Wikipedia talk:No Nazis

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay.

1. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
3. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
6. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
9. Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
10. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
11. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
12. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
13. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
15. Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
16. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
17. –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
18. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing of groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Nazis" vs "racists"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White genocide conspiracy theory

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

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

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

Best attempt at a broad counter-argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small nit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finer points

I have two comments / questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to Project space?

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

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

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

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

Good essay but no warning?

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasize on hate

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

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

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

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

This essay is so convenient

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

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

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

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

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

Viewpoint-based blocks

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRYRACIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-world example

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

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

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

Back to AGF/CRYRACIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic

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

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

A potential solution? 30/500 protection for related articles

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

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

Indef semi protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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