under the NONAZIs clause. Andre🚐 20:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that this is an essay? It is not policy or a guideline. The linked discussion resulted in an indef block for a great deal more than confederate imagery or userboxes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know it's an essay, doesn't that mean it shouldn't be as much of a big deal to add what I added to it? Regardless, do you disagree on the merits? Andre🚐 21:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with labeling everyone who has questioned the current orthodoxy surrounding the US Civil War as racist. I think it could raise BLP issues for one thing. As a matter of personal opinion, I think the South was wrong and the argument that slavery was not the principal cause of the war is unsupportable based on historic evidence. But it is a massive leap from there to labeling everyone who disagrees with me as a racist. This is staring to smell like an ever-expanding ideological purge of people we don't agree with. Writing as someone whose ancestors and co-religionists were the victims of mass persecution, there are a lot of symbols I find abhorrent and deeply offensive, but that are readily found all over the project on user pages. It strikes me that some in the community are highly selective in their outrage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Bedford is community banned. Let's leave it at that & move on. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No Communists?

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.

---

I find this essay to be trite and poorly-thought-out, but one interesting aspect of it is that basically all these same arguments could also be used to keep people with other ideologies out of Wikipedia, most obviously Communism. Here are things that are as true of Communists as they are of "Nazis":

• "They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view and be a POV-pusher."
• They "usually interpret nominally clear information that pertains to those beliefs" (i.e., Communism) "in a drastically different manner than an objective reader would."
• They usually take "wildly different stances on the weight of certain experts and sources who digress from the accepted consensus in their profession."
• They alienate most non-Communists. Even the "nice" Communists who don't believe in mass roundups and forced labor camps will still remind the average editor of the deadly history of Communism, with its 50-100 million victims.
• They "often organize edit campaigns on various anonymous channels, believing that they could seize Wikipedia with their" Communist propaganda. Do they? I don't know. The essay doesn't offer any evidence that white supremacists do this either, so let's call it a draw. You could certainly argue that the many attempts (six so far) to delete the article Mass killings under communist regimes, under various names, counts as evidence that there has been some sort of behind-the-scenes coordination by the pro-Communist side.

Ah, but - you may say - Communists don't want to see other Wikipedia editors killed, the way that Nazis do! Yes, that's (generally) true of Communists - but then again, the way this essay defines "Nazis", it's true for Nazis as well, since the essay states at the beginning that it uses the word "Nazis" to refer to basically anyone who views white people as superior in any way, i.e. basically just racists, most of whom are presumably non-homicidal.

The nice thing about kicking off Communists is that it's pretty easy to spot them, since hundreds of them have self-identified using infoboxes like this one. And there's no need for guesswork there, or a 30-item checklist like this essay provides - these are editors who have declared themselves to be literal Communists. So, anyone up for a mass banning? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Careful with that WP:POINT, you might put someone's eye out. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Nazis advocate for antisemitism, homophobia, racism, and eugenics. I don't believe most self-identified communists on Wikipedia advocate for those things. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Nazis do, but not "Nazis" as they're defined in this essay - a much broader group. Anyway, my point is not that Nazis (or "Nazis") are in any way similar to Communists, but rather that the purely pragmatic reasons offered in this essay for kicking out Nazis apply equally to Communists. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I'm not sure they apply equally, because the essay does not take issue with the general act of promoting an ideology, abstractly. It specifically takes issue with core tenants of Nazism. The summary ends with they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki, emphasis on "if they express their racist ideas on-wiki". It then expands into a bullet-point list of common and problematic Nazi beliefs. The paragraph on campaigns isn't suggesting we should ban people who identify with whole ideologies from Wikipedia, just because a subgroup from that ideology organizes a Wikipedia campaign. It is just describing how problematic core beliefs of Nazism are spread. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right that the essay doesn't argue against having an ideology in general, but because its argument against allowing "Nazis" is strictly pragmatic ("They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view"), it ends up unwittingly making the case against allowing any extreme ideology, most obviously Communism. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

With a hefty portion of AGF that this isn't trolling, and at the risk of feeding it, but wanting to rebut this wrong perspective for general benefit thereof, one assumes that you are referring to Marxism-Leninism or Soviet communism or Stalinism, not for example left-anarchism or democratic socialism, but even if someone showed up on wiki spouting true blue vintage Soviet propaganda, that isn't necessarily equivalent to Nazism (and the related racist neo-Nazi movements). It's certainly true that a lot of terrible things happened under Stalin, but most of the communists that I've known have generally been ideological believers in a redistributive economic system, not advocates for anti-Semitism or show trials or the assasination of various artists and scientists as bourgeois elements, or NKVD gulags, etc. I've seen some weird things on Wikipedia and I don't doubt that neo-Stalinists might exist - after all, Stalin is still viewed as kind of a cultural folk hero and founding father in Russia, and I'm pretty sure Putin is a descendant[23]. You could also point out that a lot of people revere FDR, but he also had internment camps. Not to mention the United States has also been part of many atrocities from slavery to Jim Crow to colonialism and imperialism, Abu Ghraib, whatever. To ascribe Stalinist terror and atrocities to anyone who might come along and want to maybe nationalize the oil companies or make billionaires illegal - well, it's hypothetical, but it's definitely quite spurious, and you forgot to write "A modest proposal" to caption your call to mass ban people. Even if someone legitimately believed that the USSR was a good system, that is not the same as logging on and saying you want to exterminate the unclean races or something like that. So, if I really need to say this, I oppose anything about this. Andre🚐 22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. brush up on McCarthyism

You're probably right that the average Communist on Wikipedia has no desire for show trials, sending people off to camps, etc. - but on the other hand, I don't think the average so-called Nazi does either, at least the way this essay defines "Nazi", which is basically as a synonym for "racist". So I think my argument still stands that all the arguments this essay makes against allowing so-called Nazis apply equally to self-declared Communists. And speaking of McCarthyism, I dare say that describing anyone who shares the views on race and genetics of, say, James Watson as a Nazi is an inherently McCarthyist tactic. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget homophobia and transphobia! Those make you just as unwelcome as racism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the average so-called Nazi does either

Nazi ideology is intrinsically tied to racist beliefs. Even if someone is "ironically" espousing Nazi beliefs, that's still espousing Nazi beliefs. Your attempt to both-sides this is not sound. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about people ironically espousing Nazi beliefs, I'm talking about people not espousing Nazi beliefs at all - but whom this essay nonetheless calls Nazis. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What about people who express Nazi beliefs about gender and sexuality but not race? Do you think that this calls them Nazis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This essay? It includes the word "gender" once, but only tangentially, so I'd say - no. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're worried that this catches people like James Watson share some but not all of Nazi ideology (for instance he was openly homophobic and racist but not to the point of calling for extermination). Perhaps we should expand it to include a wider swatch of Nazi ideology so we aren't just focussing on the racial aspect or low level Wikipedia:No racists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The essay lists "core beliefs uniting various types of Nazis". From that wording, it is obvious that if it gives a definition of "Nazi", then that definition includes all those core beliefs. Since James Watson does not hold that violent, abhorrent or deceptive actions are justified in the pursuit of these beliefs, he does not qualify as a Nazi according to the essay. Neither do people not espousing Nazi beliefs at all. There is some wording in the lede that could also be interpreted as a definition, but since the lede summarizes the article, it is acceptable that the "definition" there is less precise than the real one further down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, I'm just trying to figure out what Korny is saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• The key point of this essay is really better-summarized in Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive (although I would also emphasize that WP:UNCIVIL plays a role.) Openly expressing support for hate groups or ideologies premised on hate is forbidden on Wikipedia because those things are disruptive and fall short of the standard of civil, collaborative conduct expected of editors; we don't ban people simply because their beliefs are radical, or because they're wrong or bad, but because movements fundamentally premised on hatred and genocide are uncivil and therefore disruptive. --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd have to agree that Nazism is indeed premised on hatred and genocide - while for Communism, I'd say hatred is baked in but genocide is not; it's just an unfortunate side effect. So the call for genocide is indeed a bright-line distinction you could use. However, this essay isn't really about Nazis, i.e. the adherents of German National Socialism - rather, it basically calls all racists Nazis, and then says that all of them should be banned. So at that point, your argument falls flat. Do, say, neo-Confederates (explicitly mentioned in the essay) believe in genocide? Even the real Confederates didn't. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The way you keep on capitalizing "communism" makes me think you are unaware of ideologies like anarcho-communism, which have nothing particular in common with the sort of authoritarian Marxist-Leninism that your argument is about. (More broadly, I just disagree on the facts. None of this stuff is actually true for communists, where it is true for Nazis, even under a broad definition of "Nazi".) Loki (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm capitalizing "Communism" and "Communist" because, among other reasons, most or all of the infoboxes that editors can use to declare themselves as Communists spell it that way, like this one. Anyway, even if none of the "Communists" are actually Communist in the gulags sense, my point still stands, because probably very few or none of the "Nazis" are actually Nazis either. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you have your own definitions of the words in your head, contrary to how they're being used by... well, everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you're supporting Libs of TikTok in their anti-trans campaign & use of the term "groomers" to smear LGBT people, so I don't think there's anything further to be said here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I could name five communists off the top of my head whom I know personally, of which exactly zero of those list items apply. If I expand the criteria to people I know of, then the count skyrockets to include almost every well-known communist who wasn't a government official in some oppressive regime. Curiously (or ironically, depending on one's POV) that includes Marx himself.

