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) &#8213; 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)
 * 19) oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 20)  python coder   (talk &#124; contribs)
 * 21) Rockstone   talk to me!   21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Davide King (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 23) Orangemike -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 24) Archon 2488 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 25) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 26) GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 27) Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 28) Isabelle 🔔 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 29) Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 30) lovkal (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 31) P-K3 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 32)  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 33)  Mini  apolis  02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 34) No Nazis, and also no QAnons. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 35) No Xenophobes on WP. Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 36) Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 37) Firestar464 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 38) aeschyIus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 39) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 04:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 40) No racism, no pseudoscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 41) Oh hell ya HighInBC Need help? Just ask.  04:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 42) Loki (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 43) Like the Dead Kennedys said. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 44) Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 45) A more universal essay there could never be. I will not suffer hate on our Wiki. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 46)  FormalDude   (talk)  04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 No Nazis namespace Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 48)  ⌘  18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 49)  ASUKITE  18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 50) – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 51) Seconding the Dead Kennedys' statement. - Sumanuil 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 52) Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 53) Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 54) Fuck Nazis. X-Editor (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 55) Quid Est Squid (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 57)  casualdejekyll  14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 58) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 59) Googleguy007 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 61)   HurricaneEdgar    11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 62) Hate is not welcome here Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 63) No pasarán. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 64) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 65) Take a walk, Hitler lovers.  No room for your BS. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 67) Unequivocally. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) I am inspired by the courage of these words. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Nazis are aptly named. We should "not see" their writings in our encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Andre🚐 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) — VersaceSpace  🌃 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) —  Sundostund   mppria  (talk / contribs) 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)   WP scatter  t/c 06:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) I support having no Nazis on Wikipedia. A fact website is no place for bigotry. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:7970:99A:495A:55E8 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) The glorification of racist, murderous war criminals does not belong on Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 18) One could make the "we shouldn't ban people for their beliefs argument", but that's not a position Wikipedia has had for a very long time.  Wikipedia has been banning pedophiles and suspected pedophiles on the spot since around 2007 for the simple reason they cause more problems than they solve; this should be extended to include racists and other extremists who tend to not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit the Wikipedia in a neutral manner.  There is also the entire Nazi bar problem: Places which do not kick out fascists soon become spaces dominated by fascists. Samboy (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 19) If nazis try promoting their views or existence in a public arena, the only acceptable response is to run them out of town by any means necessary. The digital commons is no different. No pasarán. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
 * 20) DFlhb (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Nazis (and for that matter, any other type of bigots) don't belong on Wikipedia because 1) they create a hostile, incivil editing environment and 2) they come in here to push an agenda and violate NPOV (extremists are virtually incapable of editing neutrally). Thus Nazis and such are against the fundamental nature of Wikipedia and don't belong here, period. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 23:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 22) Nazism and white supremacy are inherently hateful and exclusionary ideologies. The opposite qualities, civility and tolerance, are required for being a contributor here. Subscribing to these ideologies is disqualifying on its face.  Titan  Andromeda  19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 23) OutsideNormality (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 24) Nazis are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, its openness to different ethnicities, and its philosophy of supporting access to the sum of all human knowledge for everyone. 22090912l (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 25) Agreed, but don't limit it to the classic boneheads, the Nazis of today wear suits and ties and oppose undocumented immigration, sanctuary cities, a minority-majority and want to erect border walls in the spirit of the 14 words, which summarizes Nazi ideology in a nutshell. Do not let them win in November! Oompje (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 26) In addition to endorsing this essay, editors should also be aware of alternate identities and words less commonly used than 'Nazi' or 'fascism' (such as identitarianism) that may be used as a mask on their belief system. Although we've thankfully surpassed the fascist wave of ~2016–17, we still should be on the look out for this and other dog whistles. Isthmus55 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 27) -- MikutoH talk! 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 28) Pingy Pongy Yeah, no antisemitism, islamaphobia, or any other type of offensophobia is acceptable.
