Analysis of WP:BLOCKNAZIS

[Leucosticte]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis#Blocking_racists

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

That doesn't really have anything to do with blocking Nazis; people of any race are still free to read Wikipedia regardless of whether Nazis are editors.

, 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 of others to contribute.

Yet admins disrupt the ability of Nazis to contribute by blocking them, so this is pretty hypocritical.

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.

Okay, this is just an assertion; let's see you prove your case.

Disruption by racists, while often taking place in articles and talk pages,

Where/when? Are you considering it disruption whenever they contribute content that goes against your racially egalitarian POV, regardless of how well-sourced it might be?

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.

Really, so are you saying that if a user were connected to a real-life identity that was connected to Nazi activities off-wiki, they wouldn't be banned for that?

Declaring oneself to be a racist or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or Nazi imagery and propaganda or mythologizing crosses the line into disruptive editing because it is telling a significant portion of our readers and editors that they shouldn't exist.

Okay, he's citing WP:NOTWEBHOST here, even though users are allowed by WP:USERPAGE to have limited amounts of personal content in their userspace (e.g. userboxes and whatnot). This is just viewpoint discrimination, because if it were some other point of view, it would be allowed.

BTW -- with regard to "a significant portion of our readers and editors" -- which portion are we talking about here? Mostly, Nazis just hated Jews. They were relatively indifferent toward blacks, Slavs, etc. as long as they would get out of the way of their seizing lebensraum.

Are Jews a significant portion of Wikipedia's readers and editors? If so, maybe that's part of the problem. At any rate, the point of serving readers and editors is so that they can benefit society; since Jews, on balance, don't benefit society, they can be dispensed with, both in their capacity as readers and editors.

This is contrary to the principles in the policy on personal attacks and Wikipedia's five pillars. That isn't acceptable, and we block for it.

It's also contrary to Wikipedia's principles for people to edit in bad faith. Most stuff that Jews do is in bad faith. It's a characteristic of their race. Antisemitic theory holds that even if some Jews have made some useful contributions to society, this is outweighed by the harm their race causes, as a whole.

It's kind of like how Wikipedia says that certain users should be banned because the harm they cause outweighs the good (and that therefore the ban applies to their good contributions as well as their bad). It's hypocritical to support that kind of banning policy, while also saying, "Oh, but Jews should be allowed even though they're a net negative for the project."

This is sometimes interpreted as censorship. It is not censorship. As a private website, Wikipedia and its community has the right to determine that some actions cross a line that make it impossible to contribute in a collaborative environment, and when that line has been crossed, the person is no longer welcome.

So you're going to side with Jews over your own race, squelching what members of your own race are trying to say in the interests of preserving their race, so that Jews can feel more welcome? Sounds pretty suicidal, and cucked.

Additionally, editors who come here to push this fringe point of view in articles, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are typically blocked as POV pushers.

Yeah, POV pushers should be blocked, but fringe or minority, etc., views should be fairly represented, in accordance with NPOV policy.

 

[Leucosticte]

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

Actually, I might add that by blocking Nazis, they're preventing knowledge from being transferred, by keeping Nazis from adding it. I guess the theory goes, other races (mostly notably Jews) could be deterred from editing if there are Nazis around, or that Nazis might block them if they were to take over the project; and then we'd lose the precious knowledge that these Jews could have contributed.

But, most Jewish "knowledge" is pseudointellectual BS; Jews suppress knowledge by getting it removed under bogus pretenses; and Jews are known to be pretty tyrannical when they're allowed to play a role in running the place. Jews also, by playing the victim constantly (e.g. via their media outlets, where they write stories about how horrible online Nazis are), get productive goyim banned from the project.

 

[Leucosticte]

Another thing about this situation is, they seem to be assuming Nazis even care that much about holocausting Jews. In reality, they just wanted to get rid of them, the same way that Israel would probably like to get rid of the Palestinians, so they can have their own ethnostate. Germany allowed Jews an opportunity to GTFO, if they wanted to leave, and many of them did. E.g., Albert Einstein survived because he went to America while he had the chance.