I'd also note that in this opening comment, you have blanketly accused every single editor with that infobox you mentioned of being a POV pusher, which is a fairly gross violation of WP:CIVIL. Happy (Slap me) 20:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part. Are you saying Karl Marx had a neutral point of view?

You make a fair point with the WP:CIVIL thing, though. Let me ask you this: this essay currently states that any Wikipedia editor who has "somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities" will "almost inevitably" be a POV-pusher. That seems like a pretty direct personal attack on a potentially large group of people - could this entire essay be a violation of CIVIL? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Not personally having a NPOV and being a POV-pusher are two different things. If Karl Marx was alive today, what evidence do you have that he would be inherently unable to edit wikipedia in a collegial manner which reinforces NPOV in article space? The difference between the average communist and the average Nazi is the strength to which their ideology influences everyday behavior, and the extent to which the ideology calls for the extermination of an entire group of people. CIVIL hardly applies when the ideology in question asks for the extermination of all members of a race. Communists don't want to exterminate non-communists. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the very first statement - They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view. HappyMcSlappy said that zero of these items apply, so presumably that includes the NPOV thing, i.e. Karl Marx had a neutral point of view.

It's strange how often I have to keep repeating this, but: this essay is not just about Nazis, but about plain-old, non-genocidal racists as well, hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. There's some massive semantic ambiguity in the essay which seems to have confused everyone. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Communism is a broad ideology that has many different variants across many different countries and cultures. Nazism is a specific ideology because it is exclusive to the beliefs of one party in one country (Germany) and is not as broad as Fascism, which Nazism is a variant of. Comparing Nazism to Stalinism would make more sense, since Stalinism is specific to one leader in one country (Soviet Union). Because Stalin was responsible for many horrible atrocities, It would make much more sense to ban Stalinists and people who belong to other authoritarian communist ideologies. X-Editor (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

1) the essay covers modern neo-Nazis and neo-KKK in the US, far-right-wing racist groups and so on 2) can you point to any neo-Stalinists who are going on to edit wikipedia? Andre🚐 00:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As a point of information, something both of you seem to have missed is that this essay doesn't just say to ban Nazis, and it doesn't just say to ban Nazis + far-right-wing groups, etc. - it literally calls for banning anyone with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities. (Though it insists on referring to all such people as "Nazis".) Korny O'Near (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit of an overly literal read there. It's alluding to their true views. It's not claiming that anyone who believes that, I don't know, a certain food doesn't smell good, is equivalent to a Nazi. Andre🚐 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's true that that phrase can be read in different ways, but the very first sentence of the summary is Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. That seems pretty clear-cut, that it's at least all racists. (Might be all sexists as well, and who knows who else.) Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Imagine getting into a WP:1AM situation on this essay and not realizing exactly how you're painting yourself to anyone so much as reading this discussion. Happy (Slap me) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Korny knows exactly what they're doing, and this section should be closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I do know what I'm doing - I'm pointing out that this essay uses poor logic and semantic confusion, and when read straightforwardly could be used to argue for banning many different ideological groups. No one has disputed that this essay belies its name by calling for banning all sorts of people who are not Nazis. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your inability to understand the logic in this essay doesn't make it poor logic, just your poor understanding.

I agree with Hand, by the way. You're clearly not convincing anyone of anything except that maybe your edits on topics of interest to Nazis might deserve a bit more scrutiny. Happy (Slap me) 19:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume that your resorting to personal attacks means that you understand my point, and can't refute it. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (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.

This is just a flag which was planted on our lawn

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.

---

To all those who misinterpret this essay as an attempt to legislate: It is not. It does not have the power of a guideline, it is just an essay, and because it was intended as one. It is a signal. Call it "virtue-signalling" if you have to. It tells the hateful fuckers out there that they are not welcome. That's all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right that it's just an essay, and holds no power. Though it does occasionally get cited as a policy (incorrectly, of course). (Also, I'm guessing that the authors and supporters of this essay would have no problem with it being adopted as an actual policy, sort of contrary to what you're saying.) But the bigger problem with it, I think, is just that it's so poorly thought out. The essay is called "No Nazis", and it refers to actual Nazi atrocities, but then it somehow ends up calling for banning all Racists (and other discriminatory groups). I don't know if that's accidental, or an intentional sleight-of-hand, but at the very least it's extremely misleading - as seen by all the people above who defend this essay by referring to the evils of actual Nazis. At most, it's an extremely un-CIVIL smearing of any editors who believe that, say, different demographic groups have different average intelligence as Nazis. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again you have reading comp issues... I am not citing it as policy. That is one of the things the Nazis believed, its also a racist WP:FRINGE view. Are you suggesting that someone who is a racist but not a Nazi is smeared by this essay? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

How did you find that comment of mine on Race and intelligence from 2020? You've never edited that talk page using this account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My guess: [24] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe different search terms? That doesn't return my 2020 comment. A search for "WP:NONAZIS" doesn't return it in the first 500 either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you did cite it as policy (under a previous username, that is), and yes. I found that particular comment by going here - though the text search returns even more examples. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing me cite it as policy? I clearly say "We do in face [SP] exclude racists and their despicable worldview, see WP:NONAZIS." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we (i.e., Wikipedia) exclude racists? If NONAZIS is not a policy, then it sounds like we don't. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes we exclude racists... The caveat is that WP:AGF requires us to assume that someone is not a racist unless they give us really really good reasons not to (which are in every case I've seen inherently disruptive). Its like any other strong bias, theres no problem with someone who is transphobic or anti-vax editing wikipedia as long as that fringe view doesn't lead to disruption. Their worldview is a lot easier to address, just follow WP:NPOV and it will be all good. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Users absolutely have been blocked and community-banned for espousing bigoted beliefs on Wikipedia. It's considered disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have a problem with it being adopted as an actual policy, since there is no sharp boundary. If it were policy, people who have a very narrow definition of "anti-racism" would try to ban everybody who does not agree with their very specific ideas. That would lead to an enormous waste of time on the drama boards. The existing policies are already good enough at sorting out the antisocial elements. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

At most, it's an extremely un-CIVIL smearing of any editors who believe that, say, different demographic groups have different average intelligence as Nazis

Jesus Christ, are you really going to bat for the race and intelligence argument? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I've said about the race and intelligence argument is that not everyone who believes it is a Nazi. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is consensus in science that different demographic groups have different average intelligence. It is also consensus that those averages are not genetic but environmental. For one thing, they change over time pretty fast. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it clear that you're going to imply a lot of things without saying them outright, to skirt getting blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not hearing anything here, but my dog is going wild. This really isn't the devil you want to advocate for. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What is it that you think I'm thinking, but haven't said? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You've gone to bat for transphobic talking points[25][26] & harassment campaigns[27][28][29], and now are commenting in support of a common racist trope. It seems very clear you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to soften the language used to tell bigots they are not allowed here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think bigots are (and should be) allowed here, so... yes. I haven't just implied that, I've said it directly. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I look forward to your eventual block when you let the mask fully slip. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet against Korny, they've been dangling two feet over the edge of what OK policy and guideline wise for well over a decade and they're still here. Before our recent flurry of interactions I actually though of them as something of a ghost in the machine because the disruptive edits I came across were ancient, most recently this happened to me at Flying imams incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, both of you, cool it with the personal attacks, thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No personal attacks, just documentation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 21 September 2022 (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.

