Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedied per prior, closely related MfD. This discussion has just come to my attention. The "Strasserist" userbox is linked on only one userpage, and that page belongs to a banned troll. I find that this discussion falls within the scope and rationale of my closing, which was not challenged, in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism, which concerned another userbox created by the same user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist


Divisive userbox. Let me preface with the following note: The user "hosting" this userbox seems to have only created it for the sake of being comprehensive, I don't suspect it was created with divisive intent. That said, Strasserism is ultimately nothing more than Nazism with an economic framework - take Marx's "the worker is being exploited by, and ought overthrow, the factory owner", and replace "factory owner" with "Jew banker" and add a pinch of ultra-nationalism and you basically have Strasserism. There are other economic schools of thought that a non-Nazi editor would identify with (I believe primarily some form of Marxist Socialism, perhaps a more learned editor can chime in?), and as such I believe that this userbox is no more acceptable than one which says "this user believes that taxpayers are being exploited by black people (/women/homosexuals/left-handed tennis players), and believes that it is every patriotic citizen's duty to reclaim the assets of blacks (/women/homosexuals/left-handed tennis players) and redistribute them fairly amongst non-blacks (/non-women/non-homosexuals/non-left-handed tennis players)". It is currently transcluded on three pages: The creator's own "list of userboxes I've created", Userboxes/Politics, and, predictably enough, a mostly-inactive user who self-describes as "an atheist Strasserist and WWII enthusiast" - I'm not a dog, but my ears are killing me here. Badger Drink (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep—I think we're onto slightly risky ground when the deletion or non-deletion of a page depends upon such political analysis as, "Strasserism is ultimately nothing more than Nazism with an economic framework." I'm Jewish and have more than one qualification in history, yet still had to click on the link to see what Strasserism is/was. I don't think it's that likely to offend people. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale  ─╢ 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more strongly. I'm sure there are African editors in Europe and elsewhere who really don't know what the KKK is, and upon seeing misleading White Pride characterization of it would take issue with it being later described as "ultimately nothing more than bigotry and racism with a religious framework" - it doesn't make a KKK userbox acceptable. Obscurity is no excuse for bigotry - and make no mistake about it, that's exactly what Strasserism is. If you take objection with my admittedly simplified explanation, feel free to insert your own - it may prove useful to other editors who come along. Now that you've read the article, do you feel Strasserism is something more than what I've described it as? Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think that individuals' interpretation and comparison of particular political beliefs shouldn't have much of a place in decisions about whether or not to delete a page from an encyclopedia. As I also said, I don't think that the userbox is that likely to offend people. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Acting Returning Officer  ─╢ 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an encyclopedia article. This is a userbox. The criteria for deleting divisive userboxes is entirely a matter of individuals' interpretation - unless there's some computer program written by non-individuals that can determine what is divisive and what isn't? And please, let's not sink into moral relativism (the philosophy that's fertilizer for the soil that bigots spring from) - Strasserism is nothing more than a hate group. You say "I don't think that the userbox is that likely to offend people", which I almost can't help but take as a personal slight of some sort, since it quite clearly offends me - and should, quite honestly, offend anybody with the capabilities of reading between the lines. Dressing up anti-Semitism with Marxist rhetoric doesn't magically make bigotry - and, just to reiterate, this is a userbox people can stick on their page to proudly proclaim their own bigotry, not just some encyclopedia article about Nazism with POV issues - acceptable. You missed my earlier question - perhaps accidentally, perhaps not - so (at the risk of sounding repetitive) let me ask again: Now that you've read the article, do you feel that Strasserism is anything beyond what I've described it as? Badger Drink (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are indeed sounding repetitive, but more concerningly, you're not reading my comments. My personal interpretation of Strasserism shouldn't determine the outcome of an MfD so is irrelevant. Your personal interpretation of Strasserism shouldn't determine the outcome of an MfD so is irrelevant. I won't be responding here further, so feel free not to leave a long, dull tirade in response to this. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Tellers' wands  ─╢ 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pity you can't seem to indulge in a good faith conversation and feel the need to resort to impotent insults in lieu of solid reasoning. Badger Drink (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- there doesn't seem to be a "This user identifies as a Nazi" userbox either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was a userbox for "I am a Nazi", would we delete it? Given WP:NOTCENSORED, on what grounds?
 * If, and only if, there is a case to delete such an obviously Nazi userbox, then we should delete this rather more obscure one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, and thanks to self-professed Strasserist User:Schwarzes Nacht, we do indeed have  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy - I would bring to your attention this ARBcom case. While the case was primarily concerned with the wheel-warring involved, consensus (and Jimbo, for whatever that's worth) seems to have held that pro-pedophilia userboxes are disruptive by nature, and can be deleted on those grounds. These are userboxes, completely non-essential to the project's sole goal of being a free GPL encyclopedia - WP:NOTCENSORED refers to encyclopedic content, not to user conduct or user page presentation. Thanks for calling the pro-Nazi userbox to my attention, I will nominate it for deletion as well, on largely the same grounds. Even if there are other pro-Nazi userboxes that have so far escaped attention, I'm a firm proponent of the basic views outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Badger Drink (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the rather unexceptional nature of userpages such as User:Schwarzes Nacht and others supporting similar views, I'd tended to assume that "userbox:I'm a Nazi" was one of those things that WP turns a blind eye to. Presumably it would be UNCIVIL to delete them and then the Niceness Police will kick your doors down.
