User talk:NeoNazi

Who brought the popcorn? --Gulik 16:22, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh my inner-Jew is gettin' all ready..--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I have a feeling this guy might lead to RW's first genuine banning. I am of mixed feelings about that. --Gulik 16:30, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew,I'm a Jew,I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew. And im Jewish too!!--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:31, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

To answer...I have a HUGE nose, and who doesn't love money???--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:32, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Shalom b'Israel! Shalom b'Israel! Shalom la'olam, shalom b'Israel! --AKjeldsen 16:41, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'M A JEWWWWWWWWWWWWW! ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 17:24, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

What a surprise, the Jews run rationalwiki just like they run the rest of the world. And the only Muslim rationalwiki member isn't a sysop when nearly 90% of the population is. It's a Jewish conspiracy, I tells ya. Stile4aly 23:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

So.....

Okay. You don't like people who're Jews...anything else you don't like? ~~ C®acker 16:32, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

שקט בבקשה

Judging by history, he probably doesn't like Gypsies, homosexuals, or being reminded what a miserable failure the Third Reich was. Oh, and Russia in winter. And annoying "English Gits". --Gulik 16:48, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Me Too!

Goats are kosher!DocSock 16:34, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Only if kilt rightly. C®acker 16:34, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Can I eat shrimp without turning gay? human^{be in} 16:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

It depends how you eat shrimp.DocSock 16:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

With my kilt "right", of course. How do you eat them? human^{be in} 20:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

On the serious side

Has anyone decided whether or not we want to allow user names like this? As if we didn't already have a whole host of potentially offensive ones? Maybe we'd be better off joining the cabal... human^{be in} 16:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

• COPYING from my talk page:

Do we ban/revert/delete? Wait a few hours and then pick up the pieces? User:PalMD

I assume you are reffering to user:NeoNazi. I am not the be all and end all of how to deal with this, but my gut is to keep reversion and banning to a bare minimum. here are my ideas: 1) We follow the contribs and "fix" articles. For instance, "Evil Jew" can be about anti-semitism and anti-semitic tactics. Pointless titles can be blanked by anyone and deleted by any sysop; perhaps content saved to a RationalWiki:General Vandalism file. That deals with the articles/vandalism without being heavy handed, I hope. 2) As far as the user name, again, we've been pretty lenient, so maybe we put a template on their talk page saying "this user name is considered offensive by the RW community, but in the interest of openness, we are allowing it". Of course, by the time I am done writing this, others with stronger opinions may have taken harsher measures. human^{be in} 17:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps if we create enough obvious liberal mockery and disapproval around anything this "user" does (where appropriate) we can justify leaving them here. I certainly feel a need for discussion and mob-consensus before taking any strong actions though. I have, however, already started work on some of this users "articles". human^{be in} 17:35, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I say we wait a while (couple of days at the most) to see if this is wandalism/parody, if it's not, ban the user. MiddleMan 17:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Check his "contribs". He/it/she is on a spree that will take hours to decide how to clean up. While some edits have been marginally funny, most are crude and racist. Not that we mind crude. I'm just not a big fan of blatant racism. human^{be in} 17:49, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, it's not so bad. I can write articles almost as fast as the user can vandalize. And I ate recently. I'll need to hand off the relay baton eventually, though. Please help improve the articles the user and I have "collaborated" on. human^{be in} 18:00, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Calm Down, Richard

Step away from the keyboard...DocSock 16:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I seriously need to know if this is Richard or not, because the name… ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 17:26, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't care "who" it is, the question is, how long am I going to block them for? Two hours? Enough time to clean up their mess? Then let them come back and make another one. human^{be in} 17:46, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd vote for longer, maybe a month. This isn't disagreement, it's vandalism, and it isn't funny vandalism. --jtl^talk 19:02, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

So much for "free speech". The bestest way to silence them is to drown them out with more speech. IMO. -~~ C®acker 19:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

In another hour or so we will have another opportunity to try to speech v speech thing. I would feel much worse blocking him if he wrote an article carefully describing a point of view that I abhorred. --PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:07, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm rescinding my earlier comment -- Cracker's position is my usual position, and I need to think more about how this case is different, if it is. --jtl^talk 19:22, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know if crud like this falls under free speech, I believe that has to do with speech against the government, primarily, in Real Life™. But once the block expires, we can discuss his behavior with him. ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

It doesn't. As public as it is, this is a private enterprise, not a government one. Free speech allows him to go start his own, but doesn't give him any particular rights here. --Kels 19:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Exactly. The point is, how do we deal with it by applying our guidelines? We forgot to have an "offensive user name" one, maybe because several of us intended to have them. I don't think it's too hard to see it as "unfunny vandalism", however, whihc is the one thing we explicitly will block for. Unfunny being the key. Anyway, user has been gone now for hours. Can someone set a tripwire so we know if they return? I notice that following my, um, rewrites of a number of articles, a few others have simply disappeared - which I am glad to see. How about we leave a nice notice at the top of this page that if they aren't funny next time, we slice them off for a couple of hours? human^{be in} 19:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Block

