Wikipedia talk:No Nazis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarshallKe (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 9 September 2022 (→‎Non endorsers (follow up): Don't know how to make the formatting good for the {{hat}} tag so I'm just going to do this for now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEssays High‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
HighThis page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay.

  1. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. pythoncoder (talk | contribs)
  21. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Orangemike --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Isabelle 🔔 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. lovkal (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. P-K3 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Noformation Talk 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Miniapolis 02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No Nazis, and also no QAnons. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No Xenophobes on WP. Bingobro (Chat) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Firestar464 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. aeschyIus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No racism, no pseudoscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oh hell ya HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Loki (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Like the Dead Kennedys said. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. A more universal essay there could never be. I will not suffer hate on our Wiki. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Freedom of speech does not apply to speech that harms the community and the project. ––FormalDude talk 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. The problems of Nazi revisionism is not limited to enWP only unfortunately. That also means proactively reviewing and ensuring high quality sources and information on Articles documenting contemporary and modern Nazism. Proudly antifascist and endorse making this policy in Wikipedia:No Nazis namespace Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. ⌘ 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. ASUKITE 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Seconding the Dead Kennedys' statement. - Sumanuil 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Fuck Nazis. X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Quid Est Squid (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. As a Jewish Wikipedian I feel so happy that we have this essay here and that Nazis are almost always almost immediately blocked, but so sad that there are Nazis and that we need this essay. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. casualdejekyll 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Googleguy007 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Thought I’d already signed this; it appears I have not. As an editor of Jewish descent and somebody who believes racist, antisemitic and pro-Nazi views are incompatible with both NPOV and Wikipedia as a whole, I fully endorse this essay. Patient Zerotalk 06:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Hate is not welcome here Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. No pasarán. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Take a walk, Hitler lovers. No room for your BS. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Obviously. What a world we live in where people oppose the idea of preventing those who support Nazi idealology from editing what is, at the end of the day, a privately run website — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 11:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Unequivocally. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Seriously, though. The optimum number of Nazis contributing to an encyclopaedia is zero. A visible Nazi will do a thousand times more to put off good editors than can ever be balanced by any good that they might theoretically do. Besides, it is not like we are going to notice that somebody is a Nazi unless they actually do some Nazi stuff. If some Nazi is editing pages about the insects of Bavaria then we will never know nor care that they are a Nazi so long as they keep their Nazism out of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Per my comments below. A core tenet of Nazism is that many of the people who edit Wikipedia ought to be exterminated; supporting that view is incompatible with WP:CIVIL editing. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a debate society, which means you have to be able to work with other people in a collegial fashion - you cannot politely imply that your fellow editors should be murdered and expect to be able to contribute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Those that would have me and my family murdered should never be tolerated in a community project. If that ever changes, please go ahead and delete every contribution I've ever made here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. If people are willing to believe racist, false ideas, then they are incompatible with a fact-based encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I am inspired by the courage of these words. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Nazis are aptly named. We should "not see" their writings in our encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Andre🚐 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Rhododendrites: Amalekite (talk · contribs) was blocked in 2005 for off-wiki neo-Nazism, unblocked for lack of on-wiki misconduct, then reblocked shortly thereafter when evidence emerged that he had published an off-wiki list of editors he believed to be Jewish (with some wheel-warring after that, to boot). Discussed (as "Amelkite [sic]") on page 2 of Reagle, Joseph (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. History and Foundations of Information Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262518208. JSTOR j.ctt5hhhnf. OCLC 496282188. FWIW, looking at his deleted userpage, at the time of his first block it contained a copypaste of "The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens", so, I'm not sure if by 2022 standards we'd really call that no on-wiki misconduct. Although I guess it's still no mainspace misconduct... But this sure is. So yeah, times sure have changed. But that technically answers your question. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least two cases I remember from ANI where people were banned for their expressed support of Nazis or racist ideologies. I can't remember the names off the top of my head, and searching ANI is a nightmare. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Bedford (talk · contribs) was indeffed a few days ago, see AN/I discussion; the report was initially based on his neo-Confederate userboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed characteristics of white supremacy culture in further reading