Wikipedia:No Confederates

Sundostund Robert McClenon recently created Wikipedia:No Confederates, and he and other users have been citing it in MFDs. Does this essay have the same level of weighting as WP:NONAZIS? Would those who endorse WP:NONAZIS also endorse WP:NOCONFED? Personally, I think this is more of a grey area, and I'm not sure it has the command of this essay even though both are in Wikispace. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Original writer appears to be Robert McClenon, with no comments on what I think about it yet. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 21:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:WaltCip and User:Isabelle Belato are correct, that I wrote the essay and User:Sundostund expanded it. We wrote it in response to what we perceived as the need to summarize the reasons why we calling for the deletion of Confederate symbols at MFD. As noted, both essays are essays in Wikipedia space, which neither affirms nor denies community support. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

One of the main points that I make in the essay is that there is a moral equivalence between Nazism and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. They both are denial or support of the two great atrocities of modern European history, the Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust. I do not see why the two viewpoints should be treated differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• I had rather hoped that this trend would die quietly. But that doesn't seem to be happening. So, if we are going to be consistent, then all symbols of political extremism and violent repression need to be banned, including those of the far left. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  I absolutely concur with that. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  You can go ahead and write your own essay with a red X over the hammer and sickle and MFD all the communist userboxes, and see if the community agrees with you. Personally, I do not find that symbol or those ideologies as bad or as unambiguously offensive. I am well aware of the atrocities of Stalinism, but in my experience most people who want to wave a Communist flag are just crazy hippies who want to eat the rich and abolish money. They usually aren't pushing a racist agenda. So it's a false equivalency. Andre🚐 23:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  There are by most historians' estimations tens of millions of people who would beg to differ. But they can't because they are in mass graves. Some of them are my ancestors and co-religionists. There is not an iota of moral difference between the swastika and the hammer and sickle. They are both purely and unambiguously evil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not doubting the extent of the horrors of Stalinism, but the symbols of communism apply to many other groups as well. So you're painting with too broad a brush to ascribe the horrors of the NKVD to every ideologically far-left group. Andre🚐 00:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I'm not. Communism is the most murderous ideology in the history of the world. Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, North Korea and various murderous Kims and so on. The Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of mass murder and genocide. Period. Trying to pretend otherwise is no different than the people with confederate bumper stickers captioned with "Heritage not Hate." I have zero patience for the apologists who pretend that all those mass graves weren't filled by true Communists or who claim not all Communists supported mass murder and slave labor camps. I'm also quite sure there were humane slave owners. Enough with the nauseating excuses. I've be bit my tongue for a long time, but no longer. It's time to call a shovel a shovel. When I see the hammer and sickle on someone's page I see the heirs in spirit of those who disapeared my ancestors and used my co-religionists for target and bayonet practice at the Butovo firing range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I promise I am not in any way defending the horrific actions or the defenders/sympathizers of Stalinists, Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, or any other dictatorial authoritarian states that killed plenty of people and violated human rights. The only reason why the NKVD weren't shooting my ancestors along with yours is because mine came to America earlier, but were stampeded all the same back in the late 19th c in the pogroms. At any rate, if there are indeed malevolent metastatic Marxists in 2022 coming onwiki and calling for gulags, I will be in first in line to ban them. What I'm talking about is that the majority of modern self-proclaimed communists that I have met, they aren't pro-gulag or pro-mass murder, they are basically stoners wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. Frankly, I think it's kind of problematic to lump everyone from that contingent in with the mass murder crew. I checked and the Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, DSA, etc., don't use the hammer and sickle, they have a different hammer logo and a red rose logo - would you consider those offensive as well? Andre🚐 00:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  What I'm talking about is that the majority of modern self-proclaimed confederates that I have met, they aren't pro-racism or pro-mass slavery, they are basically dudebros driving lifted pickup trucks. A lot of people use a lot of symbols in ignorance or lack of care for others, rather than strict adherence to the original views or support of everything done by those that originally used the symbol. Picking and choosing which are okay and which aren't can get pretty shitty for everyone involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, kind of a fair point, but the majority of self-proclaimed confederates ARE pro-racism. Whereas your average Trotskyist probably condemns everything that Stalin did. So it's a bit more complex and less clear. Andre🚐 01:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  There are a lot of neo-Nazis and fascists who have abandoned the swastika, especially in Europe where in many countries it's display is illegal. They have adopted other symbols. But they are still fascists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  See there's the problem. I am inclined to agree with you that fascists are fascists regardless of their logo. I just don't agree that all far-leftists are mass murderers, and frankly such a belief I find offensive. Andre🚐 01:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not putting Bernie Sanders or AOC in this camp. Democratic Socialists are not an expressly Marxist group. But Communists are. And the hammer and sickle is a symbol of repression, mass murder and genocide. Sorry. But sometimes you gotta say things plainly. There are plenty of Good Ol boys who wear confederate imagery that don't really want a return to slavery or even racial segregation. But the fact remains, that is what the Confederate flag represents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, but what about members of the Frankfurt School? It's based on Marxism but critical of Marxism-Leninism. I happen to admire the work of Herbert Marcuse, he's considered a Marxist scholar. Or Noam Chomsky, he's anti-capitalist, and is critical of Marxism-Leninism, but I believe is considered something of a left-anarchist. If you have a confederate flag on your truck, maybe you're just some random Southerner as you say, but if you put a confederate flag on Wikipedia, that is pretty much de facto racist. Whereas if you are a Marxist you might just be a really dyed in the wool thinker about anarcho-syndicalism or you grew up on a kibbutz and then read a lot of radical literature. There's nothing inherent in the ideology that says you need to kill a bunch of people. Andre🚐 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  If your flying the hammer and sickle you are flying a flag that put tens of millions of people into mass graves. You can try to split all the hairs you want. That's what it comes down to. Sounds like you have one set of standards for the far right and another for the far left. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not flying that flag, nor does Herbert Marcuse, so you didn't answer my question. You'll note that my user page has an American flag, but I do admire the work of Herbert Marcuse - a German Marxist. Which would fall under your language of anyone who has any sympathy with the ideology of Communism, presumably, since Marxism is considered part of Communism. So, the question is, do I have a double standard or again, are you just making a false equivalency that elides differences? I am not, again, looking to split a hair but to be categorically excluded because, I might be sympathetic to the idea of a far-left thinker that was not a Soviet-style communist: which is not equivalent to any kind of mass grave responsibility, nor would the aforementioned Che t-shirt. Andre🚐 02:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Fascism comes in various flavors as well. Marxism is the root of an ideology responsible for more deaths than those inflicted by Nazis, probably by an order of magnitude or very close. Che was a terrorist, war criminal and murderer. I guess if your OK with someone wearing a Mussolini T shirt than there's no big deal. Beyond that, I've made my view of Communism as clear as I possibly can. It's all red to me. As red as blood. I suppose you might say that the sight of the hammer and sickle gives me a certain sympathy for what Jews must feel when they see the Swastika. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  But I'm not OK with a Mussolini t-shirt. Nobody actually wears Mussolini t-shirts (Hopefully!) But there is Che Guevara in popular culture. There are a few users with File:Cheicon.jpg on their page. Would that be considered an endorsement of racism and mass murder to you? Because a lot of people wear Che t-shirts, it has a postmodern meaning. And you seemingly have answered that Herbert Marcuse, who was anti-Soviet and worked for the OSS from 1943, is as red as blood to you because he is a follower of the theory of Karl Marx, German who lived 1818-1883 and had no connection during his life to the Russians or Bolsheviks or killed any people. Andre🚐 03:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of people wear Confederate imagery. It's wrong. Che T shirts are deeply offensive to me. Is his image an endorsement of racism? Probably not. Mass murder? Yeah. At the very least it demonstrates an appalling ignorance of who the man was, what he did and what he stood for. That is the best case explanation. Marx may not have killed anyone, but he advocated it. He planted the seeds. Beyond which I think this conversation has run its useful course. It's clear we do not agree on a wide range of things and we will have to just move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree, but here's my parting thought before I disengage. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau also advocated revolution, laying the foundation for the American Revolution and the French Revolution, yet we can study these things and adopt their ideas without endorsing wholesale violence. Herbert Marcuse never advocated for violence or revolution, and he is a Marxist, just as we might be influenced by the actions of Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson without necessarily having to take responsibility for their slaveowning, racism against Native Americans, etc. Marx is part of the intellectual heritage of political philosophy and should be viewed in context as a thinker on the social contract and the theory of class and labor relations. It's an unfortunate side effect of the Red Scare, McCarthyism and the red-baiting that survives into present-day political discourse. So I've opposed your RFC, though I would support it minus the word "Communism." Andre🚐 03:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would not support that RFC minus the word "communism" and think it's fundamentally misguided, because the problem with the Nazis was not that they were or are extremists. There's lots of extremists that are not genocidal (including Martin Luther King and, yes, 99% of all communists including those who use the hammer and sickle), and lots of genocidal groups that were relatively centrist (including the Confederates at the time they were active). Loki (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I have opened an RfC related to this issue here -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As Robert McClenon explained, he is the one who started WP:NOCONFED, while I expanded it soon afterwards. He quite well elaborated our reasons to do that; I agree, and I wouldn't really like to just repeat his words. Obviously, I firmly stand behind what was said in that essay. I was the first who endorsed it, and I am looking forward to see it expanded and implemented, hopefully with the same strictness as WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS (both of which I endorsed). In my opinion, all three essays are of the same weight and importance, and very important tools in eradicating racism and extremism on Wikipedia.

