Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:07, 20 October 2011

Retired until Nazi insult is removed.

• With the exception of an edit to Michael Taylor & a parting Schopenhauer quote at the RfC.

Discussion of "National socialist"

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

About the "husband". I quoted a middle-English poem as a compliment/olive-branch, intending makelesse as matchless, as it is ordinarily translated. Elen noted the other (sometimes primary) meaning, as unmarried or widowed, and introduced her husband. Then I tried to clarify that I was referring to the matchless meaning as in Pearl ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 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 sociopathic smearing of a valuable editor as a Nazi.

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

Im just old enough not to have missed out on that strangely agreable bodily experience . Never saw the point of subtle insults though. I put 'literal minded' in my edit summary as I was thinking maybe that accounts for the absurd assumption and its defence, rather than dishonesty? It will be very sad if we do loose you over this. That said I edit less myself than I used to and I dont miss the specatacle of regularly seeing some of the best editors being attacked. So whatever you decide Im sure it will be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I had the advantage of attending a girls school, where corporal punishment was considered beyond the pale. As for Lihaas, as you say, he put the things on his page himself - I'm sure he's able and willing to take care of any fallout from them and doesn't need quite such an avid defence. The only thing I would say is that I have never called him a Nazi. I would probably disagree with the political views espoused in most of the userboxen, but none of them necessarily make him a Nazi.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, as an ArbCom member and administrator, you are an officer of Misplaced Pages. It is unseemly and unbecoming for you to fail to have distanced yourself from a suggestion that Lihaas is a national socialist, based on the standard "reasonable person" test; it is worse that you have been defending the smear.

Is Misplaced Pages a place where non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists? Or anybody smears anybody as a national socialist?

Unfortunately, your actions, so far, have answered that question affirmatively.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And you still have not addressed the issue about your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, or the issue about your signing off "regretfully" for the RfC without even Worm's apologies for its passive-aggressive opening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you have stopped making any sense at all. If a man puts a sign in his window saying he votes Conservative, I assume he votes Conservative. I don't agree with the politics of the conservative party, but it's not an attack to say that this man has a sign in his window supporting the Conservatives. Lihaas has a sign in his window supporting Antonin Scalia, and the Scalia/Thomas presidential run, Jobbik, National Union Attack, and the Popular Orthodox Rally. He says he is a libertarian and an anarchist - a recognised political position, see the article on Anarcho-capitalism which he also says he espouses. He says he is a nationalist who believes in Self-determination. This is perfectly consistent with his opposition to big government, and organisations such as NATO and the UN, and his support for such causes as Irish Republicanism, and the Turkish man who set fire to himself as a protest against continual police harassment. It also explains his comments on the ITN about the Tottenham riots . Like I said - they are not a mishmash of random boxes, they look to me like a consistent, thought out fairly unique political position. If his actual one is the reverse of what the userboxen represents, he maybe needs to say that a bit louder.

I am going to end this conversation now. You are not making sense any more - at least to me, and you are simply becoming abusive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You neglect to consider the wildly contradictory boxes he has. In particular, anybody supporting Scalia/Thomas cannot be a libertarian or anarchist. Those two dissented, finding no "cruel and unusual punishment" about a prisoner having his face smashed in, while in police custody.

Thank you for explaining (with links!) that anarchism and libertarianism is a recognized political philosophy.

Again, you have failed to deal with your problem behavior, such as spreading an allegation of national socialism.

Further, you show a shortcoming of empathic imagination: Lihaas was concerned about the lack of attention to 10s and 100s of thousands and even of millions of victims of war (when they do not have a whiter shade of pale), and the attention given to a handful, 10s, and 100s of American or British victims; I disagree with his tactics, but I understand his concerns. (It is a pity that no editor is similarly complaining about the effects EU tariffs on Africa and Asia, which kill even more people.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer. Your relentless complaining about personal attacks and citing WP:NPA is in direct opposition to the very specific personal attaks both further up this page but specifically here where you directly called an editor a "contemptible shit". Hypocrisy is not a pleasing trait. Please feel free to remove this - but also please feel free to stop moaning about something you do - and have done recently - making personal attacks when you're just as guilty. People, houses, glass and stones.. Pedro :  Chat  17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, reasoned responses and criticism are welcome. The account mentioned made the allegation of national socialism, which you apparently think is consistent with WP policy. (For the record and in your response to your posting at the RfC, I remind readers that you are claiming that stating that User:Sandy georgia is "courting the Misplaced Pages fraternity", etc., is not sexist.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm really not sure what you mean by the above. Let's make it a little more simple for us all. You have repeatedly accused editors of Personal Attacks. You, I assume, find Personal Attacks unacceptable. But you, in the diff I link above, made a personal attack. You are acting like a hypocrite and the evidence is for all to see. The wise man would recognise their hypocrisy and at least apologise for it, in order that proper debate about other perceived issues can resume without the taint of dishonesty hanging overhead. Just my 2p. You noted once on your talk that "adding value" was a good thing. Well I believe I am adding value when I point out that you cannot, in all honesty, continue to complain about perceived attacks when you, with the language of the gutter, are also guilty. Pedro :  Chat  18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, the "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke.

Now, please consider whether further discussion between us can be more fruitful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You called someone a "contemptible shit" (which you seem to think is a rebuke - how laughable); your sanctimonious hypocrisy is revealing. As I said at your RFC/U this is clearly a hobby you're not cut out for. I'd suggest that instead of "retiring" in a hissy fit as you did before, your actually retire properly. It would be better for you and, frankly, likely better for Misplaced Pages. With that I shall now "go away" I think your "go away" message was frankly more honest than the softened version you changed it to. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, when you return from Planet Janet, then maybe discussion is possible. In the meantime, it is impossible to find any of your posts where you don't sound like your head has exploded. You seem to have come apart at the seams. Please take a break, leave this stupid bone you are worrying at behind, and come back to contributing content with a fresh enthusiasm. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, in English, "courting" has two meanings. The older, but still very much in use meaning of "to court" or "to pay court to" originates with the practice of attending upon the court of the king or a nobleman, in the hopes of gaining some advantage thereto. The word then also came to mean paying attention to a girl you hoped to marry, but describing someone as "courting favour with the boss", "courting the Press" (as Princess Diana did) etc has no sexual component whatsoever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling anybody a national socialist (Nazi) is not a small matter. Calling Lihaas a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect (among other causes).

Any reasonable contemporary person understands that "courting the fraternity" sounds like a sexist jibe.

Secretly exulting,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)