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

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

I 100% agree with Crossroads here. This piece is aggressively ignorant about the actual cultural diversity of humankind and serves only to perpetuate the Eurocentric worldview is aims to undercut. Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excerpt from a workbook by some folks affiliated with a group called ChangeWork, an organization we don't have an article on. It just looks like some manifesto written up by a couple of well-meaning, but not well-educated individuals, who are concerned about white supremacy who posted it on a website. You or I could do the same thing. I don't think it is a reliable source as Wikipedia evaluates sources. This matter though would seem to fall under Wikipedia:External links. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non endorsers

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

Similarly to how this is not an airport, and you don't have to announce your departure [1], no one is interested in knowing that you anyone thinks Nazis are okay. And if you just disagree with instances of Godwin's law, that's fine, that has nothing to do with this essay. You appear to be confusing being called a nazi with actually being one. (edited 01:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A confusion that, judging from the recent ANI complaint, is very widely shared. Seeing as you just leaped from someone decrying the essay to concluding that the IP thinks that Nazis are okay, an unwarranted and frankly objectionable personal attack. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was actually referring to the royal "you" not the IP themselves. A quirk of midwestern slang that "you" often stands in for a singular version of "anyone" or "someone". I will correct this oversight, thanks for pointing it out. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouting "Nazi" at anyone that disagrees with you is not what this article does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have an "endorsers" list, then it would be fair to also have a "non endorsers" list as well. I will create one in a section below. Tradediatalk 22:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that "non endorse" =/= "reject". This isn't a list of "non endorsers" because Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of editors, and only a few dozen have endorsed this. Every editor who doesn't sign this is presumed to "not endorse" it. Are you saying you "reject" this essay? If so... what does that even mean and who cares? Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. My reason is as follows:
How can you label someone you've never met before? You cannot. So this essay is flawed. Look at the edits. If the edits are disruptive, then block for "disruptive editing". End of story. Tradediatalk 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, look at the edits. The article already explains this, multiple times, including in the lead. It explains why nazism is a source of disruptive editing. This page includes advice on how to look at disruptive edits, and why nazism causes disruption.
But my question was mostly rhetorical to illustrate the problem with calling this 'non endorsers'. The true "list of non endorsers" is just the list of all Wikipedia editors minus those tiny minority who have actively endorsed it. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people who feel the need to loudly announce themselves as taking issue with an essay outlining why Nazis don't belong on this project is really ironic in an absolutely hilarious way. Useful for the admins, too. As well as any editor who wants to start an ANI report against them and needs a little extra evidence of ill intent.
By all means, start the list of editors who reject this essay. It's a brilliant idea. Very useful. Happy (Slap me) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "hilarious" would be the word I'd use when seeing administrators signing a list saying nazis are welcome in the community. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabelle Belato: Two admins have signed below. Of those two, I've said I don't think Nazis are welcome, but rather that a small subset of them, which may or may not exist, shouldn't be blocked on sight; I gather Ad Orientem sees things broadly similarly. I don't mean to speak for AO, but I imagine it's not a coincidence that he and I have both signed below and have both faced community criticism for having non-mainstream political opinions. Having seen firsthand how many members of this community don't even know the difference between a liberal and a leftist, I have no faith in our ability to enforce ideology-based tests.
Don't get me wrong. You see a pro-Nazi userbox, let me know, and that editor is gone. Someone links to their blog about how all Muslims should be rounded up and deported? Ditto. A million edits, literally an admin, I don't care; this administrator can and will make difficult blocks if needed. These are all-but-irreversible acts of disruption. But in the hypothetical where someone's bigoted views can be inferred, but they have not promoted these views on-wiki, and their off-wiki comments don't involve calling for direct harm to people (say, they've acknowledged that they're @so-and-so on Twitter, and @so-and-so sometimes tweets about how the Great Replacement is real without advocating violent "solutions" to it)... I'm probably gonna go through their edits to any relevant topics with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't see that as blockable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add only slightly to the above; my view is that persons harboring