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: speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Also, if I may liberally paraphrase TonyBallioni, NO.
FUCKING.
NAZIS.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MjolnirPants/nonazis[edit]

This page is in violation of three userspace policies: WP:POLEMIC (particularly the prohibition against "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors"), advocacy of improper behavior, and user pages that look like project pages.

In violation of WP:POLEMIC, this page is arguing that editors who hold certain opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia. Note that according to the first section of the page, this argument is being made not only about actual neo-Nazi types, but also about anyone who believes there to be a racial disparity in intelligence or crime rates.
In violation of advocacy of improper behavior, this page is arguing that editors who hold these beliefs should be blocked by admins on sight. If admins were to follow this advice, it would be a violation of WP:AGF, which says that editors should be assumed to be acting in good faith as long as they comply with Wikipedia's policies (which include civility to other editors and not pushing a far-right point of view). Obviously editors are blocked for disruptive actions such as extreme POV pushing or posting ethnic slurs, but blocks and bans are (or at least, are supposed to be) based on an editor's behavior, not on their opinions.
In violation of user pages that look like project pages, this page can easily be mistaken for an actual policy or guideline. This is especially an issue because MjolnirPants has created a project space redirect to the page, WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. At least one editor appears to have mistaken this redirect for a real project page. [1]

Finally, I should note that instead of discouraging people with far-right views from editing Wikipedia, this discussion suggests that the page has been acting as a magnet for them. The fact that MjolnirPants' page has produced this outcome is a textbook example of why this type of userspace material is harmful to the project. Jwray (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a good essay and clearly labeled as such. A quick review of the User:Jwray's recent contributions is interesting in light of this nomination. Nominating the Nazi essay for deletion is an interesting way to spotlight yourself. I don't see how the user who used the redirect can be proven not to have not meant to use the WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS redirect to reach this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not speedy, the OP's concerns are halfway reasonable Most of this essay is about identifying and blocking racist POV pushers, it also correctly says that resist symbols and statements in userspace are unacceptable personal attacks. The OP is correct that we can't block someone for their opinions, as long as that person edits neutrally and does not post anything unacceptable in the userspace. There are parts of this essay that could be interpreted as advocating for blocks just for someones opinion, while these may need clarification, I see no reason this warrants deletion. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful essay in evaluating editing situations on Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing any reason for deletion here. It's a userspace essay. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because userspace essays are virtually always kept; we permit essays outright opposing Foundation policy (e.g. ((User anti-anon))), so there's no reason to delete this, despite the reprehensible idea of blocking individuals merely because of their views (as opposed to blocking them for disruptive behavior). Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination completely misses the mark, possibly due to confusion about what nonazis is saying. At any rate, the page has no polemics against identifiable editors and it is a widely accepted user essay. In fact, the essay provides an excellent summary of why certain kinds of editors are not useful in an NPOV encyclopedia. AGF is great, but someone has to reveal themselves as racist for this essay to be relevant, and there is plenty of reason to believe that racists are not capable of NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a note that promoting neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, and any other of their equally reprehensible cousins through userpage imagery or by advocating that fringe positions be given equal weight is inherently disruptive and will lead to an immediate block. These views are inherently incompatible with the Wikimedia movement, and should lead to a block on sight. I will continue to act accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't say it better than TonyBallioni just did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the proposer's third bullet to be convincing -- we should be weary of this page being mistaken for an actual policy or project space essay, as he created a project space redirect to it and we do not want administrative action being referenced to this page (it's already been cited numerous times in relevant Talk pages). It does in fact seem to violate user pages that look like project pages, so my suggestion would be to keep the page, but have the redirect removed and format changed to better reflect it is a userspace page. 2601:42:800:A9DB:A4D9:E59B:411C:3722 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to any such confusion would be to move it to Wikipedia project space, but I don't think that is necessary. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, this is the behaviour to expect from one who gets upset about an anti-nazi essay. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digging up irrelevant ancient edits as an ad hominem is a violation of WP:witch_hunt. Jwray (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think that past edits should be used to discredit an editors argument, the edit you call "ancient" is 12 days old, and WP:witch_hunt is an essay, not a policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above, and the OP might consider having a listen to "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" when they have a spare moment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.