Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jorm (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 4 September 2019 (→Free speech). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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. ―Susmuffin  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. pythoncoder (talk | contribs)

CRYRACIST

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should be removed or refactored. It is one thing to bar calling another editor a "racist" (of any type) - which is a personal attack. However discussion of content is another matter. Describing Holocaust denial, Holocaust distortion, White supremacist material, or any other such material - should be allowed in a factual manner. The present essay actually enables editors who seek to enter such distortion into Misplaced Pages, and use of this essay constituted a chilling effect towards those editors who seek to challenge historically/socially inaccurate material inserted into Misplaced Pages. Holocaust denial and distortion should not be seen as a mere "content dispute". Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

See every single time above this that we've been over this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering that I’m also the person who wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I highly doubt that. What the current essay does is show that both Holocaust denial and false accusations of the same are inappropriate and will result in blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh? Are blocks here to be made only after meticulous and through checks that the claims are in fact demonstratively false? It is one thing to block someone who falsely CRYRACIST (after the content, and RSes on the matter, was thoroughly vetted and verified). It is another to block merely on the suspicion, not borne out from examination of the evidence in question, that the assertion may be false. If we are to block editors, based on this policy, on the suspicions that their claims on content may be false then we are enabling insertion of such content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we’re saying that calling users things like “racist trolls” or “racist vandals” over a dispute on content where it is not blatantly obvious is inappropriate. If we don’t block people for this behaviour we are enabling easy steamrolling and chilling of our normal dispute resolution process. We block nazis and Holocaust deniers on sight. We also block people who make claims of that in a content dispute against other editors. Careful analysis of sourcing is always allowed and encouraged. Calling another editor an anti-Semitic vandal results in a block unless it is clear that is the case. This essay was not written as a way to enable one side or another to win content disputes: it was written to prevent Nazis from using our policies against us. The section about abusing this essay to win a dispute is also needed, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that calling an editor a "racist vandal" is generally a personal attack. However calling content "racist vandalism" should not be seen as a personal attack. For instance, should someone modify The Holocaust's infobox to change the number of Jewish victims from 6 to 4 million (possibly citing some source of either a dubious quality or in a dubious manner) - then describing the edit as such should not be seen as a personal attack. Likewise for other historically or racially (e.g. edits to African Americans in a manner not congruent with mainstream sources) inaccurate edits. WP:AVOIDYOU applies to editors (e.g. calling someone an "anti-X"), however as AVOIDYOU states - describing content should be seen as a personal attack. We should generally prefer on Misplaced Pages to err on the side of removing possibly racist content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If it’s a content dispute that requires talk discussion it’s not vandalism, and accusations of the same are inappropriate and personal attacks. If it doesn’t require talk discussion and everyone agrees, then report to ANI so they can be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust denial should not be seen a content dispute. In the hypothetical above - e.g. someone changing the number of Holocaust victims from 6 million to 4 million, even if ostensibly sourced to sources containing the cited number, it would be an act of vandalism. Perhaps providing definitive proof of such vandalism would require an in-depth talk page discussion (citing the multitude of sources that are in disagreement with 4), however such a discussion won't take place if we block those who call this out. Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re preaching to the choir, and the section you want removed is not inconsistent with that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Using sources that are racist is not a problem if done correctly. The other day I cited and quoted a precivil war white ≥supremest in white trash but I did it in context to show what the argument was back then, and no one would think I was pushing his agenda. If someone tried to CRYRACIST over my edits there they should be blocked. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Policy explicitly disagrees. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to call it "racist disruption" with respect to our policies. Racist comments are not necessarily vandalism by our definition, although they are almost certain to be disruptive. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) NOTVANDALISM says that calling someone a "vandal" is a personal attack, it does not refer to labelling of content as such, merely defines the term as used on Misplaced Pages. Misuse of a Misplaced Pages term directed at content is not personal. Certainly good faithed Holocaust denial may exist if an editor is misinformed, however we should not tolerate auch content in mainspace.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering: no one is disagreeing with you on the Holocaust denial point. What we’re saying is that if this essay or the ideas expressed in it are used to silence opposition in content disputes, the person doing it will be blocked. If that has a chilling effect on people using false accusations of anti-semitism or other form of racism as a way to get ahead on this project, that’s the whole point. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We should WP:AGF regarding such claims, and only act if they are actually truly proven as false claims. If we act on the suspicion that such claims may be false, then we favor the wrong side here, and we possibly allow defamatory content to persist in mainspace.