overtly racist beliefs would find it all but impossible to function productively here because so much of their world view would be contradicted at every turn by the project. Openly declaring extremist beliefs of this nature anywhere on the project, including their user page, would represent the kind of disruption that would get a WP:ZT block from me. But it's not the beliefs I am blocking. It's an editor who has advertised that they are incapable of working in a collaborative project within the framework of our WP:PG by disruptively announcing their vile beliefs to the community. As I have said elsewhere, I can't realistically see any circumstance where someone with those views would not quickly self-destruct. The only hypothetical scenario that I have ever come across that might stand as an exception would be if a user was doxed for their beliefs but at no point ever said or did anything on the project that advertised their true character. But to repeat, yet again, when I block somebody, it is because of somehting they did that is disruptive. That may include advertising their beliefs. But it is not the beliefs themselves. So yeah, if you are a Nazi, a Klansman, a Stalinist or a supporter of any other ideology associated with repression and mass murder, you would do well to keep those views to yourself. Because if you advertise them in my presence, your tenure here is likely going to be measure in however many seconds it takes me to make three clicks on my mouse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you admins who have signed that list have grossly mischaracterized the nature of the essay and the words of numerous editors on this page and in the archives who have patiently explained to numerous others, including a large number of disruptive new editors and IPs that the essay is not "block people over their private beliefs" but rather "the expression of these particular private beliefs on Wikipedia is a violation of long-standing behavioral policies, and here's why". You're both tilting at straw men, and refusing to accept the corrections that are literally all over the place around here, including a succinct one in this very thread, by Greyfell.
And by your own admission, you're doing so in service of circumstances which you've never seen, and admit to finding incredibly unlikely.
I stand by what I said. I find it hilarious that some people can be so devoted to their own naval-gazings that they're willing to align themselves with literal Nazis on such a question, and identify themselves publicly as doing so, so that the Nazis all know who has a sympathetic ear for their sealioning, and the rest of us know whose judgement not to trust.
Best of luck to you both! lol Happy (Slap me) 22:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This essay goes further than just saying Nazis will be blocked on sight for expressing their views, it says that "Nazis ... and other inappropriate discriminatory groups" should not participate in our community regardless of their conduct and ability to follow our rules. This is a slippery slope -- how would we determine which ideologies make someone completely unwelcome here? The label "Nazi" makes it seem easy, since it's a term near-universally understood as evil, but what about other discriminatory views, such as those who identify as "white nationalist" or "neo-fascist"? Many of the people who embrace these labels are ignorant because of their upbringing, circumstances and the influences they've been exposed to, not because they're (necessarily) massively more nasty or stupid than others. Although their views make it difficult, some of these people can and do participate respectfully in conversations with others in society, and gradually moderate their positions through exposure. Others get along day-to-day with co-workers and peers because they keep their toxic views to themselves. These people can in principle contribute here without being disruptive. Also, what's unique about racism -- a pseudoscientific concept -- compared to other discriminatory beliefs founded on irrational, baseless premises? For example, homophobes who think gay people don't exist, or transphobes who think trans people are making it all up. On Wikipedia, these views mean denying the validity of other editors' experience and existence, but editors are not banned solely for holding them, they're banned for expressing their views in an offensive, toxic and/or disruptive manner. There are ethno-nationalist conflicts covered on Wikipedia that are so extreme that editors from opposing sides hold views that are racist, hate-filled and/or genocide-denying, often because these views are widespread in their communities. Most of these individuals are blocked sooner or later. But a small number are able to participate within the bounds of our policies, and in some cases I have seen them grow more tolerant (or at least publicly retract their previous views).
I can't speak for Tamzin or AO, but this is the basis of my inability to fully endorse the essay in its entirety, even though I sympathise or agree with all of it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going anywhere productive, and off-topic to boot. Let it go, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@HappyMcSlappy: I'm all for allowing a clean start, but having the same argument with me twice, a year apart, on two different accounts, is kind of pushing the "clean" part, don't you think? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me. I'm not interested in having any discussions with you at all. Happy (Slap me) 12:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, please don't browbeat HappyMcSlappy. No one knows what you're talking about. Are we supposed to guess what this having the same argument with me twice, a year apart, on two different accounts is even about? Clean start, what? If you can't respond to the substance of an argument, then it's probably best to just not respond.