 * Personally I prefer the old days of Usenet, when civility operated on the basis of a Wild West poker table and the knowledge that everyone else had a finely-crafted flamewar ready at their fingertips. A rough old place, but at least we still knew how to acquaint a fascist's head with the pavement. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree strenuously with the idea of political position userboxes being compared to pedophilia. We have userboxes on other controversial and potentially offensive political viewpoints like communism and objectivism which some people find just as distasteful as national socialism.  We DO NOT have userboxes on other controversial sexual fetishes (rape fetishism, cannibal fetishism, ect.) so pedophilia is inappropriate on that ground as well.  I realize that nazis are as hated as pedophiles in many countries but still they cannot be equated. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note (in the interests of full disclosure) that I have solicited advice and input from WikiProject Economics, mostly concerning whether or not my understanding of Strasserism is correct. Badger Drink (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete if Strasserism really is an offshoot of Nazism then this falls foul of User pages ("material likely to bring the project into disrepute"), and yes the same reasoning applies to a userbox which identifies the user as a Nazi. Hut 8.5 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's incorrect to see Strasserism as any offshoot of Natioanl Socialism, from a chronological point of view if nothing else (there were also political tensions between the two groups and one of the Strassers was killed by Hitler's faction). I can't remember how close they were to Rohm, but they met the same fate.
 * What's incontrovertible though is the anti-Semitic basis of Strasserism and its roots, like National Socialism, in Federism. This early theoretical basis for Hitler's Nazism is what originally put the "Socialism" into National Socialism from its carpet-chewing hatred of capitalism as a Jewish internationalist plot. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well OK, it's an anti-Semitic ideology with close ties to Nazism. That's enough to fall foul of the user page guideline. Hut 8.5 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note—some of the conduct issues from this discussion have been raised at Wikiquette alerts. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 22:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Miscellany for deletion/Nazism userboxes is now open for business.
 * For the benefit of any part-time teachers of Jewish studies who are unaware of anti-Semitic political movements of the mid-20th century: Nazis - they're Bad, m'kay.
 * Nor is ignorance any defence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not be making such value judgements. I personally feel that communists are more "bad" than nazis ever were (and the death tolls bear that opinion out) but we don't censor communist userboxes.  National Socialists exist, the question is would you rather know or not know that the editor you are conversing with is a national socialist?  that's the point of userboxes, to disclose your own bias.  We shouldn't lie to ourselves and pretend no extreme right-wingers edit wikipedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason we don't "censor" Communist userboxes is that Marx never veers into overt racism. Calling Communists "bad" based on corrupt governments labeling themselves as Communist is pretty ridiculous - you might as well consider capitalists even more "bad" for the actions of Slobodan Milosevic, Mussolini, Apartheid South Africa, and so on; or English speakers "bad" because of Ted Bundy. Anyway, back on track, Strasserism explicitly labels a single creed - the Jews - as responsible for economic woes. There's no rational basis for this. Userboxes are not articles, and Wikipedia user space is not a "free speech zone". I would most rather there be no racists, anti-semites, or homophobes on the project - but, if that goal is deemed too unrealistic, I believe the least that we, as a community, can ask for is that the racists, anti-semites, and homophobes not be allowed to bring the project into ill-repute by publicly declaring their irrational hatred for various segments of humanity. I hope I don't come across as "Badgering" (heh) here, that's honestly not my intent - I'm just trying to foster discussion, and hopefully at least allow you to better understand my perspective. Badger Drink (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You raise a very cogent point, and I admit I find myself torn. I have no love for racists, nazis or anti-semites, but on the other hand they do exist in the project, I'd rather they have the means to self-label and disclose bias. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - and don't get me wrong, I do understand where you're coming from. In certain situations, I agree that "better the thief you know" can be appropriate, but I don't believe Wikipedia is one of those places. The problem is that disclosing biases doesn't neutralize the biases. I don't think a badge on a page really helps - we have a contribution history link to make all those evident. Biased edits are bad edits are biased edits are bad edits, and if someone wades into the Adolph Hitler article with a pen of rapturous praise, their edits will certainly come under scrutiny regardless of what public declarations they have and haven't made on their userpage. So really that, in my mind, makes the entire question of "benefit" completely moot, and we're left with the problem of making it look, to outsiders (and probably more than a few insiders) like Wikipedia is providing bigots with a welcoming environment to express their troubling, irrational hatred (different from a troubling, possibly-irrational political philosophy like Objectivism or Communism). While I'm loathe to sound like I'm trivializing matters, I feel an analogy may best explain my views: It doesn't matter what sports team you root for, but it's understandable if the New York Yankees take issue with their star center fielder sewing a Boston Red Sox patch onto his uniform before trotting out to play. Of course, sports teams are harmless and hate ideology can be quite harmful - but the key point I'm trying to make here is that things which would normally fall under freedom of speech and right to self-expression may be understandably curtailed in certain environments. Nobody's forcing a Strasserist or Nazi skinhead to edit Wikipedia - they come here of their own free will, so it's up to them to behave in a matter deemed acceptable by the community. Badger Drink (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I entirely disagree with the anti-Semitic basis of Strasserism, but if an editor is committed to the ideology, stating that he is a Strasserist cannot be seen to be disruptive. We should not delete userspace content because it is racist if it is not disruptive. This would be a form of ideological censorship, and I see absolutely no evidence that this userbox obstructs the project in any way: it in fact helps the project by indicating some of the prejudices the editor. Something is not disruptive simply because it may offend. Anthem 13:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - offensive, divisive, and of no value to the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not for promoting neo-Nazism (or any other ideology), and to my mind that's exactly what userboxes like this one do. Yes, I'd be up for deleting all political identification userboxes, but we may as well start with the most offensive ones. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.