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 Speedied per prior, closely related MfD. This discussion has just come to my attention. The "Strasserist" userbox is linked on only one userpage, and that page belongs to a banned troll. I find that this discussion falls within the scope and rationale of my closing, which was not challenged, in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism, which concerned another userbox created by the same user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist[edit]

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Divisive userbox. Let me preface with the following note: The user "hosting" this userbox seems to have only created it for the sake of being comprehensive, I don't suspect it was created with divisive intent. That said, Strasserism is ultimately nothing more than Nazism with an economic framework - take Marx's "the worker is being exploited by, and ought overthrow, the factory owner", and replace "factory owner" with "Jew banker" and add a pinch of ultra-nationalism and you basically have Strasserism. There are other economic schools of thought that a non-Nazi editor would identify with (I believe primarily some form of Marxist Socialism, perhaps a more learned editor can chime in?), and as such I believe that this userbox is no more acceptable than one which says "this user believes that taxpayers are being exploited by black people (/women/homosexuals/left-handed tennis players), and believes that it is every patriotic citizen's duty to reclaim the assets of blacks (/women/homosexuals/left-handed tennis players) and redistribute them fairly amongst non-blacks (/non-women/non-homosexuals/non-left-handed tennis players)". It is currently transcluded on three pages: The creator's own "list of userboxes I've created", Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, and, predictably enough, a mostly-inactive user who self-describes as "an atheist Strasserist and WWII enthusiast" - I'm not a dog, but my ears are killing me here. Badger Drink (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a userbox for "I am a Nazi", would we delete it? Given WP:NOTCENSORED, on what grounds?
If, and only if, there is a case to delete such an obviously Nazi userbox, then we should delete this rather more obscure one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, and thanks to self-professed Strasserist User:Schwarzes Nacht, we do indeed have ((User:Liam G-Veronica B.O.W/Userboxes/National Socialist)) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy - I would bring to your attention this ARBcom case. While the case was primarily concerned with the wheel-warring involved, consensus (and Jimbo, for whatever that's worth) seems to have held that pro-pedophilia userboxes are disruptive by nature, and can be deleted on those grounds. These are userboxes, completely non-essential to the project's sole goal of being a free GPL encyclopedia - WP:NOTCENSORED refers to encyclopedic content, not to user conduct or user page presentation. Thanks for calling the pro-Nazi userbox to my attention, I will nominate it for deletion as well, on largely the same grounds. Even if there are other pro-Nazi userboxes that have so far escaped attention, I'm a firm proponent of the basic views outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Badger Drink (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the rather unexceptional nature of userpages such as User:Schwarzes Nacht and others supporting similar views, I'd tended to assume that "userbox:I'm a Nazi" was one of those things that WP turns a blind eye to. Presumably it would be UNCIVIL to delete them and then the Niceness Police will kick your doors down.
Personally I prefer the old days of Usenet, when civility operated on the basis of a Wild West poker table and the knowledge that everyone else had a finely-crafted flamewar ready at their fingertips. A rough old place, but at least we still knew how to acquaint a fascist's head with the pavement. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strenuously with the idea of political position userboxes being compared to pedophilia. We have userboxes on other controversial and potentially offensive political viewpoints like communism and objectivism which some people find just as distasteful as national socialism. We DO NOT have userboxes on other controversial sexual fetishes (rape fetishism, cannibal fetishism, ect.) so pedophilia is inappropriate on that ground as well. I realize that nazis are as hated as pedophiles in many countries but still they cannot be equated. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's incorrect to see Strasserism as any offshoot of Natioanl Socialism, from a chronological point of view if nothing else (there were also political tensions between the two groups and one of the Strassers was killed by Hitler's faction). I can't remember how close they were to Rohm, but they met the same fate.
What's incontrovertible though is the anti-Semitic basis of Strasserism and its roots, like National Socialism, in Federism. This early theoretical basis for Hitler's Nazism is what originally put the "Socialism" into National Socialism from its carpet-chewing hatred of capitalism as a Jewish internationalist plot. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK, it's an anti-Semitic ideology with close ties to Nazism. That's enough to fall foul of the user page guideline. Hut 8.5 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of any part-time teachers of Jewish studies who are unaware of anti-Semitic political movements of the mid-20th century: Nazis - they're Bad, m'kay.
Nor is ignorance any defence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be making such value judgements. I personally feel that communists are more "bad" than nazis ever were (and the death tolls bear that opinion out) but we don't censor communist userboxes. National Socialists exist, the question is would you rather know or not know that the editor you are conversing with is a national socialist? that's the point of userboxes, to disclose your own bias. We shouldn't lie to ourselves and pretend no extreme right-wingers edit wikipedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we don't "censor" Communist userboxes is that Marx never veers into overt racism. Calling Communists "bad" based on corrupt governments labeling themselves as Communist is pretty ridiculous - you might as well consider capitalists even more "bad" for the actions of Slobodan Milosevic, Mussolini, Apartheid South Africa, and so on; or English speakers "bad" because of Ted Bundy. Anyway, back on track, Strasserism explicitly labels a single creed - the Jews - as responsible for economic woes. There's no rational basis for this. Userboxes are not articles, and Wikipedia user space is not a "free speech zone". I would most rather there be no racists, anti-semites, or homophobes on the project - but, if that goal is deemed too unrealistic, I believe the least that we, as a community, can ask for is that the racists, anti-semites, and homophobes not be allowed to bring the project into ill-repute by publicly declaring their irrational hatred for various segments of humanity. I hope I don't come across as "Badgering" (heh) here, that's honestly not my intent - I'm just trying to foster discussion, and hopefully at least allow you to better understand my perspective. Badger Drink (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a very cogent point, and I admit I find myself torn. I have no love for racists, nazis or anti-semites, but on the other hand they do exist in the project, I'd rather they have the means to self-label and disclose bias. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - and don't get me wrong, I do understand where you're coming from. In certain situations, I agree that "better the thief you know" can be appropriate, but I don't believe Wikipedia is one of those places. The problem is that disclosing biases doesn't neutralize the biases. I don't think a badge on a page really helps - we have a contribution history link to make all those evident. Biased edits are bad edits are biased edits are bad edits, and if someone wades into the Adolph Hitler article with a pen of rapturous praise, their edits will certainly come under scrutiny regardless of what public declarations they have and haven't made on their userpage. So really that, in my mind, makes the entire question of "benefit" completely moot, and we're left with the problem of making it look, to outsiders (and probably more than a few insiders) like Wikipedia is providing bigots with a welcoming environment to express their troubling, irrational hatred (different from a troubling, possibly-irrational political philosophy like Objectivism or Communism). While I'm loathe to sound like I'm trivializing matters, I feel an analogy may best explain my views: It doesn't matter what sports team you root for, but it's understandable if the New York Yankees take issue with their star center fielder sewing a Boston Red Sox patch onto his uniform before trotting out to play. Of course, sports teams are harmless and hate ideology can be quite harmful - but the key point I'm trying to make here is that things which would normally fall under freedom of speech and right to self-expression may be understandably curtailed in certain environments. Nobody's forcing a Strasserist or Nazi skinhead to edit Wikipedia - they come here of their own free will, so it's up to them to behave in a matter deemed acceptable by the community. Badger Drink (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (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.


More