This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view and be a POV-pusher. If you think you've spotted one, see if you can find a number of supporting diffs and if so, report them straight to the incident noticeboard. Also report racist imagery on user pages on sight.

It is a common perception – based on our claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit – that Wikipedia welcomes all editors. There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist editor upon learning of their public self-identification.

Because of this, many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This belief is false. Nazis (and other inappropriate discriminatory groups) are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia; they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki.

Historical context of this essay[edit]

At one point in the history of the English Wikipedia, there was debate as to if actual neo-Nazis should be blocked on sight. This essay, compiled by multiple people who steadfastly argued that such ilk was fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the English Wikipedia, serves as a policy argument to show them the door.

Nazi beliefs[edit]

Shortcuts

The core beliefs uniting various types of Nazis are:

That white people are more intelligent than non-whites.
That white people are more industrious than non-whites.
That white people are more physically adept or attractive than non-whites.
That white people are morally and ethically superior to non-whites.
That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people.
That white people have the right to live in a white-only nation.
That in majority-white countries a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites due to genetic factors.
That violent, abhorrent or deceptive actions are justified in the pursuit of these beliefs.

In addition, there are many more beliefs that are quite common, though not universal among these groups. These include:

That Jews present an existential threat.
That there exists a massive or even global conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of others.
That white people are being systemically killed, out-bred and otherwise forced into a minority status.
That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent.
That minority groups are seeking to destroy Western culture.
That the Holocaust never happened, was greatly exaggerated, or that historians have inflated the death toll.
That the Holocaust was morally justified (or, if they deny it, that it should have happened).
That the groups persecuted by the Nazis brought it upon themselves, and that the Nazis merely acted in self-defence.
That the wrong side won in World War II (or, the wrong side won the Great Patriotic War).
That Adolf Hitler was a great leader for the German people, despite (or even because of) Nazi Germany's innumerable atrocities.
That non-whites hold back white progress.
That non-whites intend to kill whites.
That non-whites should be slaves.
That white people are more oppressed than other groups.
That non-whites shouldn't have basic human rights.
That Islam or Muslims are the overwhelming source of terrorism.
That groups of people should be wiped off the face of the planet, or systematically repatriated to the lands or continents they supposedly originated from.
That Jews are responsible for the creation of communism and/or capitalism.
That the concept of free speech entails the freedom to post or write race-, gender-, or identity-based slurs, insults, or the promotion and glorification of hate and violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship.
That the Globalists are plotting to destroy western civilization.
That there exists a Jewish or "elite" cabal as purported in any of a variety of uncredible or pseudoscientific conspiracy theories, such as QAnon, the New World Order, the white genocide, or the Great Replacement.
That the improvement of the genetic quality of the human population can be achieved through selective breeding, often targeting individuals considered undesirable for sterilization or elimination.
That disabled individuals or those with mental health issues should be forcibly sterilized or euthanized, as part of a so-called euthanasia program.

These beliefs are – without exception – either demonstrably false, completely unsupported by evidence, or totally unfalsifiable. The very existence of a "white race" is a pseudo-scientific idea that has been rejected by the scientific community since the late 1960s – shortly after the discovery of molecular genetics. See Race (human categorization) § Modern scholarship for more on this. Debunking these beliefs is not the purpose of this essay, so they are not addressed here. Suffice it to say that all of these beliefs are considered false or meaningless by experts in the relevant fields. One can verify this with any sufficiently in-depth encyclopedia. There happens to be one close at hand.

Other kinds of racists

Main page: Wikipedia:No racists

As is pointed out in the note in the lede, much of what is written here can be applied to racists of various non-white (or non-Nazi) flavors, as well. All one must do is swap out "white people" and "non-whites" for the races in question, and if the shoe fits, their behavior is no more excusable than that of any Neo-Nazi or Klansman.

Effects of white supremacist beliefs[edit]

The problem with editors who hold these beliefs is that they usually interpret nominally clear information that pertains to those beliefs in a drastically different manner than an objective reader would. This leads to the frequent introduction of errors. It also results in Nazi editors taking wildly different stances on the weight of certain experts and sources who digress from the accepted consensus in their profession. For example, the consensus of geneticists, neurologists and research psychologists is that there is no meaningful correlation between race and intelligence, yet a small number of experts continue to publish work which purports to challenge this consensus. While this work is occasionally quite well done (though instances of poor methodology and even deliberate fraud seem more frequent than with mainstream scholarship), it nonetheless represents a fringe view within the field. Racist editors will almost inevitably attempt to add those views to articles about the subject, and will almost always present them with greater or equal weight to the mainstream view. This means that Nazi editors almost inevitably run afoul of our policies on original research, verifiability and the neutral point of view.