I absolutely support the idea to create a separate essay, on banning all symbols of political extremism, including those of the far left/Communism/Marxism/Stalinism. Wikipedia would certainly be better off without symbols of an ideology responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide, including some major genocides. IMHO – in essence, there is no major difference between that and Nazism. If someone create such an essay, they can count on a kind of help from my side, to expand it in a way, and of course that I will endorse it. —Sundostund (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Including those of the far left/Communism/Marxism/Stalinism -- Banning Marxists? Really?? That is completely absurd. IIRC, around 1 in 5 social science professors in the US self-identify as Marxists. It is a fairly well-respected academic tradition. This whole thing is going way too far, way too quickly. Endwise (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is well known that Marxism–Leninism served as the cornerstone and ideological foundation of the far left/Communism/Stalinism, so it is quite logical to me to include Marxism as well. —Sundostund (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a safe and welcoming place for people other than just the white, Western neoliberals which dominate it. (Who, for the record, have caused far more harm to society than Marxism ever did.) Endwise (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I really hope that Wikipedia will never be a safe and welcoming place for supporters of various extremist ideologies, either right-wing or left-wing ones... When it comes to records, it will be very hard for any political movement, in the present or in the future, to surpass the number of casualties and the amount of damage that various Marxist-inspired movements inflicted upon the humanity. —Sundostund (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sundostund: Across the world, there are 5 communist states, 13 ruling communist parties, and 8 main opposition communist parties. It's not "extremist". If you look at the thread right above this one, there appears to be consensus that the comparison of communism to racist ideology is false equivalency. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 15:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's one hell of a signature there. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that suggesting an ideology that is widely credited with causing the deaths of more than 100 million people, including documented genocides, is not extremist, is risible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Saying that Karl Marx caused 100 million deaths is kind of like saying Nietzsche was responsible for all the deaths in the Holocaust. Andre🚐 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and like saying Richard Wagner is to blame for Hitler's atrocities. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK Wagner did not advocate revolutionary terror. Marx did. ("The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna" -Neue Rheinische Zeitung November 1848) Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and etc. all flow from this. Communism is purely and irredeemably evil. -Ad Orientem (talk) Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Marx absolutely advocated violent revolution, but so did countless other figures that a modern individual wouldn't think of as particularly evil. Thomas Jefferson advocated for refreshing "the tree of liberty" with "the blood of patriots and tyrants" every so often. (Furthermore, of course, except for a teeny tiny handful of true pacifists, almost everyone in human history has supported some kind of violence in some capacity. A very common case is state violence for "law enforcement" purposes, which can be more or less sinister depending on the precise nature of the state.) Loki (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

How is the killing of millions with mass-murder under Communist regimes "some kind of violence in some capacity" and how is it comparable to the "law-enforcement"? Madame Necker (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

One more response: one could easily argue that Wikipedia itself is anarchist or at least some form of libertarian socialist, in that everyone has very roughly equal access to power and everyone owns the means of producing articles (more or less, ignoring the role of the Wikimedia Foundation). Loki (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it also serves as the cornerstone of Fabianism, which is the foundational ideology of the UK Labor Party. Something like half the mainstream left parties in Europe are at least nominally some form of socialist, and by socialist they usually primarily mean Marxist. Loki (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming this is based on userboxes? Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from all userpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's called a slippery slope and it's fallacious reasoning, and obviously untrue by inspection. Andre🚐 22:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that this essay has now been the only one of its kind for four years. Suggestions about pages applying the same exclusion principle to other groups such as communists or confederates have been roundly rejected on this very page, so this slope is not slippery at all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is now a separate essay about confederates, but it does not enjoy as much support as this one, but I agree, the slope has shown to have very well-defined step landing areas. Andre🚐 22:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really endorse this either. As long as there is a WP:NPOV consensus, anyone should edit here. StephenBryant7 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ungrammatical sentence

That a Jewish or "elite" cabal are behind a variety of uncredible or pseudoscientific conspiracy theories, such as QAnon, the New World Order, the white genocide, or the Great Replacement.

Upon reading this, I did a double-take, as I interpreted it as referring to a notion of Jews being behind conspiracy theories, when it clearly refers to Jews being implicated in conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is a theory; a conspiracy is a conspiracy. Clearly this sentence means to refer to the latter, but it syntactically refers to the former.

I propose the following, or something similar (really anything that is grammatically correct):

Endorsement of baseless pseudoscientific conspiracy theories that implicate a nefarious Jewish or 'elite' cabal of being behind major world events and societal changes, such as QAnon, the New World Order, the white genocide, or the Great Replacement.

What do we think? Zanahary (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree this should be changed but I don't agree with your fix: the original is grammatically correct but has an unintended ambiguity, and it's your fix that is grammatically incorrect with that implicate a [noun phrase] of being. I've made a WP:BOLD edit that should fix the issue. Loki (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Rock on, cousin 😎 Zanahary (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

More typical beliefs

[30] Yes, those two beliefs are also stupid but not Nazi-specific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, those two beliefs are by no means unique to Nazis or even particularly common among Nazis. They're totally unrelated WP:FRINGE beliefs. Loki (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Non endorsers

There should be a section for people that don't endorse this sophomoric illogical essay. Shouting "Nazi" at anyone that disagrees with you based on association is pathetic behavior. 2.202.28.72 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Similarly to how this is not an airport, and you don't have to announce your departure [31], no one is interested in knowing that you anyone thinks Nazis are okay. And if you just disagree with instances of Godwin's law, that's fine, that has nothing to do with this essay. You appear to be confusing being called a nazi with actually being one. (edited 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A confusion that, judging from the recent ANI complaint, is very widely shared. Seeing as you just leaped from someone decrying the essay to concluding that the IP thinks that Nazis are okay, an unwarranted and frankly objectionable personal attack. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually referring to the royal "you" not the IP themselves. A quirk of midwestern slang that "you" often stands in for a singular version of "anyone" or "someone". I will correct this oversight, thanks for pointing it out. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouting "Nazi" at anyone that disagrees with you is not what this article does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Since we have an "endorsers" list, then it would be fair to also have a "non endorsers" list as well. I will create one in a section below. Tradedia^talk 22:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this is that "non endorse" =/= "reject". This isn't a list of "non endorsers" because Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of editors, and only a few dozen have endorsed this. Every editor who doesn't sign this is presumed to "not endorse" it. Are you saying you "reject" this essay? If so... what does that even mean and who cares? Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. My reason is as follows:

How can you label someone you've never met before? You cannot. So this essay is flawed. Look at the edits. If the edits are disruptive, then block for "disruptive editing". End of story. Tradedia^talk 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, look at the edits. The article already explains this, multiple times, including in the lead. It explains why nazism is a source of disruptive editing. This page includes advice on how to look at disruptive edits, and why nazism causes disruption.

But my question was mostly rhetorical to illustrate the problem with calling this 'non endorsers'. The true "list of non endorsers" is just the list of all Wikipedia editors minus those tiny minority who have actively endorsed it. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• The number of people who feel the need to loudly announce themselves as taking issue with an essay outlining why Nazis don't belong on this project is really ironic in an absolutely hilarious way. Useful for the admins, too. As well as any editor who wants to start an ANI report against them and needs a little extra evidence of ill intent.

By all means, start the list of editors who reject this essay. It's a brilliant idea. Very useful. Happy (Slap me) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure "hilarious" would be the word I'd use when seeing administrators signing a list saying nazis are welcome in the community. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Two admins have signed below. Of those two, I've said I don't think Nazis are welcome, but rather that a small subset of them, which may or may not exist, shouldn't be blocked on sight; I gather Ad Orientem sees things broadly similarly. I don't mean to speak for AO, but I imagine it's not a coincidence that he and I have both signed below and have both faced community criticism for having non-mainstream political opinions. Having seen firsthand how many members of this community don't even know the difference between a liberal and a leftist, I have no faith in our ability to enforce ideology-based tests.