I'd prefer to block this username, and you're free to come back with an inoffensive name. Does anyone disagree? Our goal here is to be accommodating, but there is a limit. I am not tolerant of hate & intolerance.-AmesG 20:02, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm willing to rename them if they repent, but if not, I think they should refrain from editing. ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 20:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. --Kels 20:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

What about the question does he even care? Who says he isn't one of those meta-wiki vandals who attempt to skrew one over then leave. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 20:12, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Good God people! Have some balls. As usernames go "NeoNazi" is not particularly offensive. It advertises this user's stupid take on the world to a T. It is a perfect tag for him/her. Furthermore, I am of the view that some of the articles (or at least the article titles) proposed by NeoNazi have some merit. I was going to contribute to "Nigger" and I thought "Racism" was a potentially interesting title. This is RationalWiki! Surely there is no concept that we won't tackle. --Horace 20:13, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Ironically, "nigger" was one article it wrote that I left alone. It could have been longer, but it was accurate. And, "racism", I just wrote a bit to replace the "see Zionism" crap. As Horace says, if we move fast enough, we can just take nasty article titles and make them either funny as hell or informative about the topic. I got stuck on AIPAC, but what the hell. As far as the user name, I suspect that our piles of Lulz on the user talk page pretty much clear us of "accepting" the perspective. I'm sure we'd be happy to have a user named "Useless Fucking Cunt" as long as they were funny. And honest about being ashfly. human^{be in} 21:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I can check that, if you give my AS's IP. ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:17, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm still for a permanent block on this username.-AmesG 21:28, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

My first reaction was sort of that, a kind of OMGZ, can we allow that? But I have mellowed in the ensuing hours. Without the museum, how does anyone know it happened? If it is prevented from recreation, what prevents "Neo-Nazi", "Neonazi", "NeoNazi2", "National Socialist", "Hitler Lover", etc.? Yes, it's offensive, to some, or even many. But we are here to deal with offensive, not blank it out. human^{be in} 21:34, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Terrible Dilemma

I hate censorship, but I hate Nazis, too. Good thing I'm not a sysop, so it's not MY problem. (Semi-seriously, this is one of those acid tests of free speech that UseNet was infamous for.) Good luck making the right decision, folks, because I have NO idea what it would be... -Gulik 22:31, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I hate Illinois Nazis.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:39, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

And so we see how Liberals are biased against the great midwest! Just seconds ago, on Retionalpedia, PalMD said "I hate Illinois"! -- [User:Not Really Aschlafly]] ( --Gulik 22:41, 6 June 2007 (CDT) )

What a minute, buddy...Im a midwesterner--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:56, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

So, the question becomes; do we take on the European form of Freedom of Speech, or stick with the American form of Freedom of Speech. I'm inclined to say that unless a user name actually contains serious profanity (the seven dirty words, for example) that we don't make it a practice of banning provocative names. For reference, Wiki does have several Nazis, and a couple Hitlers, but on the other hand Hitler himself is permabanned. Stile4aly 23:54, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

How is this username not a serious profanity? Speech that instills violence is not tolerated in America, or Europe, and Nazism is just that. This is a good chance to define the line of RationalWiki. We're all for controversy, and challenging basic notions of morality, but we still have some morality, and we're not going to stand up for the universally evil. I will ban this username but invite the user back. Any dissenting sysop may feel free to block.-AmesG 00:13, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If we have issues with the name or phrase, here we are free to take those issues and make them heard. Silencing is not debate. And what, pray tell, is this "universal evil"? Yes, Hitler was a pretty damn bad guy. The Nazis did some really rotten things. Really rotten. Do we start to build a partial phrase blacklist? Is the letter sequence n-a-z-i in any other words? I took us less time than this user spent here to clean up the obvious vandalism, and I think there has been some slight over-reaction (I say if someone creates an article with a dubious title, it's a challenge to say something intelligent that defines that title).

However. I also understand that if I discover I am "on the fringe" here, then that is the case. Can we perhaps open a fresh discussion on the proposed guideline page about usernames and what is inappropriate? Do we want a list of a thousand red-link usernames mocking us as CP now does?

Back to my point. Let the Nazis march and speak, then argue why they are wrong. Keep them in the light where we can see them, instead of driven underground where we can't. Although, I do think this was just a random vandal.

And more... "How is this username not a serious profanity?" Well, the NYT would print it on their front page, and you can say it on TV in the US at any time of day. I saw no speech that "instills" violence from the user - just a bunch of easily-corrected racial slurs. By the way, Stile4aly, can you write a quick article on the difference(s) between US and Euro Freedom of Speech?

