Requests for comment/Foundation bans for Holocaust denialists

The following request for comments is closed. The proposal received no support. --MF-W 22:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for a snitch line for Holocaust denialists, so that they will receive Foundation bans.

Examples of Holocaust denialists: [1] and w:ro:Utilizator:Wamkihok. Use Google Translate for reading that edit and that user page (it has only one edit, so I won't provide a diff). Wamkihok also returned as Masahiro after being indeffed.

Background info:

Paul Rassinier is viewed as "the father of Holocaust denial";
Roger Garaudy was convicted and fined for Holocaust denial under French law for claiming that the death of six million Jews was a "myth".

(From w:Paul Rassinier and w:Roger Garaudy.)

On the diff, that user declares that the claim of the Nazis gassing children would be "cheap propaganda" and implies that the figure of 6 millions Jews killed by the Nazis were fake.

On the page, the other user declares that in his quest he received support from the "great revisionists" Paul Rassinier and Roger Garaudy and brags about his extreme right books, which engage in Holocaust denialism. He also bragged about his blog; later on his blog he bragged that he is Masahiro. (It isn't outing, he outed himself with blog, published books and real name.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMF do not process WMFBAN through this place. You must email ca

wikimedia.org with your report to initiate that. — regards, Revi 15:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this request is only for "Holocaust denialists", Oppose any actions against they, as this is a case of discrimination based on points of view (specially as one of they is islamist). Yes, the denialism of crimes against humanity is an issue, but while those users don't make obvious disruption, vandalism or trolling, there is not a valid reason for blocking they, nor globally ban. If the denialism extends to articles, those cases should be treated as w:WP:NPOV: any point of view is valid if every point if view is exposed neutrally, even the denialism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While holocaust denialist are a particularly obnoxious form of POV-warrior, we really don't want the Foundation getting involved in routine content squabbles. Especially not with the Foundation flailing the banhammer. This should be dealt with locally, unless the local admin corps is itself infested with abusive denialist conspirators. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this should be handled by local communities. There is no need for the WMF. Seraphimblade (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as said by others, as particularly unfound and potentially disruptive holocaust denialists or other conspirators (such as anti-vaccination, 5G conspiracies, ext..) are, these should be handled on a community by community basis, not the WMF as a whole. Ed6767 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a matter for WMF. IWI (chat) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These kind of people will probably sue WMF for 'revoking' and/or 'oppressed' their "freedom of speech" if they are banned en masse, based on what i have experienced (seen) from them in years. I would rather have WMF not falling into a major controversy ala GamerGate that Wikipedia got affected around 2014. SMB99thx Talk / email! 23:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ban them only if absolutely needed, not just because of what they deny.--Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ mesaj 17:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]