Wikipedia intentionally distorting Holocaust history?

[Ryuichi]

We have faith that the English Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee can evaluate the case before them and
know they have a productive relationship with Foundation staff and attorneys if they feel they need support.

That's a fair bit of ... something.

Meanwhile, Klein is preparing a keynote address for the research group wikihistories, the abstract of which can be seen here. To say that this is a charged description is an understatement, and it will apparently cover not just the paper contents but the ArbCom case. The talk is scheduled for June 8th, likely hot on the heels of ArbCom's decision.

I'll be disappointed to miss that.

As users there have pointed out, whatever outcome ArbCom reaches is of rhetorical value to Klein, and the abstract certainly suggests there will be judgement passed either way. Quite frankly ArbCom have let themselves get completely worked over here. By trying to keep the case about onwiki affairs and ignore the article authors as much as possible, they have let Grabowski and Klein hold significant power over them. Not only is their article dictating the way the case has unfolded, they can claim uninvolvement in the case proceedings and have full reign to criticize ArbCom and other users after the case no matter how it is decided.

People say a lot of things that aren't exactly true.

[Konveyor Belt]

As users there have pointed out, whatever outcome ArbCom reaches is of rhetorical value to Klein, and the abstract certainly suggests there will be judgement passed either way. Quite frankly ArbCom have let themselves get completely worked over here. By trying to keep the case about onwiki affairs and ignore the article authors as much as possible, they have let Grabowski and Klein hold significant power over them. Not only is their article dictating the way the case has unfolded, they can claim uninvolvement in the case proceedings and have full reign to criticize ArbCom and other users after the case no matter how it is decided.

People say a lot of things that aren't exactly true.

They are definitely saying a lot of things over on the talk page, and I think some of them are going a bit overboard with it. I agree with them as far as any ArbCom outcome being of rhetorical value to Grabowski and Klein, as that seems pretty self-evident. If ArbCom is harsh on the people they criticized, they can take it as proof they were right, and if ArbCom is lenient, they can point to ArbCom as being part of the problem.

To me though, this kind of argumentation is all still part of the academic process and I'm not comfortable ascribing actual malice to the authors, as some people have done on the talk page. It is considered standard, at least in American academia, for researchers to use their papers to argue a point and many proudly wear their opinions on their sleeve.

[GizzyCatBella]

... Meanwhile, Klein is preparing a keynote address for the research group wikihistories, the abstract of which can be seen here. <-- incorrect link

You can find the correct link here.

[Midsize Jake]

You can find the correct link here.

Thanks! And welcome back, I guess?

Anyhoo, I know they have to ratchet all this up and use a certain amount of hyperbole to get people interested (or to remain interested), but they keep using these phrases like "fantastical," "wildly inflating," and "whitewash," so that increasingly it doesn't seem like they're doing this as academic work, but rather as (self?) promotional work.

And then there's this bit where they say "With the problem now exposed to the world, numerous new editors have stepped in to make corrections" — both of those assertions are patently untrue, aren't they? Mainstream media hasn't picked up on this situation at all, even right-wing media has ignored it, and the people making the corrections are all fairly experienced, if not long-term, WP users (which makes sense anyway since most of the articles are semi-protected). And I'm sorry, but "exposed to the world" does sound like something a narcissist would put in there.

I know this sounds like "concern trolling," but I really am a bit worried now that this whole deal will be used by future Holocaust deniers as an example of Holocaust scholars simply going too far.

And since when do WP'ers like VM and Piotrus have "vast social capital on Wikipedia"? Sure, they've lasted a long time, so that's something right there, but I'm not so sure about "vast social capital."

[Volunteer Marek]

Anyhoo, I know they have to ratchet all this up and use a certain amount of hyperbole to get people interested (or to remain interested), but they keep using these phrases like "fantastical," "wildly inflating," and "whitewash," so that increasingly it doesn't seem like they're doing this as academic work, but rather as (self?) promotional work.

This is par for the course for Grabowski and looks like Klein adopted his style. Grabowski always uses hyperbolic rhetoric as a form of self promotion. He describes even the mildest criticisms of or disagreements with his work as "vicious attacks". Or anyone who isn't completely supportive of him is guilty of "using language of hate". Etc. He's always been like that, or at least ever since he gave up studying colonial Canada (which is what he actually specialized in) and decided to make a name for himself by making sensationalist claims about Poland during World War 2.

In a way, the actual Polish right wing nationalists (the real ones, not the figments of Grabowski, Klein and Icewhiz's imagination) and Grabowski have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. If Grabowski didn't exist, Polish right wingers would have to invent him They get to point to him and say "See? These are the Polonophobes (*) we're always talking about! They do exist! See how crazy they are!". I'm sure his existence alone gets the conservatives in Poland a good tens of thousands of votes (which is why Polish state media used to be very happy to have him on before every election). And he in turn gets to say that he is being attacked by Polish nationalists and then take that and pretend that ANY criticism of his work (and a lot of it really is shoddy as hell) is an attack by "Polish right wingers". Win-win for both of them. The people that get screwed are the ones in the middle, who are neither of these extremes. And historical accuracy.

And since when do WP'ers like VM and Piotrus have "vast social capital on Wikipedia"? Sure, they've lasted a long time, so that's something right there, but I'm not so sure about "vast social capital."

This is actually interesting because where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, it's pretty much the same thing that Benjakob said Icewhiz told him in that Haaretz piece. So another data point for claim that Klein and Grabowski are getting all their Wikipedia-related info from Icewhiz. Not only are they re-hashing Icewhiz's on-Wikipedia disputes and re-using his non-Wikipedia sources, they are making the same excuses for his ban that he made.

This is also a pretty standard rhetorical trick. You have to make the "bad guys" seem powerful or no one will care. It's just Fear Mongering 101. I was actually watching The Boys when I read that abstract and I genuinely immediately thought "damn, that's the kind of thing Homelander would say to rile up his fans"

Oh yeah, same goes for Grabowski's claim in that interview that "Polish Wikipedia article versions are better" (they're really not). That too was Icewhiz. In fact he posted the exact claim here on WPO (when I'm feeling less lazy I'll dig out the post from the older thread).

(*) - Yes I know Grabowski is Polish. Doesn't mean jack. The phenomenon of ethnic self loathing or of playing up to other people's stereotypes of own ethnic group is as old as word.

[Volunteer Marek]

There's also another part to the whole "they have social capital" claim. It's also rhetorical. If you're spinning tales and telling porky pies you still have to make the pieces fit together or else it's not credible. Plug in the plot holes.

Klein and Grabowski are running around claiming that these "bad guys" are distortin', misrepresentin', unsourcin' etc. Well, the obvious question then becomes "how do they get away with it?". For super long you know. Well, the true answer is that these folks (me included) are NOT doing these bad things that G&K are claiming. So there's nothing to "get away with". But of course you can't say that because then your whole story falls apart.

So you need an alternative plausible explanation for why they're around doing the doin'. So you invent this "they have social capita" story. "Social capital" is something that is both ambiguous and amorphous enough so that you don't actually have to prove it's true, and at the same time impressive sounding enough so that anyone who might start wondering and thinking that something doesn't fit here might be satisfied.

Like I said above, this too is originally an Icewhiz story. He initially actually tried to claim that this "social capital" involved some unholy "alliance" between "Polish nationalists" and "American leftists" on Wikipedia (that also addressed the uncomfortable fact that most of the active Polish editors aren't right wing at all). But I guess he - or maybe G&K - realized how absurd and unrealistic that sounded so they ditched it for the more squishy claim of "social capital"

[Hemiauchenia]

There's also another part to the whole "they have social capital" claim. It's also rhetorical. If you're spinning tales and telling porky pies you still have to make the pieces fit together or else it's not credible. Plug in the plot holes.

Klein and Grabowski are running around claiming that these "bad guys" are distortin', misrepresentin', unsourcin' etc. Well, the obvious question then becomes "how do they get away with it?". For super long you know. Well, the true answer is that these folks (me included) are NOT doing these bad things that G&K are claiming. So there's nothing to "get away with". But of course you can't say that because then your whole story falls apart.

So you need an alternative plausible explanation for why they're around doing the doin'. So you invent this "they have social capita" story. "Social capital" is something that is both ambiguous and amorphous enough so that you don't actually have to prove it's true, and at the same time impressive sounding enough so that anyone who might start wondering and thinking that something doesn't fit here might be satisfied.

Like I said above, this too is originally an Icewhiz story. He initially actually tried to claim that this "social capital" involved some unholy "alliance" between "Polish nationalists" and "American leftists" on Wikipedia (that also addressed the uncomfortable fact that most of the active Polish editors aren't right wing at all). But I guess he - or maybe G&K - realized how absurd and unrealistic that sounded so they ditched it for the more squishy claim of "social capital"

Yeah, I dont see how you have any significant "social capital" (other than the basic amount any long-standing and well known user has) given that you are pretty polarizing figure. Maybe this idea of "social capital" applies to someone like Gerda Arendt (T-C-L), but users like her tend to avoid editing in controversial topics like the plague.

[GizzyCatBella]

The overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that Icewhiz is the source of information for Grabowski and Klein is staggering, making it difficult to comprehend how anyone could question it. (is anyone here too?)
The latest example:

Sarah Klein on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
How do so few editors – half a dozen at most – get away with twisting the truth?
https://wikihistories.net/2023/03/10/kl ... t-history/

Icewhiz (in 2019) for Haaretz on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
According to Icewhiz, however, the number is no greater than six or seven: “You don’t need more than that to take over an entire discourse.”
https://ia801404.us.archive.org/8/items ... xposed.pdf

[Ryuichi]

G always uses hyperbolic rhetoric as a form of self promotion.

Not really alone in that regard.

And since when do WP'ers like VM and Piotrus have "vast social capital on Wikipedia"? Sure, they've lasted a long time, so that's something right there, but I'm not so sure about "vast social capital."

From the sentence is "When distortionist editors do get sanctioned, they quickly bounce back because of their vast social capital on Wikipedia.", context is "when sanctioned".

Looking at:

Piotrus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:L ... eventslist. Not very exciting, last blocked in 2011. Half the blocks unblocked early.
VM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:L ... eventslist. More interesting; a lot more recent. Regularly unblocked early. (Excluded the unblocks where the block was erroneously made).

If "social capital" is standing which allows editors to avoid sanctions, or to have sanctions overturned or overturned earlier, then, even on a cursory look, there's evidence that a view that VM has "social capital" is not entirely unreasonable.

[Ryuichi]

The overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that Icewhiz is the source of information for Grabowski and Klein is staggering, making it difficult to comprehend how anyone could question it. (is anyone here too?)
The latest example:

Sarah Klein on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
How do so few editors – half a dozen at most – get away with twisting the truth?
https://wikihistories.net/2023/03/10/kl ... t-history/

Icewhiz (in 2019) for Haaretz on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
According to Icewhiz, however, the number is no greater than six or seven: “You don’t need more than that to take over an entire discourse.”
https://ia801404.us.archive.org/8/items ... xposed.pdf

Two people describing a group both mention the number of people in the group.

Cahoots! or ... confirmation bias (T-H-L)

[Midsize Jake]

If "social capital" is standing which allows editors to avoid sanctions, or to have sanctions overturned or overturned earlier, then, even on a cursory look, there's evidence that a view that VM has "social capital" is not entirely unreasonable.

Sure, but that sort of standing is hardly the only reason blocks get reversed before they expire — probably not even the most common one. Usually what happens is that the admin who imposed the block did so out of anger and/or frustration, and after a day or two (or sometimes an hour or two) they re-examine the circumstances and decide that they simply overreacted. I guess there are times when another admin will come along and say "uhh, you might have overreacted a bit there," and they probably only do that on behalf of established users... but the other admin isn't supposed to lift blocks without at least asking the blocking admin first, right?

I guess someone would have to go back and look at the circumstances behind all the blocks/sanctions/etc. that have been levied on the users in question, at least the ones that were lifted early, and try to categorize them. Doesn't seem like it would be a fun task.

I should say that my nitpicking over a statement written to promote a virtual conference presentation (which probably won't have more than two or three dozen participants) probably isn't "helpful" from a Wikipedian perspective, but I do think the statement is illustrative of an overall attitude that's probably ingrained, by necessity, into most (if not all) Holocaust scholars — whereby they can't show anything less than total confidence in how right they are and how wrong anyone else who disagrees with them is. Because if they do, then Nazis and anti-semites will inevitably use that as a wedge to cast doubt on everything they're saying. But since Wikipedians deal with that sort of attitude about all sorts of subjects on a daily basis, I don't think it works as well there as it does in the real world.

Either way though, you're right to imply that I should probably be less surprised by it when I see it.

[Wikiguy.DC]

The overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that Icewhiz is the source of information for Grabowski and Klein is staggering, making it difficult to comprehend how anyone could question it. (is anyone here too?)
The latest example:

Sarah Klein on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
How do so few editors – half a dozen at most – get away with twisting the truth?
https://wikihistories.net/2023/03/10/kl ... t-history/

Icewhiz (in 2019) for Haaretz on the number of "Polish nationalists" who have been "distorting" the Holocaust articles on Wikipedia:
According to Icewhiz, however, the number is no greater than six or seven: “You don’t need more than that to take over an entire discourse.”
https://ia801404.us.archive.org/8/items ... xposed.pdf

Two people describing a group both mention the number of people in the group.

Cahoots! or ... confirmation bias (T-H-L)

Not only is that far from a smoking gun, it’s rich for a blocked sock puppeteer to accuse others of doing the same thing because they happen to be in a different clique.

[GizzyCatBella]

Not only is that far from a smoking gun, it’s rich for a blocked sock puppeteer to accuse others of doing the same thing because they happen to be in a different clique.

Your keen powers of observation are absolutely mind-boggling, it's such a shame that the whole world isn't aware of your incredible talents --> drawing parallels between me and Icewhiz, eh?
Maybe, just maybe, you could put your skills to good use and also discover the fact that Jacurek hasn't used sock puppets since the dark ages of 2010 and GCB has never used them at all. And if you're really lucky, you might even discover the most crucial point of all - that neither GCB nor Jacurek has ever harassed anyone in real life, unlike that shining beacon of morality that is Icewhiz.

[Snooper]

Maybe, just maybe, you could put your skills to good use and also discover the fact that Jacurek hasn't used sock puppets since the dark ages of 2010 and GCB has never used them at all.

Did you mean to write that in third person?

[Arishok]

I read it as an implicit denial of the socking allegation.

[Snooper]

Is the GizzyCatBella on WP not the same one here? Just seems weird to say GCB never socked and not I never socked.

[AndyTheGrump]

If GCB isn't Jacurek, how does GCB know that Jacurek hasn't socked since 2010?

[GizzyCatBella]

Did you mean to write that in third person?

Yes, I intended to make Snooper scratch his head, wonder why and join Wikipediocracy.

[Snooper]

Did you mean to write that in third person?

Yes, I intended to make Snooper scratch his head, wonder why and join Wikipediocracy.

I actually joined when the arbitration case started specifically to follow this thread, just haven't posted yet.

[GizzyCatBella]

Did you mean to write that in third person?

Yes, I intended to make Snooper scratch his head, wonder why and join Wikipediocracy.

I actually joined when the arbitration case started specifically to follow this thread, just haven't posted yet.

Welcome

[Arishok]

If GCB isn't Jacurek, how does GCB know that Jacurek hasn't socked since 2010?

I would guess the claim is that they have some connection but are different people, based on what GCB said earlier here:

I may also clarify the circumstances of my connection to the other account at some point in the future, but not at this time.

which I think can be understood to imply that the "circumstances" are admittedly something other than a total nullity.

[Bezdomni]

If GCB isn't Jacurek, how does GCB know that Jacurek hasn't socked since 2010?

I would guess the claim is that they have some connection but are different people, based on what GCB said earlier here:

I may also clarify the circumstances of my connection to the other account at some point in the future, but not at this time.

which I think can be understood to imply that the "circumstances" are admittedly something other than a total nullity.

Though I don't speak the JezeBelTok dialect myself, my pocket EEML translator has a CatJBT option which suggests: "If I puff up enough smoke and mirrors, maybe they'll let me pull the other one. (again)"

[Snooper]

pocket EEML translator

That's what struck me so much through this case. It's been the same users through the years. The accusations in the paper include coordinating to just wear down editors, and here they are in the case, tag teaming walls of text to just beat the will to live out of people, circling back to the same points again and again and again til nobody even wants to engage anymore. It's like the EEML never went away and no one wants to admit it.

[GizzyCatBella]

Though I don't speak the JezeBelTok dialect myself, my pocket EEML translator has a CatJBT option which suggests: "If I puff up enough smoke and mirrors, maybe they'll let me pull the other one. (again)"

I see your pocket translator isn't working at all SashiRolls aka Bezdomni. Perhaps you should try changing the batteries, that might be a solution for these technical issues. If you're lucky, your translator will start puffing smoke like an old chimney, then you can really impress everyone.

[Volunteer Marek]

pocket EEML translator

That's what struck me so much through this case. It's been the same users through the years. The accusations in the paper include coordinating to just wear down editors, and here they are in the case, tag teaming walls of text to just beat the will to live out of people, circling back to the same points again and again and again til nobody even wants to engage anymore. It's like the EEML never went away and no one wants to admit it.

Oh, bullshit Mr "I just joined WPO to follow this case". EEML had like 15 people. Of those only like ,,, 4? are still active. Maybe +1 to that if indeed Jacurek = GCB. The other 10 left or stopped or whatever longtime ago. At least one of these (Miacek) got into major disputes with me. Another (Hillock) got into disputes with others. Another (Molobo) also got into disputes with me. And these 15 people all edited EE topics. And you think that it's some kind of super suspicious conspiracy theory that the 4 who are still around still edit... same topic? This is why nobody takes this "EEML! EEML!" crap seriously and why admins have even stated they'll block people who still try to bring that shit up.

And this nonsense about "tag teaming walls of text"? It's nothing but the standard screeching of "how dare you defend yourself against these false accusations!??? We get to accuse you and you shut up and just take it!!!". Go bully other people creep. You also seem to know a good bit about this (the "again and again and again") for somebody who "just joined in February to follow this case".

[Ryuichi]

... some kind of super suspicious conspiracy theory that the 4 who are still around still edit... same topic? This is why nobody takes this "EEML! EEML!" crap seriously ... .

Five minutes with the editor interaction tool will show that some of those 4 clearly still edit in concert. Though, with the block of JacurekAsCat, one less than a few weeks ago.

[Bezdomni]

Perhaps you should try changing the batteries, that might be a solution for these technical issues.

Nah, my translator gets its charge from that shining light that sometimes (though admittedly not that often) even reaches into the dark crevices of Wikipedia.

[Midsize Jake]

Five minutes with the editor interaction tool will show that some of those 4 clearly still edit in concert.

I guess the big question, then, is whether or not they're going to "pull a Taylor Swift" and try to give members of the Eastern-Europe mailing list special access to some sort of pre-order site before tickets go on sale to the general public.

[Volunteer Marek]

... some kind of super suspicious conspiracy theory that the 4 who are still around still edit... same topic? This is why nobody takes this "EEML! EEML!" crap seriously ... .

Five minutes with the editor interaction tool will show that some of those 4 clearly still edit in concert. Though, with the block of JacurekAsCat, one less than a few weeks ago.

"Clearly" my butt.

And a single minute of actual thinking rather than spoutin' will show you that all the interaction tool tells you is that editors who share an interest in a particular topic will... edit articles in that topic. Especially if controversy on some of these flares up. Duh.

[GizzyCatBella]

Perhaps you should try changing the batteries, that might be a solution for these technical issues.

Nah, my translator gets its charge from that shining light that sometimes (though admittedly not that often) even reaches into the dark crevices of Wikipedia.

Oh, in this case, I'm certain all your translations are spot on .. except for the times when they're not, such as in this case. Have you considered investing in a backup translator powered by moonlight? Perhaps it will work even better.

[Bezdomni]

Have you considered a translator powered by moonlight? Perhaps it will work even better.

You do have a certain poetic bent (or a knack with the Play-doh) to derail this discussion so far back into cave allegories.

Reading the "duh" above, I fear I was way too optimistic in hoping this case would lead to greater humility from the prime agonists. The decision will likely only make matters worse.

I do feel I should rectify the thread title so future readers can understand what all this noise was about.

incidently, last I saw Poeticbent on the internet was at the Carnegie (on his eponymous YouTube channel) ...

[Snooper]

Oh, bullshit Mr "I just joined WPO to follow this case".

Oh, is this where you accuse me of being Icewhiz? I've been waiting for that to happen. Seems to be your standard play.

You also seem to know a good bit about this (the "again and again and again") for somebody who "just joined in February to follow this case".

The last time I was on a WP:BADSITE the only one in town was Wikipedia Review. I never said I was new to the scene. I've been an editor longer then some people who can vote have been alive. A bit behind, but I did my reading, the past arbcom cases (I was active at the time of EEML, so I was already up to speed on that one). In this era of global antisemitism, the paper is a bombshell accusation. It's not being discussed much on-wiki aside from the arbitration case (which I have commented on one of the talk pages) but this place had a whole thread on it, so I made sure to monitor the discussion. Not sure how that makes me a creep.

[Volunteer Marek]

Oh, bullshit Mr "I just joined WPO to follow this case".

Oh, is this where you accuse me of being Icewhiz? I've been waiting for that to happen. Seems to be your standard play.

Nope, this is where I accuse you of being another loser trolling opportunistically.

I swear, for every account that I (correctly) said was Icewhiz, there's like a dozen prima donna drama queens claiming that they were unfairly accused of being Icewhiz, and if, you know, they weren't *actually* accused of being Icewhiz then I surely was thinking about accusing them of such or something. Desperate for attention I guess.

Really. Make a list of everyone that I ever really did accuse of being Icewhiz. It will be like 3 or 4 accounts... all of which turned out to be Icewhiz or associated (one of his also indef'd buddies). Then make a list of people who *claim* they were accused of being Icewhiz. In mathematics these are called "disjoint sets"

And I guess I was right about the whole "I just joined WPO to follow this case" as you admit yourself, so spare us the theatrics.

[Volunteer Marek]

Editor Interaction Tool is good for three things
1) sniffing out socks
2) figuring out why some creep is following you around and inserting themselves into every discussion you're part of ("ohhhh, I reverted them four years ago on this entirely unrelated article and they still salty about it")
3) quickly finding diffs that you only vaguely remembers the details of

But if you run it on distinct editors that you know share common interests then all it tells you is that... these editors share common interests. That's it. If you want confirmation bias then yes, it will happily tell you what you already know.

[jf1970]

What common interest explains Jacurek's and Piotrus's overlapping AFD votes?

[MrErnie]

What common interest explains Jacurek's and Piotrus's overlapping AFD votes?

A 15+ years long “battleground” editing approach?

[Volunteer Marek]

What common interest explains Jacurek's and Piotrus's overlapping AFD votes?

Hey, did you ever provide any evidence for the claim that you were accused of being an Icewhiz sock, or just slunk away and hope nobody noticed that you were full of it?

Anyway, *this* is actually why these things always turn into shitshows. It's NOT *involved parties* "posting walls of text" (sic) or defending themselves or making arguments on talk pages (which, when these arguments don't agree with one's POV are called "stone walling" but when they do it's "discussing"). It's this right here. The petty-grudge-peanut gallery+opportunistic drama mongers. The accounts that see every AE report, every ArbCom case, every ANI discussion, no matter how unrelated to their own editing, as an opportunity to get some payback for real or perceived wrongs and slights, some from years ago. The Bezdomnis, the Gitzes, the Buffs. The obsessives who can't just let go. And then you got the equivalent of those kids on the playground who get a sadistic thrill of watching others pummel each other so they show up to these things and in one way or another chant "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!" in the background. You know who they are.

Seriously, every comment and participation in these things for uninvolved parties should have a cost. You want to comment in a WP:AE that doesn't concern you? Sure, that'll be 20$. You want to post stuff in an ArbCom case that you have nothing to do with? 50$. AN/I comments only 5$ because no one cares about those anyway.

Donate the money to all the kids that were orphaned by Wikipedia.

But don't we need input from uninvolved editors? I mean... maybe, theoretically? But in practice this kind of input is almost always hot garbage which just makes these already difficult topic areas so much worse. If your brilliant insights are that important then you should be willing to fork out the funds. The appropriate solution to the issue of negative externalities (T-H-L) is to tax them.

[The Blue Newt]

The appropriate solution to the issue of negative externalities (T-H-L) is to tax them.

Vivat Pigou!

Sing it, Brother.

[Snooper]

BRB, checking my credit limit to make sure I have enough funds to be allowed to have concerns about antisemitism.

[GizzyCatBella]

Have you considered a translator powered by moonlight? Perhaps it will work even better.

You do have a certain poetic bent (or a knack with the Play-doh) to derail this discussion so far back into cave allegories.

Reading the "duh" above, I fear I was way too optimistic in hoping this case would lead to greater humility from the prime agonists. The decision will likely only make matters worse.

I do feel I should rectify the thread title so future readers can understand what all this noise was about.

incidently, last I saw Poeticbent on the internet was at the Carnegie (on his eponymous YouTube channel) ...

Me derailing this discussion? I'm no match for you in that regard SashiRolls aka Bezdomni. Your constant stream of garbage that spills out of your keyboard is enough to derail a cargo train, let alone a discussion. And let's not forget about your incredible talent of following VM around like a lost puppy, always ready to jump in and cause a mess. You haven't made any contribution to any discussion involving VM without attempting to turn it into a dumpster fire. If following VM around were an Olympic sport, you'd definitely be taking home the gold medal every time.

[Vigilant]

Mods: please lock this topic and ban everyone.

[GizzyCatBella]

BRB, checking my credit limit to make sure I have enough funds to be allowed to have concerns about antisemitism.

Okay Snooper, cut the BS and kindly reveal your identity on Wiki so we can figure out what prompted you to seek revenge and rant on this forum. Will you?

[Snooper]

Jacurek, if you click on my user name you'll see this account was registered towards the end February. It was the same day I saw the paper posted to ANI, which prompted me to read it. I know you're used to taking that battleground mentality everywhere, but it's not the case. I've interacted with you precisely 0 times on wiki. Marek I've talked to twice in 2008 and once this year. To the best of my knowledge we have zero overlap in articles. No one is getting revenge. Simply put, I read the paper, I found it compelling. I thought the conditions that allowed the situation to get as bad as it has, requiring outside sunlight from Holocaust researchers, to be because of the norms and policies on wiki. This is a site for critique of wikipedia. There's nothing more there.

[Snooper]

And for the record, I don't think anyone in this case is an anti-Semite, but instead that the outcome of the behaviors results in content that is antisemitic. I think the root cause of this whole episode is editors wishing to support certain national myths and defend national honor. This is not a situation unique to Poland, I'm American and there are more then our share of skeletons in our closet. Most have a hard time divorcing what is true from what they want to be true in my culture as well. But it so happens that for this case, those national myths result in a downplaying of the severity in what might be the greatest stain on our species moral fiber. That's not something that should have been allowed to happen on wiki, but it did because they are exceptionally bad at handling nationalistic groups who are otherwise good contributors.

[nableezy]

I'm American ... in my culture

Does not compute.

Also, does nobody want to take bets on the PD or voting? Can we get a Wikipediocracy x DraftKings app?

[Wikiguy.DC]

Also, does nobody want to take bets on the PD or voting? Can we get a Wikipediocracy x DraftKings app?

The first bet should be whether a proposed decision gets posted on schedule.

[Snooper]

The first bet should be whether a proposed decision gets posted on schedule.

I do think it gets posted at some point tomorrow. I'd be down to wager something small- 20 bucks to the holocaust museum maybe? Anyone want to take the other position?

[Ryuichi]

Editor Interaction Tool is good for three things
1) sniffing out socks
2) figuring out why some creep is following you around and inserting themselves into every discussion you're part of ("ohhhh, I reverted them four years ago on this entirely unrelated article and they still salty about it")
3) quickly finding diffs that you only vaguely remembers the details of

But if you run it on distinct editors that you know share common interests then all it tells you is that... these editors share common interests. That's it. If you want confirmation bias then yes, it will happily tell you what you already know.

If you take some of the named parties, you'll see a fair bit of "following you around and inserting themselves into every discussion you're part of" from our now blocked "man in a cat suit".

And also a fair bit of first edit to article in continuation of an edit war.

[GizzyCatBella]

Jacurek, if you click on my user name you'll see this account was registered towards the end February. It was the same day I saw the paper posted to ANI, which prompted me to read it. I know you're used to taking that battleground mentality everywhere, but it's not the case. I've interacted with you precisely 0 times on wiki. Marek I've talked to twice in 2008 and once this year. To the best of my knowledge we have zero overlap in articles. No one is getting revenge. Simply put, I read the paper, I found it compelling. I thought the conditions that allowed the situation to get as bad as it has, requiring outside sunlight from Holocaust researchers, to be because of the norms and policies on wiki. This is a site for critique of wikipedia. There's nothing more there.

I didn't ask for your entire life story and another rant, I simply asked you to share who you are on Wikipedia. Also, the fact that you referred to me as Jacurek indicates that you believe it will be bothering me. Were you banned from Wikipedia because of VM and now you're here to vent? Be honest, spill the beans, cowboy. (ps - and no, I don't think you're Icewhiz in case you'll try to pull this argument out of your buttocks again.)

[Snooper]

I am not now nor have I ever been blocked on wikipedia. It's really not hard. Never revert more then three times and don't be a dick. Simple.