But creating this chilling effect with a terse one-liner about some unexplained account/argument mystery that no one can follow — I'm sorry to say, but to me, that comes across as a intimidation tactic, whether intended as such or not. As someone who supported your adminship (albeit wasn't around for the mid-way drama), I urge you to be cognizant of power disparities (forget even the responsiveness fail) whenever you, yourself, engage in spirited debates. Thank you. El_C 06:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, El C, the comment was directed at HMcS, who knows exactly what I'm referring to. That I said no more was out of respect, not out of intimidation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, even your reply to me, right here right now, feature these same terse one-liner, non-responsive characteristics I was referring to. HMcS may well know, but the rest of us don't. Try to step back and detach yourself for a second, read what you've written again, and think about how others might perceive it. Others who may not be as confident as myself in expressing this criticism. Obviously, HMcS did not view your warning (or whatever you call it) as being about "respect" — because why would they? All it looks like is you trying to silence them on the basis of hidden, non-public reasons (what, are they to out themselves?). Which is just not on. El_C 11:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I'm being brief to avoid drawing more attention, again out of respect—whether you see it that way or not. If he has nothing further to say here, then neither do I. If you have thoughts on a better way to call out a CLEANSTART violation without voiding someone's CLEANSTART, I'm happy to continue this on my talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a CLEANSTART violation to debate something with you (or rather, around you) a year later? No, let's not split the discussion. El_C 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much clearer I can make this, El_C: You don't need to understand why this is a policy violation. No one but HMcS needs to. I am not acting as an admin or SPI clerk here. I am not seeking any administrative action. I am not seeking to discredit someone I disagree with. I was notifying an editor that he was in violation of policy, and intentionally doing so in the most minimal terms possible. If you don't understand what I meant, then good, I've done it right. I believe you're a fan of my essay Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know. It applies here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fan of it being expressed in a non-humorous way, unlike how WP:BEANS is. But you should not get to stifle an editor's argument that's contrary to your own without explaining anything beyond "CLEANSTART vio." Now, if they were doing it constantly (whatever it is you say that they're doing), then that's one thing. But a year later? So I'm letting you know that it looks bad. El_C 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Heavens' sake, El_C. I'll email you. You know, the thing that essay says you should do if you don't understand why an editor has declined to explain something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C, just as Tamzin is wildly misrepresenting what this essay says despite correction, she has somehow decided that this particular argument (which I have quite literally never had before) is actually a continuation of some other argument.
I very much appreciate your efforts here, but I'd ask that you drop it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Tamzin has even the slightest engagement with reality on this particular issue, as can be evidence by her wildly diverging comments to various editors on this very page, as well as other evidence, so I don't think there's anything to be gained here. You can't reason with an unreasonable belief.
I also don't like the idea of a conversation about me taking place like this. Again, thank you for your efforts. Happy (Slap me) 12:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I wasn't asking for details to be provided publicly, I'm criticizing your overall approach. Both of you are on opposite sides of an argument, so framing it on the basis of need-to-know, that's problematic, in my view. El_C 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: While I appreciate the work you've put into the project and its community, we will have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see what we gain by giving these kind of people (openly racist, queerphobic etc.) the benefit of the doubt. They don't need to advocate for violent "solutions", normalizing these ideas are more than enough to cause real damage to people, and, for that reason, I don't think they should be allowed (something between welcome and unwelcome) here as long as they behave. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@186.102.22.21, re your signature below: it's important to clarify, NPOV applies to article space, no one is saying that editors must remain neutral in their general comments on talk pages and whatever. That's a misunderstanding of NPOV, which applies to how we write the encyclopedia. The entire point of WP:FALSEBALANCE is to say that we should accurately represent the consensus of scholars, not our own opinions, and not a false sense of neutrality between all opinions. It's a common straw man argument, be careful about that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non endorsers (follow up)