Don't get me wrong. You see a pro-Nazi userbox, let me know, and that editor is gone. Someone links to their blog about how all Muslims should be rounded up and deported? Ditto. A million edits, literally an admin, I don't care; this administrator can and will make difficult blocks if needed. These are all-but-irreversible acts of disruption. But in the hypothetical where someone's bigoted views can be inferred, but they have not promoted these views on-wiki, and their off-wiki comments don't involve calling for direct harm to people (say, they've acknowledged that they're @so-and-so on Twitter, and @so-and-so sometimes tweets about how the Great Replacement is real without advocating violent "solutions" to it)... I'm probably gonna go through their edits to any relevant topics with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't see that as blockable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

To add only slightly to the above; my view is that persons harboring overtly racist beliefs would find it all but impossible to function productively here because so much of their world view would be contradicted at every turn by the project. Openly declaring extremist beliefs of this nature anywhere on the project, including their user page, would represent the kind of disruption that would get a WP:ZT block from me. But it's not the beliefs I am blocking. It's an editor who has advertised that they are incapable of working in a collaborative project within the framework of our WP:PG by disruptively announcing their vile beliefs to the community. As I have said elsewhere, I can't realistically see any circumstance where someone with those views would not quickly self-destruct. The only hypothetical scenario that I have ever come across that might stand as an exception would be if a user was doxed for their beliefs but at no point ever said or did anything on the project that advertised their true character. But to repeat, yet again, when I block somebody, it is because of somehting they did that is disruptive. That may include advertising their beliefs. But it is not the beliefs themselves. So yeah, if you are a Nazi, a Klansman, a Stalinist or a supporter of any other ideology associated with repression and mass murder, you would do well to keep those views to yourself. Because if you advertise them in my presence, your tenure here is likely going to be measure in however many seconds it takes me to make three clicks on my mouse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"So yeah, if you are a Nazi, a Klansman, a Stalinist or a supporter of any other ideology associated with repression and mass murder, you would do well to keep those views to yourself."

Then you bloc the author of this essay? It calls Nazi anyone thinking Stalinist Russia was wrong side in WW II. Maxaxa (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That logical conclusion is faulty. If working with Stalin to overthrow Hitler would make someone a Stalinist, that would mean you only have a choice between Stalinist and Nazi. You should work on your black-and-white thinking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Both of you admins who have signed that list have grossly mischaracterized the nature of the essay and the words of numerous editors on this page and in the archives who have patiently explained to numerous others, including a large number of disruptive new editors and IPs that the essay is not "block people over their private beliefs" but rather "the expression of these particular private beliefs on Wikipedia is a violation of long-standing behavioral policies, and here's why". You're both tilting at straw men, and refusing to accept the corrections that are literally all over the place around here, including a succinct one in this very thread, by Greyfell.

And by your own admission, you're doing so in service of circumstances which you've never seen, and admit to finding incredibly unlikely.

I stand by what I said. I find it hilarious that some people can be so devoted to their own naval-gazings that they're willing to align themselves with literal Nazis on such a question, and identify themselves publicly as doing so, so that the Nazis all know who has a sympathetic ear for their sealioning, and the rest of us know whose judgement not to trust.

Best of luck to you both! lol Happy (Slap me) 22:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This essay goes further than just saying Nazis will be blocked on sight for expressing their views, it says that "Nazis ... and other inappropriate discriminatory groups" should not participate in our community regardless of their conduct and ability to follow our rules. This is a slippery slope -- how would we determine which ideologies make someone completely unwelcome here? The label "Nazi" makes it seem easy, since it's a term near-universally understood as evil, but what about other discriminatory views, such as those who identify as "white nationalist" or "neo-fascist"? Many of the people who embrace these labels are ignorant because of their upbringing, circumstances and the influences they've been exposed to, not because they're (necessarily) massively more nasty or stupid than others. Although their views make it difficult, some of these people can and do participate respectfully in conversations with others in society, and gradually moderate their positions through exposure. Others get along day-to-day with co-workers and peers because they keep their toxic views to themselves. These people can in principle contribute here without being disruptive. Also, what's unique about racism -- a pseudoscientific concept -- compared to other discriminatory beliefs founded on irrational, baseless premises? For example, homophobes who think gay people don't exist, or transphobes who think trans people are making it all up. On Wikipedia, these views mean denying the validity of other editors' experience and existence, but editors are not banned solely for holding them, they're banned for expressing their views in an offensive, toxic and/or disruptive manner. There are ethno-nationalist conflicts covered on Wikipedia that are so extreme that editors from opposing sides hold views that are racist, hate-filled and/or genocide-denying, often because these views are widespread in their communities. Most of these individuals are blocked sooner or later. But a small number are able to participate within the bounds of our policies, and in some cases I have seen them grow more tolerant (or at least publicly retract their previous views).

I can't speak for Tamzin or AO, but this is the basis of my inability to fully endorse the essay in its entirety, even though I sympathise or agree with all of it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere productive, and off-topic to boot. Let it go, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@HappyMcSlappy: I'm all for allowing a clean start, but having the same argument with me twice, a year apart, on two different accounts, is kind of pushing the "clean" part, don't you think? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Please stop pinging me. I'm not interested in having any discussions with you at all. Happy (Slap me) 12:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Tamzin, please don't browbeat HappyMcSlappy. No one knows what you're talking about. Are we supposed to guess what this having the same argument with me twice, a year apart, on two different accounts is even about? Clean start, what? If you can't respond to the substance of an argument, then it's probably best to just not respond. But creating this chilling effect with a terse one-liner about some unexplained account/argument mystery that no one can follow — I'm sorry to say, but to me, that comes across as a intimidation tactic, whether intended as such or not. As someone who supported your adminship (albeit wasn't around for the mid-way drama), I urge you to be cognizant of power disparities (forget even the responsiveness fail) whenever you, yourself, engage in spirited debates. Thank you. El_C 06:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC) With respect, El C, the comment was directed at HMcS, who knows exactly what I'm referring to. That I said no more was out of respect, not out of intimidation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Tamzin, even your reply to me, right here right now, feature these same terse one-liner, non-responsive characteristics I was referring to. HMcS may well know, but the rest of us don't. Try to step back and detach yourself for a second, read what you've written again, and think about how others might perceive it. Others who may not be as confident as myself in expressing this criticism. Obviously, HMcS did not view your warning (or whatever you call it) as being about "respect" — because why would they? All it looks like is you trying to silence them on the basis of hidden, non-public reasons (what, are they to out themselves?). Which is just not on. El_C 11:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC) @El C: I'm being brief to avoid drawing more attention, again out of respect—whether you see it that way or not. If he has nothing further to say here, then neither do I. If you have thoughts on a better way to call out a CLEANSTART violation without voiding someone's CLEANSTART, I'm happy to continue this on my talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC) How is it a CLEANSTART violation to debate something with you (or rather, around you) a year later? No, let's not split the discussion. El_C 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I don't know how much clearer I can make this, El_C: You don't need to understand why this is a policy violation. No one but HMcS needs to. I am not acting as an admin or SPI clerk here. I am not seeking any administrative action. I am not seeking to discredit someone I disagree with. I was notifying an editor that he was in violation of policy, and intentionally doing so in the most minimal terms possible. If you don't understand what I meant, then good, I've done it right. I believe you're a fan of my essay Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know. It applies here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I'm a fan of it being expressed in a non-humorous way, unlike how WP:BEANS is. But you should not get to stifle an editor's argument that's contrary to your own without explaining anything beyond "CLEANSTART vio." Now, if they were doing it constantly (whatever it is you say that they're doing), then that's one thing. But a year later? So I'm letting you know that it looks bad. El_C 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC) For Heavens' sake, El_C. I'll email you. You know, the thing that essay says you should do if you don't understand why an editor has declined to explain something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC) El C, just as Tamzin is wildly misrepresenting what this essay says despite correction, she has somehow decided that this particular argument (which I have quite literally never had before) is actually a continuation of some other argument. I very much appreciate your efforts here, but I'd ask that you drop it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Tamzin has even the slightest engagement with reality on this particular issue, as can be evidence by her wildly diverging comments to various editors on this very page, as well as other evidence, so I don't think there's anything to be gained here. You can't reason with an unreasonable belief. I also don't like the idea of a conversation about me taking place like this. Again, thank you for your efforts. Happy (Slap me) 12:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Tamzin, I wasn't asking for details to be provided publicly, I'm criticizing your overall approach. Both of you are on opposite sides of an argument, so framing it on the basis of need-to-know, that's problematic, in my view. El_C 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: While I appreciate the work you've put into the project and its community, we will have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see what we gain by giving these kind of people (openly racist, queerphobic etc.) the benefit of the doubt. They don't need to advocate for violent "solutions", normalizing these ideas are more than enough to cause real damage to people, and, for that reason, I don't think they should be allowed (something between welcome and unwelcome) here as long as they behave. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@186.102.22.21, re your signature below: it's important to clarify, NPOV applies to article space, no one is saying that editors must remain neutral in their general comments on talk pages and whatever. That's a misunderstanding of NPOV, which applies to how we write the encyclopedia. The entire point of WP:FALSEBALANCE is to say that we should accurately represent the consensus of scholars, not our own opinions, and not a false sense of neutrality between all opinions. It's a common straw man argument, be careful about that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Non endorsers (follow up)

The following editors do not endorse the contents of this essay.

