Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi

 __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  Delete Redirect and keep content at WP:BLP Zealot There clearly is no need to prolong this and the specific point of concern had been addressed. Leaving this open would be process for the sake of itself. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP Nazi
I was going to speedy this out of hand, but decided that might just stir drama.

What do I say? Do I need to say anything?

Unhelpful, offensive, divisive, inappropriate. If we've got problem with BLP being misused lets discuss them without the poisonous attacks. I know Godwin is history, but.... Scott Mac 09:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Ridiculous. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, quietly, without remorse. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mein Gott. Es muss eine bessere Weise geben, Ihre Meinung der BLP Politik auszudrücken, ohne gerade zu gehen zum "rufen Sie Ihre Konkurrenten Nazis" an. Löschung mit extremem Vorurteil. (or in english, My god. There has to be a better way to express your opinion of the BLP policy without going straight to "call your opponents Nazis". Delete with extreme prejudice.) SirFozzie (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously meant to push people's buttons. Not very helpful. Inappropriate. I've seen worse userspace essayists voicing their frustrations but at least they don't have the gall to try to push it onto projectspace. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to the new title and rewrite. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the essay were not severely misguided, it is never helpful to refer to other editors as Nazis. If the author has a point to make, they should express themselves more clearly by addressing a specific issue on the relevant page, or WP:BLPN if their complaint is more general. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:CIVIL and is in very poor taste. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC) If this was the original title I wouldn't have bothered to !vote so I will now remove my !vote. Please note, I am not changing to Keep, I just don't care. J04n(talk page) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unacceptable. Wouldn't even be appropriate as a userspace essay imo, let alone in project space. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - if this is "humour" then I suggest the author rethink their capabilities as a humorous writer. We get the point, and we don't need this essay to hammer it home. Time someone closed this MfD under WP:SNOW. Pedro : Chat  12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've commented on the creator's talkpage, before the MfD was created. I do think that we should probably await the creator's response before taking any action, provided that response comes soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy or keep. They opinion is now conveyed without reference to Nazis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)   Delete per The first person to mention Hitler in a debate automatically loses!.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps none of you have seen the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld so don't get the usage? Otherwise, I can't understand this reaction.  Lighten up, folks. It's a brilliant and much needed essay for situations in which people object to notable BLP material that is well sourced in reliable high quality sources just because it is critical of the subject.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You find it is "brilliant and much needed" to call other editors Nazis when you disagree with them over BLP? Troubling.--Scott Mac 14:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. In this context, just like in Soup Nazi, "Nazi" is obviously intended to convey "excessively strict regimentation".  Perhaps there is another word that does so as effectively, but I can't think of one.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, you lose.--Scott Mac 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very sad and pathetic when one cannot make their point without labeling their perceived opposition a Nazi. Even if such language were removed, the overall tone is worthless as an essay; essays are to summarize/present a particular opinion on editing; this is here just to attack.  I think a speedy would have been more than justified here. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sorry to find myself disagreeing with people I normally agree with on BLPs, but I found this very funny. I like the idea of articles reduced to "Christopher Connor exists". :D And as an aside I was glad to learn about the Tree That Owns Itself. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have regularly reduced articles to little more than "John Smith is a personcitation needed" because nothing else was referenced and people objected to deletion. However, I have not gassed any Jews, gays or gypsies, or been accused of genocide, and I do not appreciate the comparison.--Scott Mac 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think as Born2 said it's a Soup Nazi reference. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I hear Nazi I think of Hitler and genocide, not some US sitcom I've never watched. Besides, I suspect the pictured of the fuhrer and his army also tend to confuse people into thinking we've talking of the mass-murderer of Europe and not trash TV. My bad.--Scott Mac 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have had much fun in Stalingrad, would you? :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, you say you have "regularly reduced articles ... because nothing else was referenced", and then imply you're concerned you'd be labeled a BLP Nazi for doing that. But deleting material in BLPs that is not properly sourced is not being a BLP Nazi.  This essay clearly targets only those who take BLP too far, deleting material that they don't like, probably because it's critical of someone they admire, even though it does not violate BLP (i.e., notable, properly sourced in reliable high quality sources, etc.).  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Don't care  I suspect that as the architect of the death anomalies report I may be part of what this is attacking over recently dead people, I'm not aware of anything else focussing on deaths and would like to know what he, or anyone else actually dislikes about what we are doing. The rest of the attack is so egregious that I can't quite get what changes he is really trying to achieve - much of the author's other activity seems to involve trying to delete articles, so this isn't even a reaction to the uBLP debates. Apart from one recent AFD on a spinout "allegations" section, I'm not aware of any recent issues about sourced negative material, except where issues of undue come in. So if he is trying to suggest including any negative incident however minor provided it is sourced, then I suggest he start an RFC and make his case.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of grammar Nazi and similar phrases, I just find them distasteful. Don't care now its been renamed and the photo removed.