User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Retired until Nazi insult is removed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I'm sorry, I think you've been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall remind you that WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics.

I can imagine that Lihaas displays far-right userboxes to provoke hypocritic hissy fits, which you and Demiurge have provided.

• Was it Lihaas's country where the King had to abdicate largely because of hanging out with Nazis?
• What is Lihaas's country where a PM worried about being overun with Blacks, although there was not a single Black MP, according to Michael Dummett?
• Was it Lihaas's country where the President 41 led his campaign rallies with a national socialist (but also Christian socialist) pledge of allegiance?
• Was it Lihaas's country that presented a sword to Pinochet for saving civilization?
• "Tell me, my main man, what is wrong with Michael Jackson? What is wrong with your country that a Black man cuts up his face and straightens his hair?" (Three Kings)

Lihaas has been one of the prime writers of articles in contemporary politics, among them articles on the Arab Spring. Demiurge smeared him as a Nazi, as part of his smear campaign against me.

You have no business participating in this smear campaign. Look at the company you are now keeping, Demiurge and Pedro, and wake up. You still have not apologized for signing off on that RfC with the bullshit opening of non-issues.

If you can do all this, without an apology or consequences, then Wikipedia can go to Hell along with you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We're already in it. L'enfer, c'est les autres ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, what on earth is the above set of statements about? I am making no "unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics." I simply note that the user has chosen to place a number of userboxen on his userpage which make political statements that are consistent with the manifestos of the BNP and the EDL. If it were only the latter two statements, then this would be consistent with the manifesto of UKIP, but UKIP holds no truck with national socialism. You are the one who "imagines" that these are not simple statements of his political position, but instead represent some elaborate game. I don't know the chap, I can only go on what he chooses to say. If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Geometry guy and I have explained that Lihaas displays more than a hundred of wildly inconsistent user boxes, so you and Du have been violating WP:NPA by picking a couple extreme right-wing boxes, as you continue to do. As I have explained, I am unaware of any POV-pushing by him, and certainly none on behalf of national socialism, as we understand it today (not as in the Bellamy brothers Looking Backwards or the Pledge of Allegiance). In my limited experience, he has been attacked by those (at best) acquiescing to (and at worst ...) nationalist violence.

A month or so ago he was blocked, after a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war on Wikipedia. It would be very strange for him to support parties advocating discrimination (or practicing physical battery) against Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

Again, I remind you of his writing about the Arab Spring, including articles describing attempts to overthrow nationalistic, militaristic dictatorships, such as the Baath dictatorship in Syria, which was started by French-schooled enthusiasts of European fascism. I am truly sorry that you continue to defend the national-socialist charge.

Cannot you imagine your husband shaking his head at your stubbornness, yet again?

Finally, let me quote from the Gawain poet the line to which I previously referred:

'Maskelles,' quod that myry quene,

'Unblemyst I am, wythouten blot,

And that may I wyth mensk menteene;

Bot "makeles quene" thenne sade I not.

Can I recommend you not make personal remarks about my husband. It makes you sound creepy, and I'm sure you did not intend anything like that.

As for Lihaas, I think the subtlety of his position is lost on you. The chap must be very interesting - given that most people in that neck of politics only use their heads to bash holes in walls. What's on his userpage isn't a random collection of userboxen, it's based on a consistent political viewpoint (although I had to think quite a bit about the British Empire one) which is right wing, libertarian, anarchist (not all anarchists are left wing), nationalist (but globally nationalist, hence anti globalization and interest in nationalist movements around the globe), anti positive discrimination (consistent with libertarianism), anti organisations that have control over multiple countries such as the EU and NATO (consistent with libertarianism and nationalism). None of these are personal attacks - before you say it - they are just based on his edits, his statements, and knowing as much as I do about politics. If you think the edit that got him blocked was "a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war" then you really have been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A plausible interpretation Ellen, and it would be interesting to be corrected by Lihass themselve, but just as likely the boxes are merely playfully mischievous. Or perhaps they reflect an attempt to transcend apparently contradictory positions. Whatever, their editing clearly shows they are not the sort of person to side with national socialism!

Keifer, one thing I am sure about with our friend Lihass is that theyre sharp enough to know their user box collection will cause some to make false assumptions, and if they were bothered about that they wouldn't have certain boxes. So I hope you dont make this a quitting issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feyd!

There have to be some minimal standards of honesty. I am willing to grant the usual portion of hypocricy to other editors that I wish to claim for myself. I am willing to grant XXXL portions to those who reminisce about spankings in British public schools, where they had great practice in the gentile arts of subtle insults and postures of effortless superiority. However, some standards of honesty must prevail.

I am tired of being lectured about civility and NPA and threatened with ANI by an ArbCom member who defends a sociopath's smearing a valuable editor as a Nazi.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)