Wikipedia:No Nazis

Page protected with pending changes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Racist ideology is inherently incompatible with Wikipedia, and use or display of racist symbols and iconography on the project is disruptive.

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]

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:

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[edit]

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]

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]

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.

See also[edit]

Sister page

Related page

Background information



Further reading[edit]

  • Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: Inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". 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