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

  1. Tradediatalk 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to subsection below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to subsection below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What an editor believes, posts, etc off Wikipedia, should have no effect on whether or not they should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. As long as such an editor isn't pushing their PoV on the project, beyond the editor's userpage & user-talkpage? Then there's no problem. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I look at a user's user page and notice that the user thinks it would be a great idea to murder some of my friends, there is no problem?
    The only way a Nazi is no problem is if they give no indication of it in Wikipedia at all. And then the essay does not apply. If they have an off-Wiki page with their view, there is no way we can positively connect the user with the off-wiki page, unless they make the connection themselves in both sites. And that would be the "indication of it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd be better off, worrying less about what's on an editor's userpage & more about whether they're pushing their personal PoV outside their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be true for some ideologies (although I personally oppose issue-based userboxen, at a minimum), but something like "This user supports turning the U.S. into a white ethnostate" actively damages our collaborative editing atmosphere. Editors don't want to work with editors who want them killed, enslaved, deported, or raped. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from userpages. Give it about another decade. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This an encyclopedia, not a safe space. The whole point of NPOV is to remain neutral, especially, specifically, in the face of points of views one detests. It is very easy to remain “neutral” if points of view you do not agree with are squelched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.22.21 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With reservations, I add my name to this list. I agree with Jr8825 that NPOV doesn't come with a caveat of "... as long as we approve of the politics involved." Beyond that, I'm troubled by the increase in the following syndrome: people pick out something like a Confederate flag infobox on a user page, conclude thereby that the editor is a racist, scream NONAZIS! at ANI as if this were a policy and not an essay, and lo! the lynch mob gathers. For my part, I strongly feel that display of the Confederate flag is disgusting and an emblem of treason, but I somehow missed the part where loyalty to the United States government is a defining policy of Wikipedia. We should all stoutly oppose thought police. The best way to convince people that Wikipedia isn't the dominion of extremist left-wing lynch mobs is for it not to be one. Ravenswing 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that proudly displaying the confederate flag is a problem because of its relationship to the US government. The issue is that the flag itself represents a hateful ideology which included (at the very least a lack of opposition to) enslavement of people based on the color of their skin. I would also support a guideline against displaying celtic cross flags on one's userpage for similar reasons. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is basic: we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements which we not only firmly believe represent hateful, divisive and/or oppressive ideologies, but also believe they must be suppressed so that no one sees them. Quite a few people number rainbow flags and BLM displays among them. Would you, therefore, support a guideline banning display of rainbow flag infoboxes (which until quite recently I had on my talk page)? Surely that is a sentiment deeply offensive to wide segments of the worldwide population, especially in the many countries which criminalize homosexuality? Where exactly do you propose to draw the line? Ravenswing 03:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the false equivalence between the confederate and rainbow flags. If I can't waive a symbol attached to white supremacy in my page, should others be able to show their support for oppressed minorities? Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    we all have our private definitions of symbols or statements Sure, and that's why we rely on the consensus of wikpedia editors (and outside scholars) to determine which symbols/statements would qualify. This is the English wikipedia, not the Russian, Turkish, or Israeli wikipedia. We draw the line at ideologies which seek to deprive others of rights, or systematically murder, rape, or enslave those who are different. Rainbow flags advocate no such thing, and as Isabelle has said, this argument is a false equivalency. It also reminds me of this billboard — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This essay is a violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project. I also oppose expression of one's own political leanings on Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of the correlation between white supremacist ideologies and disruptive editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. The problems with this essay are deeper than objecting editors identify. The problem isn't so much banning off-wiki Nazis, who would have a problem with banning people who advocate gassing six million Jews, although if their on-wiki behavior is good why bother. The problem is conflating a bunch of things with this, even apparently statistical facts, then pulling the "Nazi" card whenever anyone suggests such views be included in Wikipedia. There's a Motte-and-bailey fallacy going on. The real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites: the bailey. Then when this essay is questioned the response is "we should allow Nazism?": the motte. Frank Braithwaite (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "the real aim of this essay is suppression of material on group differences, immigration, and nationalism amongst whites and only whites" no it isn't. It's about the method we use to prevent people who think this from wasting our time, making others feel unwelcome and pushing intolerant pseudoscience. The disagreement is between those who think possessing certain hateful ideologies makes someone inherently unwelcome here, and those who think we should only exclude people based on actions that violate and/or demonstrate an inability to follow our principles. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be your opinion that a position on group differences outside equality is intolerant pseudoscience, but would you agree that such a position has no necessary connection to Nazism? Frank Braithwaite (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may misunderstand. White Nationalism is also not a viewpoint that we accept on this encyclopedia as compatible with reasonable discourse. It doesn't matter if its Nazism or regular White Nationalism. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. [Moved from subsection above 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)] Espousing hateful views on-wiki, or linking to the off-wiki espousal of those views, is per se disruptive, and I have no problem blocking users who do so for disruptive editing. But I do not think that anyone is unwelcome to edit Wikipedia based on their ideology, as long as they are able to abide by our policies. I'm skeptical that there's very many Nazis who are able to abide by our policies, but to the extent they exist, they are... well, "welcome" is a strong word, but not unwelcome. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the word you're looking for is "tolerated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've elaborated further on my thoughts at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, an essay I'd started about a year ago after a previous discussion on this talk page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This essay conveys perfectly why one does not need to be an endorser or non-endorser of this essay to agree that professed nazis should be blocked. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A few friends asked me to reconsider my non-endorsement, and I respectfully declined, because I hope that it's clear from what I've written that I have zero hesitation to block Nazis and similar, and rather disagree as to what philosophy should underly such blocks. Altanner1991, however, succeeds where said friends failed in convincing me to clarify more pointèdly. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror knowing that I'm grouped together with someone who thinks American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups. It's not personal offense, mind you. I'm not a liberal. But... Jesus. I'm not sure which interpretation of that comment is more alarming: "Liberals support genocide" or "Supporting genocide is no worse than cancelling people on Twitter [or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing]".
    This isn't a change in opinion. Just seeking to differentiate myself from those who make a mockery of the slaughter of my ancestors and my peers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've requested Altanner1991, exclude American politics, liberalism & the genocide comparisons, from his 'unendorse' comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if editors aren't pushing their PoV outside their userpage? Then they shouldn't be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: I'm not sure why you've signed in this section with a rationale that contradicts the point of this section. What you are describing is not "support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation". Userpages are not exempt from the disruptive editing policy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, as I misunderstood this 'new' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think I can recall an instance of an openly racist editor who did not end up getting blocked, usually quickly. That said, when I issue a block, I do so in response to behavior, not beliefs. Blocking solely on the basis of ideology, even when truly odious, is a dangerous and slippery slope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On a fundamental level, I believe "that [a racist worldview is] inherently incompatible with Wikipedia". But I don't agree with the assertion that it's possible for a person to not be "welcome to edit Wikipedia ... so long as they stick to the letter of our policies". The letter of policies such as "assuming good faith", "be civil to others", "maintain a neutral point of view" is that a collaborative, open-minded spirit must be adhered to. If someone is capable of following these policies on-wiki, and their off-wiki conduct has no repercussions on or to the wiki, there's no basis for preventing them from participating here. When a bigot is unable to follow our principles, for example by expressing hatred of others in the user space, the basis for revoking their editing privileges would be their failure to adhere to policy, not their worldview itself. Jr8825 • Talk 16:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ribbon Day 2022

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

neo-Confederacy

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

You do realize that this is an essay? It is not policy or a guideline. The linked discussion resulted in an indef block for a great deal more than confederate imagery or userboxes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know it's an essay, doesn't that mean it shouldn't be as much of a big deal to add what I added to it? Regardless, do you disagree on the merits? Andre🚐 21:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with labeling everyone who has questioned the current orthodoxy surrounding the US Civil War as racist. I think it could raise BLP issues for one thing. As a matter of personal opinion, I think the South was wrong and the argument that slavery was not the principal cause of the war is unsupportable based on historic evidence. But it is a massive leap from there to labeling everyone who disagrees with me as a racist. This is staring to smell like an ever-expanding ideological purge of people we don't agree with. Writing as someone whose ancestors and co-religionists were the victims of mass persecution, there are a lot of symbols I find abhorrent and deeply offensive, but that are readily found all over the project on user pages. It strikes me that some in the community are highly selective in their outrage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis&oldid=1109403638"