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Scott, maybe in the interests of unity then, some more collaborativeness is needed all round, so maybe time to get rid of pages like  this or this if this BLP nazi page has to go. If you get rid of yours I'll be happy to consider a new standard in non-divisiveness and delete this page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the second of those, you have a fair point. It serves no purpose than to disparage - now gone. The earlier one does serve to make proper points and is written in a measured and balanced tone, attacking no-one. A number of Wikipedians have indicated that they have reflected and learned from it, and it is linked to several important discussions. This, on the other hand, seriously misrepresents those enforcing BLP and sets out to attack. It helps no debate. If they want to write an essay on over-zealous enforcement of BLP with concrete examples, I may strongly disagree with it, but I will interact with it rather than ask for its deletion.--Scott Mac 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting rid of the first one - I do think all efforts to herd cats that are wikipedia editors in the same direction are helped by divisive material. I think that although the essay is written neutrally, it makes some pretty cutting statements on other editors' actions and intentions (i.e. I'd disagree that it attacks no-one) - the sort of material you'd want diffs supplied if it were anywhere else. I am also not sure that passing judgement is such a great idea in your own userspace is that fair either. The acute microcosm it relates to I think has long subsided, so I'd really question whether it is detracting more than helping. I could write some "civil" commentaries on other actions and stick them in my userspace too, but I really don't think it is conducive to all working together in the long term. More of a case to put up or shut up methinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't like my essay, fine. But the comparison you are making is apples and oranges. The essay generated discussion about the whole system of arbcom, and (flatteringly) was positively commented by a number of arbs and generated some discussion during the arbcom elections. It went out of its way to be fair - and self-reflective. Many who disagreed with it interacted with it, without any sense of offence. It used a particular drama to explore and illustrate a wider point - moving from specifics to underlying issues. To compare it with a rant which seeks to label people "Nazis" and "Zealots" is simply not an argument that works at all. The weakness of the case-study method is that the case-study is now somewhat dated. Is that a reason to delete it? Well, no more reason than to delete the pages of arbcom cases (and leave only the principles passed, and remedies still in place), or for that matter to delete this. Yes, I know, apples and oranges again.--Scott Mac 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are threads of commonality in all this, so the apples and oranges I'll take to mean there are some fruity links. You yourself called your own page a rant. In any case, it wasn't a question of whether or not I like the essay but on the whole spirit of the thing. However, as we have two fixed world views I'll leave it there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pig-headed, condescending and infuriating"? Whatever can he mean? :-O SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ecx2Comment. Even in the sitcom, the character in question was offended and hurt by being compared to a Nazi. Another thing to remember is that Wikipedia is viewed by people all over the world, many of which have no knowledge of this TV show. This comparison is completely inappropriate for a project that claims civility to be one of its main policies. J04n(talk page) 16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the Soup Nazi's behavior was inappropriate in that it was excessively strict regimentation, and calling him a "Soup Nazi" brought his attention and consideration to this. That's the purpose here too. The elephant in the room is the behavior of those who take BLP too far, and how to get them to see that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. For all of you who voted Delete because you are unfamiliar with using the term "Nazi" as a modifier to simply, innocently and light-heartedly convey excessively strict regimentation, then I can understand why you might take it's use in this context much more literally than was intended, and be offended.  To become exposed to this usage, and entertained, I suggest you watch this. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment is more about divisive rants essays in general and the emotion therein. I find it amusing that Scott has two such examples in his userspace when taking such action here. Ultimately I feel that we need to raise the collaborative benchmark and fling more divisive debates out the window, but I think Scott would be stepping up to the plate by deleting his own as well in the interests of fostering a collaborative environment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have half agreed with you, and responded above.--Scott Mac 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Please don't assume ignorance on the part of people that have weighed in with an opinion opposing your own. I'm well-familiar with the "Soup Nazi" connotation as well as similarly-termed memes e.g. "grammar nazi".  Whether or not the essay author meant to convey the subject "innocently and light-heartedly" is besides the point; it matters more how the community would tend to react to a term such as "BLP Nazi" being used to describe a group of editors, and IMO the reaction is a bad one. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I chose my words carefully, Tarc. No such assumption was made, nor should have been conveyed by my words.  It was intended only for those (I know of at least one) who are unfamiliar with the connotation and that is why they voted to Delete. As far as deleting it because someone else might misunderstand and be offended by it, isn't that taking political correctness a bit too far?  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's "OMG censorship!" over Armstrong's doping article or "OMG political correctness!" here, you sure do like to toss out the scare terms, eh? Let's not elevate this to the level of Ray Bradbury being told by readers that his own interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 is wrong; this is a dumb Wikipedia essay where a group of editors are labeled in a derogatory manner.  "Just a misunderstanding" doesn't come into play here; the term is simply offensive when used in this manner against a group of people. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tarc, please do not resort to Ad hominem attacks ("you sure do like to toss out the scare terms..."); remember WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."). Thanks. I'm not following what you're saying.  You say this essay labels a group of editors in a derogatory manner.  What group of editors is that?  