1. Tradedia^talk 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to subsection below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to subsection below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

2. What an editor believes, posts, etc off Wikipedia, should have no effect on whether or not they should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. As long as such an editor isn't pushing their PoV on the project, beyond the editor's userpage & user-talkpage? Then there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   If I look at a user's user page and notice that the user thinks it would be a great idea to murder some of my friends, there is no problem?

   The only way a Nazi is no problem is if they give no indication of it in Wikipedia at all. And then the essay does not apply. If they have an off-Wiki page with their view, there is no way we can positively connect the user with the off-wiki page, unless they make the connection themselves in both sites. And that would be the "indication of it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   We'd be better off, worrying less about what's on an editor's userpage & more about whether they're pushing their personal PoV outside their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   This might be true for some ideologies (although I personally oppose issue-based userboxen, at a minimum), but something like "This user supports turning the U.S. into a white ethnostate" actively damages our collaborative editing atmosphere. Editors don't want to work with editors who want them killed, enslaved, deported, or raped. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from userpages. Give it about another decade. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

   To be fair, there are many communist userboxen out there and some editors have friends who are middle or upper class. Hell, my parents are landlords, and yet I take no issue with people who place Maoist userboxen on their userpage. I don't take it as "I want to shoot your parents because they're rich", I take it as "I have different political beliefs". A user with a nazi userbox won't receive any sympathy from me, but I will not see their userbox as a personal statement of "I want to gas your mom because she's black", I simply take it as "I have terrible political beliefs".

   That being said, I still support the policy because it helps keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. Absurd and obscene conspiracy theories and beliefs so poorly structured they make a Hooverville look like the Burj Khalifa make up the foundation of Nazism. Where communism acknowledges facts, Nazism does shit like deny the existence of atomic energy because "hurr durr jewish science" and actively denies that certain ethnic groups are even capable of reason. A communist will not hurt Wikipedia. A Nazi will throw a wrench into the works and create more work for others by allowing their beliefs to take precedence over actual facts.

   Nazism is simply bad for the encyclopedia to an extent no other extreme ideology is. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

3. This an encyclopedia, not a safe space. The whole point of NPOV is to remain neutral, especially, specifically, in the face of points of views one detests. It is very easy to remain “neutral” if points of view you do not agree with are squelched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.22.21 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
4. With reservations, I add my name to this list. I agree with Jr8825 that NPOV doesn't come with a caveat of "... as long as we approve of the politics involved." Beyond that, I'm troubled by the increase in the following syndrome: people pick out something like a Confederate flag infobox on a user page, conclude thereby that the editor is a racist, scream NONAZIS! at ANI as if this were a policy and not an essay, and lo! the lynch mob gathers. For my part, I strongly feel that display of the Confederate flag is disgusting and an emblem of treason, but I somehow missed the part where loyalty to the United States government is a defining policy of Wikipedia. We should all stoutly oppose thought police. The best way to convince people that Wikipedia isn't the dominion of extremist left-wing lynch mobs is for it not to be one. Ravenswing 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think that proudly displaying the confederate flag is a problem because of its relationship to the US government. The issue is that the flag itself represents a hateful ideology which included (at the very least a lack of opposition to) enslavement of people based on the color of their skin. I would also support a guideline against displaying celtic cross flags on one's userpage for similar reasons. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

   The problem with that is basic: we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements which we not only firmly believe represent hateful, divisive and/or oppressive ideologies, but also believe they must be suppressed so that no one sees them. Quite a few people number rainbow flags and BLM displays among them. Would you, therefore, support a guideline banning display of rainbow flag infoboxes (which until quite recently I had on my talk page)? Surely that is a sentiment deeply offensive to wide segments of the worldwide population, especially in the many countries which criminalize homosexuality? Where exactly do you propose to draw the line? Ravenswing 03:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Ah yes, the false equivalence between the confederate and rainbow flags. If I can't waive a symbol attached to white supremacy in my page, should others be able to show their support for oppressed minorities? Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Pfft: potato, po-TAH-toe. Yes, of course you think that your way of thinking is morally and ethically right, and that the other guys' way of thinking is immoral and evil by definition. And they think the same way about you. Is it that you don't get it, or that you just don't give a damn? Ravenswing 08:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   And they think the same way about you No, no. They think the other guys' very existence is immoral and evil by definition, not their thinking. Big difference. A Nazi can stop being a Nazi and get accepted by anti-Nazis, but a Jew (for example) cannot stop being a Jew in a way that will get them accepted by Nazis. Potato, hand grenade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   excellently reasoned and I emphatically agree with my friend the Wandering Jew. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

   we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements Sure, and that's why we rely on the consensus of wikpedia editors (and outside scholars) to determine which symbols/statements would qualify. This is the English wikipedia, not the Russian, Turkish, or Israeli wikipedia. We draw the line at ideologies which seek to deprive others of rights, or systematically murder, rape, or enslave those who are different. Rainbow flags advocate no such thing, and as Isabelle has said, this argument is a false equivalency. It also reminds me of this billboard — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

5. This essay is a violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project. I also oppose expression of one's own political leanings on Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
6. American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
7. I frankly find the entire existence of this page ridiculous; banning nationalists exclusively of one race. Mårtensås (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   ... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

8. ""That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism."" of course muslims are not the source of terrorism. but saying this SHOULD NOT be punishable, if it is about wikipedia articles, "islam is the source of terrorism"(im not gonna discuss about this with you). so, im not OK with that page, just because of that. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   p.s.: anti-islamism is not just islamophobia. you can hate islam, while dont hate muslims. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

9. Do not endorse. This essay is superfluous – if someone is editing with a racist bias, that is already grounds for blocking/banning. The essay is saying that it is acceptable to ban an editor from Wikipedia for their views, rather than their editing. The essay also wrongly implies (a) that non-Nazi forms of racism are acceptable, and (b) that non-racist forms of bias are acceptable. The only function this essay serves is as an opportunity for virtue signalling. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2023
10. Do not endorse. It's hard for me to imagine an essay more antithetical to wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone is allowed edit. I don't care if you are a Nazi or the head of the JDL, if you can contribute constructively to the project, you are welcome here. That goes for axe murderers, girl scouts, priests, pornographers, members of the Mexican Mafia, librarians, crossing guards, and any other group you can mention. We have policies and procedures in place. If you are unable to contribute without running afoul of those policies, then you are not welcome at the project. On the other hand, if you are able to contribute within the bounds of our policies and procedures, then it matters not one whit whether or not you are a "Nazi". It's a shame such an essay is allowed to exist, as it goes against the very philosophy of the project. Of course one wonders whether an essay entitled YES NAZIS would be allowed to exist in kind. An essay that basically explains no one cares what you do in your personal life, as long as it doesn't interfere with your contributions here. (UTC)