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Icewhiz. The essay as written does not respect WP:AGF. XavierItzm (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• My 2¢ I am not opposed to the basic idea behind this essay. I just think it is too narrow and, as noted above, fails AGF. Being bluntly honest, Nazis are very convenient bogymen. But to my mind the essay should address social/political extremists of all stripes who can't check their WP:AGENDA at the door. Since getting the bit I've had a few run ins with your stereotypical antisemites and white supremacists. But the fringe wackjobs that I have had to deal with the most, are by far the Sovereign Citizens. If I had a nickel for everyone of those pseudo-intellectual clowns that I have had to block, I could stop buying lottery tickets. This essay should be shorter in its word count and broader in its scope. Very simply anyone with social/political views that a reasonable person might label as fringe, and who demonstrates an inability to edit in an NPOV manner, should be shown the door. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, the part that’s being objected to above on AGF grounds is saying that we should assume good faith on people who call other editors anti-semites. I hope I’m not the only person who sees the irony here: asking us to assume good faith on blatant assumptions of bad faith. The point of CRYRACIST is the exact point you are making here: most editors are not nazis, and this essay and the parts that deal with it should not be used to justify content disputes. I’m also personally of the view that when it’s being called both McCarthyism by people who want to welcome actual nazis on this website on the one hand and too nazi-friendly on the other, that it likely strikes a good balance. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You are correct in your point about this section. I probably should have posted my comment as a new section. Clarifying, my position is that we should not presume bad faith, even among persons who subscribe to what we might regard as odious views. While it may be entirely reasonable to subject suspected extremists to a certain degree of increased scrutiny until we are satisfied that they are here to build an encyclopedia and contribute constructively, I think that is as far as it should go sans evidence of disruptive behavior. And I also think we should not spend so much time focusing on Nazis. Extremists come in all sorts of flavors and from every corner of the social political spectrum. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t express it that way, but I think we’re in rough agreement. It’s impossible to know if someone is a racist troll unless they self-identify, and I think the essay does fairly well about striking a balance here. At the same time, we do have actual white supremicists, nazis, and Holocaust denying POV pushers who should be blocked, which is the point this essay is making. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are such. I have bumped into, and blocked a few myself. I just see extremist POV editing as going beyond Nazis and others of a similar ilk. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with this essay is that you can't build a moral system when you start with moral precepts. If you want to build a moral system then you have to start with amoral principles and apply them consistently in a way that makes a systemic morality based on that application. If we have anyone whose primary purpose here is to push a POV, then we don't want them here, or rather we want them to re-evaluate their motivation and return when they've fixed themselves. That applies across purposes and even when the POV the person is here to push is one we personally agree with. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that the intuitively satisfying morality is the best morality, because we don't block Nazis because they're Nazis. We block them because they're toxic and toxic people aren't conducive to the goals of the project. GMG 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  Huh, I don't see anyone trying to build a policy with a new moral system. This essay is just an extension of WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. Whether Nazis are toxic off-wiki is no business of Misplaced Pages, which does not adopt cultural relativism. I oppose most of this essay because it contradicts WP:FRINGE's point that even Nazi opinions deserve a place on WP (obviously adhering to WP:FDESC). On the other hand, I also oppose the moral counter-arguments that all basically sound like this: if Hitler created Misplaced Pages, it would have a "No Jews" page. I'm not sure if your comment has anything to do with the topic at hand, the CRYRACIST section, but I may have misread your comment. FWIW, I oppose the wording in WP:CRYRACIST, and believe that it should focus more on reactionary disruption than on good-faith criticism of racism. I most strongly oppose the final paragraph in the section, because NPOV doesn't have two sides when one side is racist. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  All CRYRACIST says is that we block for WP:NPA violations. Good faith disruptive behaviour is still disruptive: this is a principle in virtually every arbitration case. If someone is using accusations of racism to bludgeon legitimate content disputes (and yes, this does happen), then they should be blocked, just as people who post swastikas on their user pages should be blocked. I have tweaked the last paragraph a bit per your concerns, however. If you disagree with that, there isn't much more I can do. Using dispute resolution to solve problems involving legitimate disputes over the nature of sourcing is already policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  Umm...I mean, in a very core way our elaborate systems of policies, guidelines and essays, especially as they relate to user conduct, are trying to build a system of morality as it relates to Misplaced Pages. Something like CIVIL or BITE are inherently moralistic standards, and they're not shared by other communities. Go on Reddit or Twitter and see just how many times you can call someone a "fucking retard" for disagreeing with you until you're given some kind of sanction or expulsion, if in fact you ever are. But the whole discussion just seems overly narrow, as reflected by the scope of the essay. Racist trolls and vandals are a serious threat to the encyclopedia. as if for example homophobic vandals and trolls are somehow less so. As if someone whose entire purpose on the project is "fuck France and fuck French people" doesn't have a judicious block heading their way. Equally so someone who attacks another user as being an anti-French bigot as a way of winning a content dispute. (That last one is not hypothetical although I don't really feel like digging up the ANI thread. Rest assured I hate French people and am driven relentlessly by my deep rooted biases.)