 * 29) 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Similarly to how this is not an airport, and you don't have to announce your departure, 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)) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouting "Nazi" at anyone that disagrees with you is not what this article does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we have an "endorsers" list, then it would be fair to also have a "non endorsers" list as well. I will create one in a section below. Tradedia talk 22:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Your point is well taken. My reason is as follows:
 * How can you label someone you've never met before? You cannot. So this essay is flawed. Look at the edits. If the edits are disruptive, then block for "disruptive editing". End of story. Tradedia talk 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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."
 * Then you bloc the author of this essay? It calls Nazi anyone thinking Stalinist Russia was wrong side in WW II. Maxaxa (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That logical conclusion is faulty. If working with Stalin to overthrow Hitler would make someone a Stalinist, that would mean you only have a choice between Stalinist and Nazi. You should work on your black-and-white thinking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 There's a reason you don't know. It applies here. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * @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, 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)
 * @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. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Non endorsers (follow up)
The following editors do not endorse the contents of this essay.
 * 1) Tradedia talk 22:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved to subsection below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved to subsection below. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Eventually, all userboxes will be barred from userpages. Give it about another decade. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are many communist userboxen out there and some editors have friends who are middle or upper class. Hell, my parents are landlords, and yet I take no issue with people who place Maoist userboxen on their userpage. I don't take it as "I want to shoot your parents because they're rich", I take it as "I have different political beliefs". A user with a nazi userbox won't receive any sympathy from me, but I will not see their userbox as a personal statement of "I want to gas your mom because she's black", I simply take it as "I have terrible political beliefs".
 * That being said, I still support the policy because it helps keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. Absurd and obscene conspiracy theories and beliefs so poorly structured they make a Hooverville look like the Burj Khalifa make up the foundation of Nazism. Where communism acknowledges facts, Nazism does shit like deny the existence of atomic energy because "hurr durr jewish science" and actively denies that certain ethnic groups are even capable of reason. A communist will not hurt Wikipedia. A Nazi will throw a wrench into the works and create more work for others by allowing their beliefs to take precedence over actual facts.
 * Nazism is simply bad for the encyclopedia to an extent no other extreme ideology is. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 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. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Pfft: potato, po-TAH-toe. Yes, of course you think that your way of thinking is morally and ethically right, and that the other guys' way of thinking is immoral and evil by definition. And they think the same way about you.  Is it that you don't get it, or that you just don't give a damn?   Ravenswing      08:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And they think the same way about you No, no. They think the other guys' very existence is immoral and evil by definition, not their thinking. Big difference. A Nazi can stop being a Nazi and get accepted by anti-Nazis, but a Jew (for example) cannot stop being a Jew in a way that will get them accepted by Nazis. Potato, hand grenade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * excellently reasoned and I emphatically agree with my friend the Wandering Jew. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This essay is a violation of 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) I frankly find the entire existence of this page ridiculous; banning nationalists exclusively of one race. Mårtensås (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... what? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) ""That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism."" of course muslims are not the source of terrorism. but saying this SHOULD NOT be punishable, if it is about wikipedia articles, "islam is the source of terrorism"(im not gonna discuss about this with you). so, im not OK with that page, just because of that. modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK  17:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s.: anti-islamism is not just islamophobia. you can hate islam, while dont hate muslims. modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not endorse. This essay is superfluous – if someone is editing with a racist bias, that is already grounds for blocking/banning. The essay is saying that it is acceptable to ban an editor from Wikipedia for their views, rather than their editing. The essay also wrongly implies (a) that non-Nazi forms of racism are acceptable, and (b) that non-racist forms of bias are acceptable. The only function this essay serves is as an opportunity for virtue signalling. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2023
 * 2) Do not endorse. It's hard for me to imagine an essay more antithetical to wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone is allowed edit. I don't care if you are a Nazi or the head of the JDL, if you can contribute constructively to the project, you are welcome here. That goes for axe murderers, girl scouts, priests, pornographers, members of the Mexican Mafia, librarians, crossing guards, and any other group you can mention. We have policies and procedures in place. If you are unable to contribute without running afoul of those policies, then you are not welcome at the project. On the other hand, if you are able to contribute within the bounds of our policies and procedures, then it matters not one whit whether or not you are a "Nazi". It's a shame such an essay is allowed to exist, as it goes against the very philosophy of the project. Of course one wonders whether an essay entitled YES NAZIS would be allowed to exist in kind. An essay that basically explains no one cares what you do in your personal life, as long as it doesn't interfere with your contributions here. (UTC)