Can you identify even one editor that  belongs in the group supposedly labeled in a derogatory manner by this essay?  I suggest no such group exists, and so there is no group that is labeled by this essay as you say.  Since it's not used against a group of people (since there is no group), it's not offensive for the reason you say it is.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack, cease the hysterics. Did you actually read the essay you're cheerleading here?  Are you unaware of the giant "unreferenced BLP" debate that has gone on here for the last year or so?  The essay attacks editors who take a very strict line against such articles, editors who (in the mind of the author), cite WP:BLP policy incorrectly or too stringently. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack? Really?  Please explain to me how a comment like "you sure do like to toss out the scare terms..." is not a comment attacking the person making that comment, but is a comment about content.  Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath. No, I'm not aware of the "unreferenced BLP" debate, nor what this essay might have to do with that.  I do know the essay explicitly states it's about invocation of BLP for material that is properly referenced.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this was partly serious and partly humourous. I'm not particularly involved in the BLP policy or in editing BLPs, and I created this after seeing some incidents where people were misusing the policy (not going to list any, obviously, but everyone has probably seen quite a few). Certainly, I didn't create this page in anger after falling afoul of the policy eg trying to add negative material to a political enemy and being directed to WP:BLP. Neither should the essay be taken to mean that I don't like the policy, only that it shouldn't be misused in either direction. It wasn't my intention to offend people, or to launch personal attacks, and I'm sorry if people were. As for whether the main thrust of the essay should exist, I'll vote keep but if people want to change the name and content, that can be done in the course of normal editing. If SlimVirgin votes to keep, I'm sure it can't be too bad. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added an explanatory usage note to the top of the essay. I suggest we wait and see if people react differently now that this clarification is in place.  As far as renaming, I can't think of another term that so effectively conveys "excessively strict regimentation".  WP:BLPOLICE, for example, is not nearly as good, because policing is, by definition, legitimate enforcement.  What this essay is about is those who go beyond the normal and appropriate policing in accordance with BLP that we presumably all support.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's an essay about Wikipedia. If the term Nazi is offensive, I suggest changing it to "BLP Zealot" Gigs (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Zealot! Yes!  That works almost as well, certainly well enough.  Christopher, do you agree?  I'm tempted to change it immediately, but suggest waiting for some indication of consensus.   I wonder how many will reverse their decision about deletion with a change of "Nazi" to "zealot"?   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it to zealot or anything else. Certainly, nobody needs my permission to edit that essay, and as you say people may even change their minds after this. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my commments on your talkpage, before this MfD was commenced. I found the use of the photograph of Adolf Hitler leading a Nazi parade or rally, with the accompanying caption, to be particularly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also removed the one image since it no longer applies. Maybe we can find one that appropriately depicts zealots? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also moved the page to WP:BLP Zealot and then to WP:BLP zealot (thinking the second is grammatically correct), which messed up the mfd tag, so I inserted that back into WP:BLP Nazi which is now of course a redirect. Hope that's all still kosher, though now of course it's unclear if we're talking about deleting the redirect or the edited essay now at WP:BLP zealot.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I now see the tag says not to move the article.  I don't think I can move it back since I messed up the redirects.  Can an admin fix my mess please?  Sorry!  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about others, but my opinion to delete remains unchanged. Both the former name and the overall tone and intent of this attack essay were problems.  This is a half-solution, and the only cure for the other half is deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With the image my intention was to point out that the zealot is prone to engage in irrational behaviour and to over-extend the reaches of the BLP policy. Such a picture would have a big impact in showing this. He would extend the policy to animals when the title specifically says "persons", showing things to be nonsense. I apologise if the image and caption were offensive, and it's now gone. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that animals aren't persons, mind you. :-p SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't get the point. We have essays to humorously address bad behavior, caution against a rebounding complaint, not needlessly antagonizi8ng others, be cool when dealing with strong opinions, and so on.  What use is this one?  When would it ever be appropriate to cite or reference, other than during the course of a debate to inflame one's opponent?  This would be like if I wrote an essay called "inclusionists suck"; I certainly believe it, but laying it down in an essay form would accomplish little but pissing said people off. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sense-of-humour failure here, guys. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Methinks someone is being something of BLP zealot. That's how it might be used... perhaps to give one pause about the stridency of his or her position.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (or possibly userfy) provided the Nazi references stay out. The essential point of the essay - that it is possible to overapply the BLP policy, and that people sometimes do this - is not unreasonable. Certainly it's no more objectionable than many inclusionist essays attacking deletion policies. The problem lies in the fact that the author used the language of Nazism to convey their views. Even if this wasn't intended to be taken entirely seriously it is guaranteed to be interpreted as a personal attack and isn't appropriate. But changing it to "zealot" is considerably better. Hut 8.5 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – There's some overlap with the essay Crying "BLP!". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay that does in fact represent the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" even though it is a "minority viewpoint". With the reference to Nazis taken out, I don't see this as being offensive. AniMate  21:38, 22 October 2010 (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.