  Having said all that, I think that if you haven't seen calling someone a Nazi, or a homophobe, or a mysogynist isn't often code, at least in the West, for "someone who doesn't toe the line perfectly with my tribe", and is used as a euphemism and an epithet for anyone who wants to discuss uncomfortable nuance, then you haven't been paying close attention. In the case you haven't, then find your closest garbage spouting post-modernist and call them out for their nonsense, and see how quickly you become the vile reinforcer of the colonialist patriarchial Euro-centric hegemony. GMG 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Historical distortion is not a legitimate content dispute - whether good faithed or bad faithed. We should be encouraging users to call out such distortions. Equating between a user calling out, in good faith, racist content - and a user (foolishly - whether he is blocked or not) posting a swastika on their user page is obscene. As an actual example - I removed here too (rationale + source on commons) "content" that turned a Soviet election notice in Yiddish (filmed by the Germans in 1941) into a "Jewish welcome banner, Białystok, during Soviet invasion" (1939). Such a misrepresentation has an academic name (which is well founded here) - however it would seem that complaining (or even using established technical terms for said content) about such false content would be a "personal attack". Chilling effect indeed - chilling removal of such content (which in some topic areas is rife throughout the topic on Misplaced Pages, that image is far drom a singular example).Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• It seems fine to say "removing a hoax" in an edit summary; but if one wants to say "Editor X is inserting anti-semitic hoaxes into articles", this should happen at an admin noticeboard and accompanied by evidence in the form of diffs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps the prudent course of action - but it seems we'll be blocking editors for calling a WP:SPADE a WP:SPADE prior to getting there, and once we get there - we treat it as a "too complicated" and tied to a Misplaced Pages:Content dispute (e.g. see ). As a possibly recent illustrative example - this diff in Jewish Bolshevism (itself a canard) inserted information supposedly supporting the canard. The cited source, however, has an attributed quote of Hugo Ball (and not to Albert Boime the author of the piece, and had Boime been alive (deceased 2008) - this would be a serious BLP issue), whom Boime describes as antisemitic with "old stereotypes" flowing from his pen. To add insult to injury, the apparent actual source for this (URL link in the diff) is a "review" in unz.com which is a republished piece from the Occidental Observer - quoting our lead "The Occidental Observer is an American far-right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective. But, I suppose, this is merely a Misplaced Pages:Content dispute that is perhaps "too complicated" to disentangle, so I've been politely discussing this edit at User talk:Icewhiz#Re: Your Edit on Jewish Bolshevism. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll note that sources with faux references abound. We've tackled Mark Paul (who is full of citations) at RSN and in a RfC. I'm not sure if we've ever evaluated the RSness of the Occidental Observer, however it too - piece - contains well formatted citations ripe for use in Misplaced Pages or other contexts. The 2,575 word piece on the observer is supported by 23 citations to sources that generally would be considered reliable (many of them academic). However, surely this is but a good faith content dispute.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Real-world example

I in part share similar frustrations. For example, there used to be an editor who was open about their real-world identity here on Wiki, while editing controversial topics from a certain POV. Given that their identity was available, I googled the name and found some disturbing media coverage pertaining to their RW activities. Once aware of this, I emailed ArbCom who informed me that my email was forwarded to WMF Trust & Safety. Neither was heard from again, despite follow-ups.

The editor in question was eventually indef-blocked in an unrelated incident a full year after my contacting ArbCom. Given that the matters were apparently (not) acted upon in camera, what are the avenues that editors can pursue if they suspect Holocaust-denialist, racist, and other fringe POV? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:ANI would be the best place if there’s no private info. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• If I'm guessing correctly as the identity of said editor, he was only blocked after another editor was oversight blocked. While I am not privy to the information posted on-wiki, quite a bit was but a simple google search away. Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• What IceWhiz said. ∯WBG 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Back to AGF/CRYRACIST