 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above statement by Frank Braithwaite is absolutely correct, and I don't know why it was hatted: this essay is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy. An even simpler description is just bait-and-switch: the essay is called "No Nazis", but actually it seems to call for banning basically anyone who thinks there are any differences between any demographic groups. It's the same message as WP:NORACISTS, but written in a way that's 100 times more incendiary. In theory, there could be a reasonable essay arguing for banning those who believe in the tenets of National Socialism (I would disagree with that too, but at least it would be logically consistent); this is not it, though. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) W e do not need ideologically-loaded policies. What comes next? No Falangists, no Confedarates, no nationalists, no conservatives... What about non-Western ideological movements which are difficult to classify but are wrongly assumed to be "fascists" in popular conception? We shall tear down this essay.--Madame Necker (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC) - User blocked for "antisemitic fringe trolling". &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this essay, I would have to agree with the former statements about calling someone a Nazi over a disagreement. With that, I do not endorse this essay. StephenBryant7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC) - User blocked as a sockpuppet. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Giving the admins the option to ban people for a PoV pushing they might hypothetically do at some unspecified point in the future is just asking for abuse--Trade (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Every user is enitiled to edit wikipedia regarless of ther political opinion, as long as they retain a neutral POV. All of us make biased edit, none are free from biases. This article is an insult to history, not all nazis are white, such as the Turkish Gay Wolves who hold nazi beliefs. But Nazism and Fascism aren't based on race, they're based on ethnicty, which is a very basic concept that this essay fails to understand, German nazis would've killed poles even thoguh the poles are white. And if we're banning nazis then we suld also ban communists, then every other political ideology  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Do not endorse, but support blocking for hate speech/conduct/affiliation
Just because someone has a different opinion than yours, doesn't make them Nazis. A Proud Alabamian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the word you're looking for is "tolerated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've elaborated further on my thoughts at Hate is disruptive, an essay I'd started about a year ago after a previous discussion on this talk page. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've requested Altanner1991, exclude American politics, liberalism & the genocide comparisons, from his 'unendorse' comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, as I misunderstood this 'new' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * I think nobody who has endorsed this section has dealt with a civil POV pusher. It's very possible to stick to the letter of Wikipedia policy and still be WP:NOTHERE and/or making the encyclopedia worse. That's the reason one of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, and also why essays like this exist. Loki (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This is probably a cancellable offence, and WP:NPA is a major policy which should be enforced, but, if someone is following NPA and constructively editing Wikipedia, there's no reason to not allow them. In my opinion, Nazis should be shunned, but Wikipedia is not a place to shun Nazis. It's a place to build an encyclopedia. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 03:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with all of the views above, which I respect, is that there is a fundamental difference between the soft racism of [insert every day example here], and actual Nazism. This essay was written when we had actual neo-Nazis arguing that Wikipedia's principles required that we allow them to edit, and was written in response to that. I disagree with blocking people within the political mainstream who people on the political left call Nazis but who are really just mainstream right-wing individuals. But I do fully believe in blocking people who are self-admitted neo-Nazis, and historically I was the admin who most argued for that, and I will continue arguing for that as a non-admin.Where I think I fundamentally disagree with 's essay is that I fully believe there is a core distinction between genocidal racism and your day-to-day 'people think that people who don't look like them are less than them' racism and that difference is based on ideology. Wikipedia as a self-regulating entity, has the right to show people the door based on ideology, and there is nothing in NPOV that contradicts that. We show actual Nazis the door (and by we, I mean and the remaining admins who are willing to enforce thisde facto policy..) There is no problem with that, and those who oppose this on functionally semantical grounds are not aware of the historical context of it or the continuing importance of taking that stance. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True but irrelevant, since the essay is not about "having a different opinion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Unneeded, controversial wording
"That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent."