A good example of the correlation between white supremacist ideologies and disruptive editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problems with this essay are deeper than objecting editors identify. The problem isn't so much banning off-wiki Nazis, who would have a problem with banning people who advocate gassing six million Jews, although if their on-wiki behavior is good why bother. The problem is conflating a bunch of things with this, even apparently statistical facts, then pulling the "Nazi" card whenever anyone suggests such views be included in Wikipedia. There's a Motte-and-bailey fallacy going on. The real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites: the bailey. Then when this essay is questioned the response is "we should allow Nazism?": the motte. Frank Braithwaite (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC) "the real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites" no it isn't. It's about the method we use to prevent people who think this from wasting our time, making others feel unwelcome and pushing intolerant pseudoscience. The disagreement is between those who think possessing certain hateful ideologies makes someone inherently unwelcome here, and those who think we should only exclude people based on actions that violate and/or demonstrate an inability to follow our principles. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC) It may be your opinion that a position on group differences outside equality is intolerant pseudoscience, but would you agree that such a position has no necessary connection to Nazism? Frank Braithwaite (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC) I think you may misunderstand. White Nationalism is also not a viewpoint that we accept on this encyclopedia as compatible with reasonable discourse. It doesn't matter if its Nazism or regular White Nationalism. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• The above statement by Frank Braithwaite is absolutely correct, and I don't know why it was hatted: this essay is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy. An even simpler description is just bait-and-switch: the essay is called "No Nazis", but actually it seems to call for banning basically anyone who thinks there are any differences between any demographic groups. It's the same message as WP:NORACISTS, but written in a way that's 100 times more incendiary. In theory, there could be a reasonable essay arguing for banning those who believe in the tenets of National Socialism (I would disagree with that too, but at least it would be logically consistent); this is not it, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1. We do not need ideologically-loaded policies. What comes next? No Falangists, no Confedarates, no nationalists, no conservatives... What about non-Western ideological movements which are difficult to classify but are wrongly assumed to be "fascists" in popular conception? We shall tear down this essay.--Madame Necker (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC) - User blocked for "antisemitic fringe trolling". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this essay, I would have to agree with the former statements about calling someone a Nazi over a disagreement. With that, I do not endorse this essay. StephenBryant7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC) - User blocked as a sockpuppet. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Giving the admins the option to ban people for a PoV pushing they might hypothetically do at some unspecified point in the future is just asking for abuse--Trade (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Every user is enitiled to edit wikipedia regarless of ther political opinion, as long as they retain a neutral POV. All of us make biased edit, none are free from biases. This article is an insult to history, not all nazis are white, such as the Turkish Gay Wolves who hold nazi beliefs. But Nazism and Fascism aren't based on race, they're based on ethnicty, which is a very basic concept that this essay fails to understand, German nazis would've killed poles even thoguh the poles are white. And if we're banning nazis then we suld also ban communists, then every other political ideology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Do not endorse, but support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation

1. [Moved from subsection above 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)] Espousing hateful views on-wiki, or linking to the off-wiki espousal of those views, is per se disruptive, and I have no problem blocking users who do so for disruptive editing. But I do not think that anyone is unwelcome to edit Wikipedia based on their ideology, as long as they are able to abide by our policies. I'm skeptical that there's very many Nazis who are able to abide by our policies, but to the extent they exist, they are... well, "welcome" is a strong word, but not unwelcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I think the word you're looking for is "tolerated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I've elaborated further on my thoughts at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, an essay I'd started about a year ago after a previous discussion on this talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   This essay conveys perfectly why one does not need to be an endorser or non-endorser of this essay to agree that professed nazis should be blocked. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

   A few friends asked me to reconsider my non-endorsement, and I respectfully declined, because I hope that it's clear from what I've written that I have zero hesitation to block Nazis and similar, and rather disagree as to what philosophy should underly such blocks. Altanner1991, however, succeeds where said friends failed in convincing me to clarify more pointèdly. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror knowing that I'm grouped together with someone who thinks American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. It's not personal offense, mind you. I'm not a liberal. But... Jesus. I'm not sure which interpretation of that comment is more alarming: "Liberals support genocide" or "Supporting genocide is no worse than cancelling people on Twitter [or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing]".

   This isn't a change in opinion. Just seeking to differentiate myself from those who make a mockery of the slaughter of my ancestors and my peers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   I've requested Altanner1991, exclude American politics, liberalism & the genocide comparisons, from his 'unendorse' comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   Again, if editors aren't pushing their PoV outside their userpage? Then they shouldn't be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   @GoodDay: I'm not sure why you've signed in this section with a rationale that contradicts the point of this section. What you are describing is not "support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation". Userpages are not exempt from the disruptive editing policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   My apologies, as I misunderstood this 'new' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

2. I don't think I can recall an instance of an openly racist editor who did not end up getting blocked, usually quickly. That said, when I issue a block, I do so in response to behavior, not beliefs. Blocking solely on the basis of ideology, even when truly odious, is a dangerous and slippery slope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
3. On a fundamental level, I believe "that [a racist worldview is] inherently incompatible with Wikipedia". But I don't agree with the assertion that it's possible for a person to not be "welcome to edit Wikipedia ... so long as they stick to the letter of our policies". The letter of policies such as "assuming good faith", "be civil to others", "maintain a neutral point of view" is that a collaborative, open-minded spirit must be adhered to. If someone is capable of following these policies on-wiki, and their off-wiki conduct has no repercussions on or to the wiki, there's no basis for preventing them from participating here. When a bigot is unable to follow our principles, for example by expressing hatred of others in the user space, the basis for revoking their editing privileges would be their failure to adhere to policy, not their worldview itself. Jr8825 • Talk 16:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

   I think nobody who has endorsed this section has dealt with a civil POV pusher. It's very possible to stick to the letter of Wikipedia policy and still be WP:NOTHERE and/or making the encyclopedia worse. That's the reason one of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, and also why essays like this exist. Loki (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

4. This is probably a cancellable offence, and WP:NPA is a major policy which should be enforced, but, if someone is following NPA and constructively editing Wikipedia, there's no reason to not allow them. In my opinion, Nazis should be shunned, but Wikipedia is not a place to shun Nazis. It's a place to build an encyclopedia. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with all of the views above, which I respect, is that there is a fundamental difference between the soft racism of [insert every day example here], and actual Nazism. This essay was written when we had actual neo-Nazis arguing that Wikipedia's principles required that we allow them to edit, and was written in response to that. I disagree with blocking people within the political mainstream who people on the political left call Nazis but who are really just mainstream right-wing individuals. But I do fully believe in blocking people who are self-admitted neo-Nazis, and historically I was the admin who most argued for that, and I will continue arguing for that as a non-admin.
  Where I think I fundamentally disagree with Tamzin's essay is that I fully believe there is a core distinction between genocidal racism and your day-to-day 'people think that people who don't look like them are less than them' racism and that difference is based on ideology. Wikipedia as a self-regulating entity, has the right to show people the door based on ideology, and there is nothing in NPOV that contradicts that. We show actual Nazis the door (and by we, I mean Bishonen and the remaining admins who are willing to enforce thisde facto policy..) There is no problem with that, and those who oppose this on functionally semantical grounds are not aware of the historical context of it or the continuing importance of taking that stance. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone has a different opinion than yours, doesn't make them Nazis. A Proud Alabamian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

True but irrelevant, since the essay is not about "having a different opinion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocking Nazis from reading Wikipedia?

Should Nazis also be blocked from reading Wikipedia? If e.g. reliable tips were made available (e.g. by anti-fascists) that a certain IP address belongs to a Nazi or Fascist organization or individual then that IP could be blocked from not only editing but also reading Wikipedia. Analogous to a bartender telling a Nazi to leave the establishment and not giving them any space in the world. Oompje (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any way to do this and there is no point anyway. Wikipedia is mirrored in many places and they could read it there. Besides, why do we even want to stop them reading? They might eventually learn something and that could be a first step away from them being Nazis. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not likely that they will come here to get educated (they don't have the braincells to get educated in the first place or they would not be Nazis). Rather to collect imagery and quotes to be used in their vile propaganda. Nazis, unlike ordinary criminals, can't be rehabilited, there is a saying where I live: "once a fascist always a fascist". Nazis may go dormant, sometimes for decades, but they always need to be monitored and excluded from regular life as much as possible. They will never stop thinking their way even if society doesn't give them an inch. I concur this may be technical infeasable, it's a thought on matter of principle. Oompje (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oompje (they don't have the braincells to get educated in the first place or they would not be Nazis) Are you proud of this comment? Are you? 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

See Exit (group). Some of them do learn. We should not hinder them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a grotesque suggestion – the whole point about Wikipedia is that it is freely available to anyone to read. (I’m not sure if the suggestion is serious?)