Before the discussion meanders afar, I'd like to summarize that, by my count, Icewhiz, XavierItzm, and Ad Orientem have all agreed the essay does not respect AGF. User GreenMeansGo has an ontological objection against the essay which probably won't be followed upon unless GreenMeansGo breaks it down into a specific policy objection. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To summarize my position - Calling content vandalism or racist(* or any other similar descriptive) is a comment on content and not on users, and while edgy does not always run foul of WP:NPA. Calling someone a racist(*) may (depends on evidence) be an WP:AGF violation. However, what's currently in CRYRACIST - "Unsubstantiated claims of racist vandalism and use of unsubstantiated claims to gain an upper hand in a content dispute or noticeboard thread is disruptive and a form of personal attack and will often lead to the user making it being blocked." - is even a worse violation of WP:AGF. When serious charges of racist conduct or content are raised (even if presented without evidence) - they should be investigated first - the accusing user should present his evidence (rather than being blocked out of hand and being prevented from even presenting such evidence), the evidence should be weighed carefully (and this may require examining content - racism is almost always a "content issue"), and following careful consideration of the evidence action should be taken (towards either, neither, or both parties). Blocking someone for calling out racist(*) content, while not investigating the content and the editor who inserted the content, turns Misplaced Pages into a safe have for racist(*) content. Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First, Ad clarified that he was talking about the essays discussion of extremists as not meeting AGF, not CRYRACIST. Second, I’ll repeat, the irony of asking for AGF on blatant assumptions of bad faith is a bit much. Finally, this is just an essay that expresses a view that is held by part of the community. I will block off of it and I know other administrators who will as well (Galobtter has made similar blocks of late, and explicitly thanked me for writing it.) I will continues to block based on the principles of both BLOCKNAZIS and CRYRACIST, and I suspect many other administrators will as well. Having them written down as an explanation and complimenting one another makes sense. You don’t have to agree with it, but it’staying. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do not like the potential usage of the essay as a tool to block editors and view this as some sort of thought-policing initiative. If anybody believes that the content of the essay is indeed the current view of the community; he/she ought to take the initiative to change this into a policy/guideline via a RFC. I vehemently disagree with the entire lead and IMO, this clearly advocates editors to launch wild goose chases into discovering off-wiki-activities of on-wiki-users to take a shot at painting them as racists and then, silence them from debates in contentious areas. I fail to realize why we ought to give a flying fuck about an editor's own views (and activities) unless and until it's demonstrated that the same's interfering with their editorial activities. If there is a problem with editors who hold racist beliefs about interpreting nominally clear information that pertains to those beliefs in a drastically different manner than an objective reader would and subsequent frequent introduction of errors, we need to block on the grounds of those errors. There's no reason for admins to gaze at their crystalballs and predict stuff. ∯WBG 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A few things: first, you're commenting in the section that is about people trying to get people blocked by using claims of nazism and racism as trump cards, and how we shouldn't block people for that, which seems to be in line with what you are saying: I'm not trying to dissuade you of your views, but given that this section is not about what you are saying it is, I want it to be clear on that part since the last comment here was incorrectly interpreted as opposing blocks for personal attacks based on calling people anti-semitic vandals.Second, the off-wiki stuff is a valid argument, but the only way admins could know it is if people self-disclosed. Otherwise it is in ArbCom's ballpark. DGG added a line earlier about on-wiki which was reverted, but I think it's probably worth adding because your concerns are valid in the off-wiki ballpark. If someone self-discloses as a neo-Nazi, I'm blocking, and it would be held up on appeal either at AN or on a user talk (having made blocks under these circumstances that have been reviewed both.) The very act of self-disclosure is disruptive, and warrants a block.Finally, something I'd like to add is that the situations this essay is talking about are dealing with the worst of the actual worst who do try and use our own policies against us. I'm talking about people like this and this and this. Those people need to be blocked rather quickly, and is who the essay is targeted at. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) This essay is not supposed to be used as a weapon in argumentations and editors who does it should be admonished. On the other hand, yes, intolerance must not be tolerated in any community, and this essay is entirely about how far-right editors can turn Misplaced Pages's own rules against its purpose. Literal Nazis - whether they display or express racist views on-site or elsewhere - should absolutely be shown unwelcomed by the community and indef blocked on sight as a preventative measure. How can you continue working with someone on an article - without a revolting disgust in the gut - if you already know the person is a prolific Stormfront user or a Identitarian? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• This essay is higly problematic because it is used by WP:BATTLEGROUND to "win" content disputes by tagging editors who have a different POV, but who have made no racist assertions and cited no FRINGE or racist sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Examples include , to which Tsumikiria sidid not object, although he edited just underneath.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to yourself as the "editor who have a different POV and cited no racist sources", your citation to Federation for American Immigration Reform, a SPLC-designated hate group with close ties to White supremacist groups, really contradicts your assertion. Now, It'd be nice if you can dig up some diffs to prove that anyone really used this essay to gain a upperhand in a content dispute against you, instead of ones that make you personally feel startled. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• You said WP:NORACISTS which, as you know, links through to WP:NONAZIS. You push your POV by slandering other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but it's possible that by rehashing the immigration ANI / AFD here, EMG is violating the existing topic ban. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen a rehashing of anything. What the community has decided is what the community has decided. Citing past diffs does not imply a challenge to consummated closures. The point is that this essay could be used in a way that might be interpreted by third parties as coloring editors (and not their edits), in violation of AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/CRYRACIST. For example, consider these edits by Tsumikiria:
- "Under the advisements from WP:NONAZIS, this should warrant a block, at least." ,
- "At this point it might be appropriate to cite WP:NORACISTS as well"
Observe NORACISTS redirects to NONAZIS. XavierItzm (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying that it's okay to be a RACIST, but NAZI is somehow more offensive? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A potential solution? 30/500 protection for related articles