I'm inclined 1) not to ban any user names 2) to handle provocative content with the edit key, or all the letters from q to m. 3) block unfunny vandals for periods starting in the two hour range, to shoo them away. 4) Not to delete any correctly spelled article titles, but to write them better. human^{be in} 00:39, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Can we at least invite the "mob" that is us to come here and vote on the infinite block AmesG has placed on NeoNazi? So far I see one vote "cast" for it, a couple for mild short term blocking, and several people still struggling to figure out what they think. I am also going to re-create some of the deleted "correctly spelled" articles, as they were interesting. NeoNazis may not be specifically anti-science, but they are anti-intellectual, so we ought to be actively debunking them as much as any of our other targets. Frustrated, human^{be in} 00:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

AmesG was wrong to impose the infinite block on the basis of the username. The only thing the name did was make the user look stupid. As ably pointed out by Human, "nazi" as a word is not offensive. I believe that "neo" is ok also (unless one takes the Matrix movies into account). I am a little disappointed that RationalWiki is not a bit more robust than that. I am also a little disappointed that Ames only invited sysops to discuss. I thought we were more a community than that. That was part of my rationale for creating the "Requests Not to be a Sysop" page. I thought that, in contrast to CP, there was no need to be a sysop here because my views would be respected without the need for the sysop tag. --Horace 01:20, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

If we were a bigger community this would be easier. I vote for brief blocks to give us a chance to "improve" his articles.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 07:05, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I've been overruled! Sorry for acting unilaterally, and for not consulting other users, sysop or not (that was a good point Horace). I guess I under-respected the goal to give every user a chance. I still think Nazi users are past the line - I know people who lived through the Holocaust, and I think that "respecting" this user implicates a lack of "respect" for the victims. I think we should, at least, encourage the user to use a new username.-AmesG 07:42, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

For what it's worth, I more or less agree with Ames' position here in principle. Seems like this guy's gone, though, so I guess it's a moot point. --AKjeldsen 20:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

The "Sad-but-True" Box

Welcome to RationalWiki,

A site built on hate.

Watch us slowly eating ourselves as we actually become everything we claim to oppose in that "other" site!

לול 07:20, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure the point of the above box, but--and you won't find a more anti-nazi person here--i still vote we give a brief second chance. But Nazi's are over the line...not that I'm sure he's really a neo nazi. This whole episode has been an interesting experiment in how we police ourselves, and Im proud of the dialog. But, if, when unblocked, he persists, I say we block the motherfucker and improve his articles.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 07:56, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I would think the point is...now that we're past the heady days of the grand opening when it was all "WE will actually encourage vandalism because we can take it, we're waking up next to the ugly woman/guy (both?). This is why I gave up my sysopship so easily, otherwise I'da permabanned the guy right off, (I know that about myself and took the steps *I* needed to prevent me acting against mine own stated and unstated principles, YMMV). I'll plead to "wisdom" as in "Happiness is knowing the right thing to do: Wisdom is doing it". </tooting own horn> If one thinks about the above karmicly, we should have seen (something like) this coming. Relax and ignore Ames (who is full of law skewl hookem right now). Those folks who trumpet the "rule of law" need to be reminded oncest and a while that the RoL is a tool to be used not an Idol to be worshipped. MOO. ~~ C®acker 08:31, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Don't ignore Ames! He apologized for acting rashly, and is a cool guy. Also help him learn.-AmesG 08:40, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Don't ignore nobody all the time. It's not an apology that I would seek but a vow to look at the big(ger) picture before acting. As I learned from God Hisself, (via Futurama), "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all". IOW, a light touch. ~~ C®acker 08:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

<rant>I would vote to have no vetos at all on usernames (scunthorpe is a place in england and would be verboten if we banned the "7" deadly words). If someone is attention seeking then they have gotten exactly what they want. if they are not and are genuine neonazis should we not ask them to explain themselves intelligently - demand that they justify everything they say? what is the point of this place? (i for one don't want this to be somewhere to preach to the choir alone.) That said if they or anyone start (neo)nazi propaganda then they should be blocked temporarilly without discussion (only to be unblocked so Ames can have the pleasure of the infinite ban.) Is he here to cause trouble or to have a discussion and contribute? That's the key to the block/not block question. imho.</rant>αιρδισΗ^ταλκ 10:20, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, the guy is a typical troll. Uses a username designed to annoy people and then gets a lot of attention. He creates some article which we then fix. With a username like that he should be pretty easy to keep an eye on - It's like having a username "look at me, I'm an idiot." I'd say we keep him on and see what happens. If he can make a sensible case (pretty unlikely I'll grant you) then let's hear him. On the other hand maybe we should have another page "Users nominated for blocking". How many votes for a block?--Bob_M (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2007 (CDT)