Wikipedia talk:No Nazis: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:16, 23 October 2022

Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
–dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pythoncoder (talk | contribs)
Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isabelle ^🔔 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lovkal (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P-K3 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N^oformation ^Talk 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis 02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Nazis, and also no QAnons. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Xenophobes on WP. Bingobro (Chat) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firestar464 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
aeschyIus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No racism, no pseudoscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell ya HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loki (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like the Dead Kennedys said. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A more universal essay there could never be. I will not suffer hate on our Wiki. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problems of Nazi revisionism is not limited to enWP only unfortunately. That also means proactively reviewing and ensuring high quality sources and information on Articles documenting contemporary and modern Nazism. Proudly antifascist and endorse making this policy in Wikipedia:No Nazis namespace Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
⌘ 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ASUKITE 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the Dead Kennedys' statement. - Sumanuil 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck Nazis. X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quid Est Squid (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a Jewish Wikipedian I feel so happy that we have this essay here and that Nazis are almost always almost immediately blocked, but so sad that there are Nazis and that we need this essay. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
casualdejekyll 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Googleguy007 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I’d already signed this; it appears I have not. As an editor of Jewish descent and somebody who believes racist, antisemitic and pro-Nazi views are incompatible with both NPOV and Wikipedia as a whole, I fully endorse this essay. Patient Zero^talk 06:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is not welcome here Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No pasarán. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a walk, Hitler lovers. No room for your BS. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. What a world we live in where people oppose the idea of preventing those who support Nazi idealology from editing what is, at the end of the day, a privately run website — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unequivocally. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though. The optimum number of Nazis contributing to an encyclopaedia is zero. A visible Nazi will do a thousand times more to put off good editors than can ever be balanced by any good that they might theoretically do. Besides, it is not like we are going to notice that somebody is a Nazi unless they actually do some Nazi stuff. If some Nazi is editing pages about the insects of Bavaria then we will never know nor care that they are a Nazi so long as they keep their Nazism out of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments below. A core tenet of Nazism is that many of the people who edit Wikipedia ought to be exterminated; supporting that view is incompatible with WP:CIVIL editing. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a debate society, which means you have to be able to work with other people in a collegial fashion - you cannot politely imply that your fellow editors should be murdered and expect to be able to contribute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those that would have me and my family murdered should never be tolerated in a community project. If that ever changes, please go ahead and delete every contribution I've ever made here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people are willing to believe racist, false ideas, then they are incompatible with a fact-based encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inspired by the courage of these words. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nazis are aptly named. We should "not see" their writings in our encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andre🚐 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
—VersaceSpace 🌃 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sundostund (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WPscatter ^t/_c 06:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support having no Nazis on Wikipedia. A fact website is no place for bigotry. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:7970:99A:495A:55E8 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Similarly to how this is not an airport, and you don't have to announce your departure [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Non endorsers (follow up)

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

Tradedia^talk 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to subsection below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to subsection below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from userpages. Give it about another decade. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
excellently reasoned and I emphatically agree with my friend the Wandering Jew. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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)~~[reply]
I frankly find the entire existence of this page ridiculous; banning nationalists exclusively of one race. Mårtensås (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do not endorse, but support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation

[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)[reply]
I think the word you're looking for is "tolerated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
~~I've requested Altanner1991, exclude American politics, liberalism & the genocide comparisons, from his 'unendorse' comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~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)~~[reply]
@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)[reply]
My apologies, as I misunderstood this 'new' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Black Ribbon Day 2022

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No Communists?

OK, folks Andre🚐

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[2]. 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This is quickly derailing towards WP:TALKOFFTOPIC territory, so let's nip it in the bud. Nothing productive to the continuation of the project is being discussed here any more.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My guess: [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You've gone to bat for transphobic talking points[4][5] & harassment campaigns[6][7][8], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, and like saying Richard Wagner is to blame for Hitler's atrocities.

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@@ Line 362: / Line 362: @@
 :::::::::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. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User 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.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
-:::::::::::How is the killing of millions with mass-murder under Communist regimes a "some kind of violence in some capacity" and how is it comparable to the "law-enforcement"? [[User:Madame Necker|Madame Necker]] ([[User talk:Madame Necker|talk]]) 19:15, 23 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"? [[User:Madame Necker|Madame Necker]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)