As for Nazis may go dormant, sometimes for decades, but they always need to be monitored and excluded from regular life as much as possible.: the postwar history of Germany negates this.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I was never a Nazi/fascist, for the rest I shared in all major Western political ideologies. So, yes, sometimes being a fascist is due to mental illness, and through healing the mental illness, one will eventually leave fascism. I took the Bible literally, so I believed for some years in theocracy, which is just as creepy (but it gets much less attention). It's a matter of perspective: if you situate the Bible below the Constitution, then the Bible is compatible with liberal democracy; if you situate the Constitution below the Bible, then the Bible is incompatible with liberal democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but anyone with common sense knows that @Oompje made no effort to describe Nazis in a respectful light. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are here to defend Nazis, I think you have missed the point of this essay, and perhaps should take a look at paradox of tolerance. At any rate, no, we cannot prevent anyone from reading Wikipedia, it is part of the core philosophy of this project that it is for everyone. We can only block or ban users from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm here to defend their rights to read Wikipedia (just like you are), not their ideologies or themselves, silly goose. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey now, watch the personal attacks. Everyone knows I'm a delightful squirrel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, sorry! (gosh I love Wikipedia:Humor) 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And the obvious point is that removing their right to read Wikipedia is not practically achievable, even if it enjoyed the consensus of admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree per @tgeorgescu 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What you believe

@Cleter: This essay is not about what you believe or about what I believe. I agree that as long as nobody knows they're Nazis, nobody knows there is a problem, so there is nothing to do about them. But as soon as they make Nazi statements, many admins are willing to block them on the spot. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, it wasn't my intention to convey personal beliefs. It's just that as long as no one makes disruptive edits, anyone can contribute to the free encyclopedia. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I never sait it was about my beliefs, you're miswording and making it seem like I edited the entire essay to reflect my opinions. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You have literally stated your beliefs: I firmly believe they can edit Wikipedia but not for ideology expression as it says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't state they took priority. Technically speaking, you agree with them anyways. I agree that as long as nobody knows they're Nazis, nobody knows there is a problem, so there is nothing to do about them. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not discussing my own opinion (although I did endorse the essay with my signature). I'm discussing the fact that when we know they're Nazis, many admins will block them on the spot. I'm not an admin, so I can block no one. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And it was not my intention to discuss mine. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Besides if I did something wrong what did I say? I apologize 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

How else to parse I firmly believe they can edit Wikipedia but not for ideology expression as it says otherwise than meaning it is your own belief? But indeed, some admins think just like you but they won't wheel-war with the admins who think just like me. So, even if not all admins endorse this essay, the bottom line is that Nazis get blocked ASAP they make it known they are Nazis.

Morals: even if you don't endorse this essay, you should agree to disagree, and respect it like someone else's opinion, which is allowed to be voiced inside this essay, just as you may voice your opinion in another essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I signed the essay to show my support, but I want to make it clear that I'm not just sharing my own beliefs here. My goal is to talk about what the essay says and how people with controversial ideas can be involved in editing Wikipedia. I think it's important that everyone can contribute to Wikipedia as long as they're not causing problems, but I don't think we should focus too much on expressing our personal beliefs. I agree with you that it's good to respect different opinions and have positive discussions. Even though I might not personally agree with everything in the essay, I think it's important to let everyone share their thoughts. That's what makes Wikipedia such a great place for learning from different perspectives. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did read some essays with which I disagree, but I did not try to hijack those essays into becoming closer to my own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sick, me neither! No hijack gang is lit. Dap me up. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The gist: according to WP:FREE, expressing certain opinions directly leads to blocking. We do not believe that editors should have free speech, same as K12 teachers have no free speech, but they may only teach the curriculum. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable information, but please remind me why you are showing this to me. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What if they are outed by others, as being Nazis, instead of exposing themselves? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:1D29:5DB2:AEC5:FAC6 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Depends on how it happens. Everyone does have the basic protections of WP:OUTING, so digging into someone to try and link their account to a real-world person using a chain of inference would be unacceptable and would get redacted. However, if they've deliberately linked their account to eg. their real-world social media by putting it on their user page, and their statements there are full of Nazi propaganda and calls to exterminate people, that could probably still get them blocked per WP:CIVIL if someone points it out because by linking the channel they're bringing that stuff here and editors shouldn't have to edit alongside people who are calling to exterminate them or declaring them genetically inferior or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unneeded, controversial wording

"That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent."

This links to Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany#Debate on whether comparisons are antisemitic. The relationship between Jews- as an ethnoreligious group- and the State of Israel is already controversial, and these kinds of biases are really unneeded and counterproductive.

Another point of contention for me is:

"That the wrong side won in World War II (or, the wrong side won the Great Patriotic War)."

The universally accepted and neutral term "Eastern Front" should suffice, and again, this brings unneeded controversy because it immediately brings up the question of moral equivalence between the Soviets and Nazis and the black-and-white characterization of the Soviets as the "good guys". Evaporation123 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are talking points Nazis do use, so they belong here. Yes, there are non-Nazis who also use them (other anti-Zionists and other anti-communists besides Nazis). By doing so, those non-Nazis are playing down Nazi atrocities though. They could criticize Netanyahu or Stalin in a more effective and more honest way without doing that, but they chose to copy-paste Nazi reasoning, weakening their own credibility. That is not this essay's fault. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is the essay's fault to imply that strongly criticising Israel or making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany will get you blocked on en-wiki, because I don't think that's true. (I notice in this comment, and on your userpage, you allude to a belief about there being an equivalence between Nazism and anti-Zionism in general, which is a far stronger claim that I doubt would be generally accepted as reasoning for blocking users.) Endwise (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As in all things on Wikipedia context matters. This is the case regardless of what things might be said on this or that user page. If Wikipedia were ever so non-neutral as to begin banning editors for supporting Palestinian liberation notwithstanding the usual politics-related problems of WP:BATTLEGROUND, edit warring, incivility, etc. then we would have bigger problems than the content of this essay. Simonm223 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to add that "Palestinian liberation" is different from "anti-Zionism", which means wanting to destroy the state of Israel. (Which would very likely eventually lead to the area being made judenrein, but most anti-Zionists may not want to think that far.) Also, equating anti-Zionist boycotts of Jews with Nazi boycotts of Jews is not the same as equating anti-Zionism with Nazism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is getting rather off-topic. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If was off-topic starting from I notice in this comment, and on your userpage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs an update to include hateful Zionist ideology

Now that racist extremist elements in the Israeli government have emulated many of the crimes of the former Nazi regime, is it time to extend this no Nazi rule to Jewish Nationalists, aka Zionists?

Considering the numerous crimes against humanity conducted in the ongoing liquidation of the Gaza ghetto, and the language used by Israeli leaders like Ben-Gvir and Smotrych which draw horrifying parallels to the dehumanizing official language and policies of the Third Reich, I believe it's high time to extend the definitions against state-enforced hate.

The United States is not an arbiter of what is and what isn't a racist, extremist government. Podlesok86 (talk) Podlesok86 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect here, and as someone who is very much an anti-Zionist: the distance between Zionists and Nazis is pretty big and I'd like to keep it that way.

Most Americans are Zionists, and almost all American Jews are Zionists. And my guess is that it's similar in most English-speaking countries. Furthermore, Israel is a country that does bad things, but many if not most countries do bad things. That's not the same as Nazi Germany perpetuating the worst genocide in the history of the world and having the time to do several other genocides on the side. Loki (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that disruptive editing for the purpose of engaging in genocide denial is within the remit of this essay regardless of the specifics of the genocide denial. With that being said I think it's important to remember that this is an essay that provides guidance on the appropriate handling of a specifically vexatious type of disruptive editing but is not a policy. As such nothing in this essay stops anyone at all from editing if they not being disruptive per the appropriate Wikipedia policies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:True_North_Centre_for_Public_Policy#Request_for_comment_on_opening_sentence that may interest followers of this topic. Additionally, it does appear that at least one editor involved in that discussion has been editing the articles of right-wing figures to erase information linking them to the far-right and/or neo-Nazis. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Un-Archiving the Non-Endorsers section

There should be a place where non-endorses can state their opinion. 188.212.135.1 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It existed but has been archived. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Should it be unarchived? I would expect both the endorsers and non-endorsers lists to be immune to archiving. (Although it is pretty telling that the non-endorsers list got archived due to inactivity. Lol.) DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I just unarchived the Non-endorsers section. Half of it isn't really laid out in a list like other non-endorser sections, and seems like a lot of the non-list comments are incoherent rambling. That's is probably why it was archived. To be clear, while I agree that somebody spouting Nazi beliefs onto mainspace pages has no place on Wikipedia, and at least it's relatively easy to outline what counts as Nazism, I do think the redundant bigotry essays should be merged into WP:HID. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)