Many of the potential NONAZIS / CRYRACIST issues would go away if the relevant articles were under 30/500 protection, similar to what's SOP in Israel-Palestine subject area. The disruption would go down dramatically. Is this a viable approach or more of a pipe dream? I can probably dig up half a dozen ANI threads to show that this would be valuable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely better than listing them in Misplaced Pages:No Nazis#Pages often edited by racists. Though new accounts (and IPs) are the lesser problem here - they usually get reverted quite quickly. It's the long-term contributors that cause the real damage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:VERYFINEPEOPLE

The Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9#Misplaced Pages:VERYFINEPEOPLE closed with a split result. Given a number of editors found it problematic, and another shortcut is displayed, there is little to no reason to display this shortcut on the page. It can continue to exist and be used by those who want to use it but we should not display it here. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to restore this - make a case here please. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The redirect can still be used(due to no consensus on deletion). The shortcut has, however, been identified as misleading and contentious.

There is definitely no consensus to keep the shortcut, we already know that from the deletion discussion. The default move is to not include it - shortcuts are a measure to highlight useful links for those who want to link a section or page in a shortened way. The "shortcut" here is longer than the page name(useless as shortcut) and additionally a contentious link that may confuse people. Can we remove that, now?Lurking shadow (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If I interpret correctly, AfD works by "There is no consensus to delete". It's another matter for its inclusion in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If I see a shortcut, I know that I should be able to use it without irritation or other problems. If there is no consensus for a shortcut then editors have a problem with that shortcut. Which means it should be removed. If there is no consensus to delete a redirect then it is definitely not an acceptable shortcut.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We should not display a controversial shortcut. The RFD shows that some good faith editors find it problematic so there is no good reason to force the display of the shortcut on a highly emotionally charged topic for am essay. Display here detracts and distracts from the point of the essay, politicizing it. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Racism is bad" is an inherently political statement so that reasoning doesn't wash.--Jorm (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, care to expand on that statement? Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I expand on? Do you not grasp that holding a position about human rights and empathy is political, or that your argument that "politicizing" an already political essay doesn't make sense?--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Racism is aberrant, not a political view. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. In my experience, racism is anything but an aberrant viewpoint; it seems fairly common and the fact that we have to constantly discuss it here indicates that it is becoming more mainstream. I guess you use a different definition for "politics".--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have a particularly strong view on the redirect one way or another, but I think there's a better argument for not including it than the RfD: the shortcut box would have four redirects and that is a bit excessive. I can't imagine ANI having WP:HAPPYPLACE and the like there: it would clutter it and cluttering with jokes is less than ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a shortcut for a section.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Should be removed. It's an inside joke that won't make any sense to the vast majority of readers. This essay is not intended to be humorous. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ah, I misread where it was. My bad. I still think two redirects aren't needed there, but it is less of an issue than at the top. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: as the creator of the redirect, I would be fine for it to stay out. I did not realise that it could be so divisive. I still think it's apt, but would not want to see edit warring over it. But I do hope that people continue to use it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate While I appreciate the attempt at humor this is going to be seen by more than a few as a political shot at the Clown N Chief. Best to give that a pass. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Free speech

This section "That the concept of free speech entails freedom to post race, gender, or identity-based slurs, insults, or promotion and glorification of violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship." is not a belief that only racists believe. And this belief is not racist. Anarchists also believes that for example. So that's like a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.175.163.63 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You do not get to use cries of "but muh freeze peach" as an excuse to be an asshole. Only assholes think this way. Anarchists (of which I am one!) do not believe this. Anarchists believe that all actions have consequences, including - and especially - speech. You may want to actually learn what the word means and what the philosophy entails.--Jorm (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)