This links to Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany#Debate on whether comparisons are antisemitic. The relationship between Jews- as an ethnoreligious group- and the State of Israel is already controversial, and these kinds of biases are really unneeded and counterproductive.

Another point of contention for me is:

"That the wrong side won in World War II (or, the wrong side won the Great Patriotic War)."

The universally accepted and neutral term "Eastern Front" should suffice, and again, this brings unneeded controversy because it immediately brings up the question of moral equivalence between the Soviets and Nazis and the black-and-white characterization of the Soviets as the "good guys". Evaporation123 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are talking points Nazis do use, so they belong here. Yes, there are non-Nazis who also use them (other anti-Zionists and other anti-communists besides Nazis). By doing so, those non-Nazis are playing down Nazi atrocities though. They could criticize Netanyahu or Stalin in a more effective and more honest way without doing that, but they chose to copy-paste Nazi reasoning, weakening their own credibility. That is not this essay's fault. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the essay's fault to imply that strongly criticising Israel or making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany will get you blocked on en-wiki, because I don't think that's true. (I notice in this comment, and on your userpage, you allude to a belief about there being an equivalence between Nazism and anti-Zionism in general, which is a far stronger claim that I doubt would be generally accepted as reasoning for blocking users.) Endwise (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As in all things on Wikipedia context matters. This is the case regardless of what things might be said on this or that user page. If Wikipedia were ever so non-neutral as to begin banning editors for supporting Palestinian liberation notwithstanding the usual politics-related problems of WP:BATTLEGROUND, edit warring, incivility, etc. then we would have bigger problems than the content of this essay. Simonm223 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to add that "Palestinian liberation" is different from "anti-Zionism", which means wanting to destroy the state of Israel. (Which would very likely eventually lead to the area being made judenrein, but most anti-Zionists may not want to think that far.) Also, equating anti-Zionist boycotts of Jews with Nazi boycotts of Jews is not the same as equating anti-Zionism with Nazism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is getting rather off-topic. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If was off-topic starting from I notice in this comment, and on your userpage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs an update to include hateful Zionist ideology
Now that racist extremist elements in the Israeli government have emulated many of the crimes of the former Nazi regime, is it time to extend this no Nazi rule to Jewish Nationalists, aka Zionists?

Considering the numerous crimes against humanity conducted in the ongoing liquidation of the Gaza ghetto, and the language used by Israeli leaders like Ben-Gvir and Smotrych which draw horrifying parallels to the dehumanizing official language and policies of the Third Reich, I believe it's high time to extend the definitions against state-enforced hate.

The United States is not an arbiter of what is and what isn't a racist, extremist government. Podlesok86 (talk) Podlesok86 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * With all due respect here, and as someone who is very much an anti-Zionist: the distance between Zionists and Nazis is pretty big and I'd like to keep it that way.
 * Most Americans are Zionists, and almost all American Jews are Zionists. And my guess is that it's similar in most English-speaking countries. Furthermore, Israel is a country that does bad things, but many if not most countries do bad things. That's not the same as Nazi Germany perpetuating the worst genocide in the history of the world and having the time to do several other genocides on the side. Loki (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that disruptive editing for the purpose of engaging in genocide denial is within the remit of this essay regardless of the specifics of the genocide denial. With that being said I think it's important to remember that this is an essay that provides guidance on the appropriate handling of a specifically vexatious type of disruptive editing but is not a policy. As such nothing in this essay stops anyone at all from editing if they not being disruptive per the appropriate Wikipedia policies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:True_North_Centre_for_Public_Policy that may interest followers of this topic. Additionally, it does appear that at least one editor involved in that discussion has been editing the articles of right-wing figures to erase information linking them to the far-right and/or neo-Nazis. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Un-Archiving the Non-Endorsers section
There should be a place where non-endorses can state their opinion. 188.212.135.1 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It existed but has been archived. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should it be unarchived? I would expect both the endorsers and non-endorsers lists to be immune to archiving. (Although it is pretty telling that the non-endorsers list got archived due to inactivity. Lol.) DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just unarchived the Non-endorsers section. Half of it isn't really laid out in a list like other non-endorser sections, and seems like a lot of the non-list comments are incoherent rambling. That's is probably why it was archived. To be clear, while I agree that somebody spouting Nazi beliefs onto mainspace pages has no place on Wikipedia, and at least it's relatively easy to outline what counts as Nazism, I do think the redundant bigotry essays should be merged into WP:HID. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)