Another problem with white supremacist beliefs is that they immediately alienate any non-racist. As soon as a good-faith editor begins to suspect another editor of harboring these beliefs, it becomes all but impossible for them to work together without conflict. Without fail, non-racists find Nazi beliefs to be abhorrent. They fly in the face of the basic decency shared by most non-racists, and even though a Nazi editor may perceive themselves to be moral and objective, to all non-racists this is obviously and horribly untrue. The Nazis of early 20th century Germany set out to build up their nation, to improve the future abilities of all of humanity, and to protect their people from perceived threats. All of those are intentions which, in most contexts, would be highly moral, even laudable. But in the context of racist beliefs, they resulted in possibly the most evil regime to ever exist. It is important to note that Nazism presents a special case, owing to the Holocaust. Even if one is a "nice" Nazi who doesn't really believe non-Aryans should be exterminated, or even if one is just "playing around" with Nazi slogans, imagery, or ideas, the moment an editor identifies as a Nazi in any way, they are endorsing the Holocaust in the eyes of the vast majority of other editors.

Owing to their white supremacist beliefs, far-right extremists often organize edit campaigns on various anonymous channels, believing that they could seize Wikipedia with their racist or fascist propaganda. Such users by nature do not come in good faith, and they will inevitably utilize various civil POV pushing techniques under the remote semblance of civility. This includes, but is not limited to, inserting fringe views from questionable sources, and trying to frustrate and drive away other editors in pages and pages of endless sea-lioning debates. This remains an ever-present threat to this project, as it undermines Wikipedia's reliability and long-standing editing environment, that has given rise to our clean, balanced articles. For the health of this project now and into the future, Wikipedia must stand firm against such disruptions.

Blocking Nazis[edit]

Shortcut

WP:BLOCKNAZIS

The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement as a whole are based on the concept that everyone has a right to receive free knowledge, regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, creed, or any other demographic factor, and that everyone has the right to contribute to this sharing of knowledge so long as they act in a way that does not disrupt the ability for others to contribute. Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. This is particularly true of neo-Nazis and other groups with ties to genocidal ideologies. Expressing such views on Wikipedia will always be considered uncivil and, if made against or toward other editors, will always be considered blatant and serious personal attacks as well as unambiguous attempts at gross harassment.

Disruption by racists, while often taking place in articles and talk pages, often comes to a flash-point in user space, when a user openly displays iconography from racist groups on their user page or signature. The only way for administrators to recognize this form of disruption is if these individuals make it known on Wikipedia. Declaring oneself to be a racist, or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or Nazi-like imagery, propaganda, or mythologizing - is considered disruptive editing because it sends a message stating (directly or indirectly) that a significant portion of our readers and editors, in one way or another, shouldn't exist at all due to their ethnicity or race. This belief system (and hence any expression in support thereof) is in direct conflict of Wikipedia's five pillars, which outline Wikipedia's founding principles and how each editor is expected to behave and contribute to the project. As a result of this conflict, users can and will be blocked for such disruption.

This enforcement is sometimes interpreted and expressed by users as being a form of censorship. This is not correct. As a private website, Wikipedia and its community of editors have the freedom, the right, and the ability to determine and deem certain behaviors and actions as disruptive. In addition, they can also deem that the disruption, immediately upon its creation or presence, is severe enough that it makes contributing in a positive and collaborative environment impossible. When that level of disruption occurs, and when it crosses the line in regards to racism, that person is no longer welcome here as an editor.

Additionally, editors who come here to push this point of view within any articles or content, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are also typically blocked as being "POV pushers".

Don't use claims of racism as a coup de grâce[edit]

Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions

Casting aspersions of racism (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked.

Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.

What to do if you encounter a racist[edit]

If you encounter someone you suspect of being a racist or antisemite, check their contributions. Racists on Wikipedia usually try to advance their ideology. If they really are a racist, you should usually see edits promoting a nationalist or racist perspective. Collect relevant diffs and report them to the administrators' incident noticeboard (or arbitration enforcement if applicable). Make sure the diffs do support a charge of racism or antisemitism.

If an editor is displaying racist imagery on their user page, report it to WP:ANI as a user displaying racist imagery, not as a "racist editor", because there is no room for interpretation in such a case.

Further reading[edit]

Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: Inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". SPLCenter.org. Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
"The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia", Wikipedia, 2023-01-29, retrieved 2023-09-18

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No Queerphobes No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard