Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) & Evidence summary — Analysis & Arbitrator Questions (Talk)  — Proposed decision (Talk)

Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)

Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023

Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)

For questions or requests by the Arbitrators please see this section on the Analysis page.

Summary of evidence involving Buidhe

Holocaust in Poland edits (Buidhe)

Buidhe removed content on 28 January 2021 from The Holocaust in Poland with the edit summary

• 11:19 28 Jan 2021, Buidhe rm content that duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the rescue section), or is opinion in wikivoice.

Among the text removed was the claim "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." This claim was cited to Paulsson (1998) and Snyder (2012). At the time, the concern was around stating this claim in encyclopedic voice, but concerns have been raised during this case that these sources might not support that claim. On 29 January 2021 Volunteer Marek restored that claim with the edit summary ditto (though should be in different section), a reference to earlier restorations with the edit summaries:

• 06:17 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek ditto (though should be in different section)
• 06:16 idem ditto - not clear why this was removed
• 06:13 idem ditto (this seems like just removing any use of Paulsson per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT under various pretenses)
• 06:11 idem also relevant, also removed for unclear reasons (end of ditto chain, earlier edits omitted}}

Three hours later, Buidhe reverted Volunteer Marek's changes removing the above claim with the edit summary

• 09:55 29 Jan 2021, Buidhe Restoration of content that fails article sourcing requirements, opinions presented in wikivoice.

Six hours later, Volunteer Marek reverted Buidhe's removal with the edit summary

• 16:47 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek undo blind revert. If your edits are challenged you need to discuss them. If your edits are controversial you need to discuss them. Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Please don't start edit wars.

This version, with the disputed claim above, stood for a week until Buidhe reverted on 5 February 2021 with the edit summary

• 08:11 5 Feb 2021, Buidhe Talk page consensus to work from this version (n.b. see relevant talk page archive)

which was reverted 5 hours later by Volunteer Marek with the edit summary

• 13:38 5 Feb 2021, Volunteer Marek there's absolutely no consensus on talk page to remove Yad Vashem as a source or Journal of Genocide Research or Yale University Press. Please don't use false edit summaries and make claims of "false consensus". This type of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing, while discussion is ongoing is disruptive.

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II

Prior to 2021, collegial editing was seen at History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II. Created in December 2019 by Buidhe, there was some brief concern about a source (discussion about Farkash) but otherwise collegial editing during the pre-GA review, GAN, and FAC.

In May 2021 an edit war started regarding the inclusion of text relating to the Home Army.

Timeline of May 2021 edits

19 May 2021 Volunteer Marek removes text on local ethnic Poles and Home Army being hostile to Jewish fugitives because not what Zimmerman says, also removing text associated with Farkash in line with the previously mentioned discussion (there was some discussions and redflag concerns on this back in Dec 19/Jan 20 but I don't think the edits were ever implemented) Buidhe restores the content: This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them Volunteer Marek removes text again: if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article Buidhe reverts again: Your claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked Volunteer Marek adds a POV tag to that section Volunteer Marek posts on the talk page discussion 23-24 May Volunteer Marek removes the text again: no response or effort to address the issue on talk for four days so restoring edit per NO CONSENSUS Buidhe restores again: The article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus from the various people who supported the FAC GizzyCatBella reverts Buidhe: Buidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you and you should try to discuss first before reverting in general Buidhe restores again: It should stay at the FAC consensus version Volunteer Marek removes again: Buidhe, please stop edit warring (esp. w/o discussion). WP:ONUS is on you, FAC isn’t magic WP:OWN fairy dust DrKay restores the content: restore sourced GizzyCatBella removes again: First, this is not what the given source says (see talk page). Second, join the discussion. Thank you DrKay restores again while removing the contentious word "fugitives": happy to remove the word fugitives, but I see no reason to contribute to talk when others are saying what I would have said 25-26 May: A group of editors not named in this case edit war over the inclusion of a {{fact}} tag on the above content. Two additions and two removals are made overall. 26 May Piotrus attempts to modify the text: Communist trivia is unimportant for the context here, simplify, why is the hostility of local populace stated as a fact but food theft is qualified? Buidhe [[Special:Diff/1025167742|reverts with detailed edit summary Piotrus removes contentious text entirely: since you are even reverting copyedits to other fragments, I think this entire sentence should be removed pending consensus on talk as to how to word it properly, if at all Buidhe reverts If you insist on restoring pre-dispute versions, the correct version is the one that passed FAC. Don't make deletions without proposing on the talk page per WP:FAOWN. Volunteer Marek reverts Buidhe You can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article! 26 May. Ymblanter fully protects the page for 3 days 29 May Virus Swatter restores the text GizzyCatBella [[Special:Diff/1025758850}reverts]]: Another revert of mine to enforce the 500/30 rule...

During the above time period there were multiple talk page discussions, in particular this discussion, over the inclusion of Zimmerman and Farkash. Two different pre-RFC discussions (#Draft text for an RfC, #Draft text for RfC (seeking final approval)) were opened on the matter, with Zimmerman (page 361) eventually agreed upon to be removed, but the text from Zimmerman (page 213) and Farkash was not restored.

On 31 May Gitz6666 restored the original content in full but was reverted by Volunteer Marek approximately two hours later. Both users cited consensus on the talk page (or lack thereof) as justification for their actions. (Gitz6666 evidence)

Summary of evidence involving Chapmansh

In 2018 Chapmansh edited a number of pages in the scope of this case, including at History of the Jews in Poland. (Piotrus evidence)

Use of Jan T. Gross as a source

See also Jedwabne pogrom

In 2018, a student participating in a class taught by Chapmansh wished to use Jan Gross's 2006 book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz as a source. A Wiki-ed expert working with the class began a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about the source. Chapmansh explained why they felt the source was reliable citing its publisher (Princeton University Press) and linked and quoted peer reviews of the book as well as citing statements attesting Gross' experitse as a subject matter expert in general. Piotrus agreed the source was Of course reliable but expressed some concerns about the neutrality of the source and that Gross is not the final authority, just one of many voices in the ongoing discussion, and that some other reliable sources have criticized some of his findings (which doesn't mean he cannot be cited and considered reliable!). (Tryptofish evidence) Chapmansh later agreed with Piotrus and suggested the student compromise and implement Piotrus's suggestion. (Piotrus evidence)

Article and response

The article authored by Grabowski and Klein may contain factual errors or material omissions with regards to the conduct of named editors. Piotrus generally responds to these in this essay. Zero0000 has suggested that editors promote Nazi stereotypes (see also Piotrus #26) and that Wikipedia is pushing the idea that "money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" may be false.

Chapmansh and Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek pinged Chapmansh once in the Administrators Noticeboard discussion "Chapmansh" on February 10 and twice on February 12 in the Village Pump WMF discussion "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". After each ping in that discussion Horse Eye's Back replied suggesting Volunteer Marek stop, labeling it harassment and gratituous. Volunteer Marek responded to Horse Eye's Back on February 13 I'm sorry but are you Chapmansh? If Chapmansh wishes to ask me not to ping them then they can do that (I've only did it a few times where it was pertinent). And can I inquire why you find it necessary to reply and comment on almost every single comment I make? This is getting extremely tiresome and is looking like WP:harassment at this point. Subsequently on that day, Volunteer Marek pinged Chapmansh once on his user talk page and once at Arbitration/Requests/Case request for this case. (Horse Eye's Back evidence)

Summary of Evidence involving Elinruby

Positive contributions in the topic area

Elinruby has contributed to Collaboration with the Axis powers extensively (over 30% of content and edits). (#Evidence presented by Piotrus) Elinruby feels they have shown colloboration on that article by Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite. (Evidence presented by Elinruby) TrangaBellam has created four articles (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba) in this topic area. (#Evidence presented by Piotrus)

Marcelus, with input from Elinruby and Gitz6666, wrote a section at Collaboration with the Axis powers § Jewish collaboration to provide a neutral summary of the subject material. Piotrus has also provided collegial discussion on sources relating to the same article. (#Evidence presented by Elinruby)

Collaboration with the Axis Powers

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust claims that Collaboration with the Axis Powers "downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans" (pp. 9 - 10). On February 18, 2023 Elinruby started a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about Adam Hempel's Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945. A focus of the discussion was on whether or not Polish police officers faced the death penalty if they did not cooperate with the Nazis. GrizzlyCatBella provided translation of the wording from the source (in Polish) to English as the "severest punishments" and asked What were the severest punishments back in 1939? (emphasis in the original). Elinruby replied writing, in part, So you think this would mean death if you don't join, then I take it? I'd still rather find a source that says that exactly. GrizzlyCatBella replied, in part, Do you still have doubts what that source says? If you do have doubts that severest penalty doesn’t mean death threat, then maybe someone has access to that book, I also want to see it. - (emphasis in the original). Piotrus traced the change of arrest to death to an IP editor in 2008. K.e.coffman, pinging Elinruby and Piotrus suggested the sourcing was insufficient to support the claim of the death penalty. Piotrus agreed and changed the wording in the Blue Police article. Elinruby agreed and changed the wording in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers article. (Elinruby evidence with additional links and quotes by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving François Robere

Sanctions history

François Robere has received multiple warnings since 2017 – the most recent in October 2022 for personal attacks – and has been blocked three times since 2018 for problematic editing in this topic area: edit warring (2018, 72h), personal attacks (2019, 1w), interaction ban violation (2021, 48h). (GizzyCatBella evidence)

Jan Żaryn

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust wrote, in part, about Jan Żaryn After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,²³³ Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism.²²⁴ (footnotes in the original). According to Lembit Staan, his edits referenced in footnote 234 should not be described as simply removing content. Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust chracterizes Zaryn as having the position that Jews were to blame for the Kielce pogrom which it says is baseless. The Jan Żaryn article characterizes his position as Żaryn, a co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom, has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for being part of Communist censorship and propaganda organs, who were "deceitfully ... silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. (lack of sourcing in the original). (Evidence presented by Lembit Staan)

History of the Jews in Poland

There were multiple additions and reverts to History of the Jews in Poland in February, April, and May 2019, which resulted in the page being fully protected three times.

The sequence begins February 22, 2019 16:37: Tatzref added content to History of the Jews in Poland suggesting that Jews were able to reclaim property taken during the war quickly, with the support of other Polish residents, and did so in the "thousands". According to Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust careful examination shows Tatzref plagiarized this paragraph from a Mark Paul online essay, ‘A Tangled Web: Polish–Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath (see pp. 381 - 386).

Timeline of February edits

16:42 and 17:26: Tatzref then added The trade in Christian slaves was opposed by the Catholic Church<ref>Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, ''Jews in Poland: A Documentary History'', Hippocrene Books (1993), pp. 257–266.</ref> February 23 6:23: Icewhiz reverted the paragraph about Jewish property with the edit summary OR, misrepresentation of sources 6:29: Icewhiz reverted the Catholic Church addition with the edit summary We discussed slavery at length at length in the talk page (last archive) - this waa rejected - gain consensus prior to reinserting, and please avoid cook. 15:34: Piotrus undid Icewhiz's 6:23 removal with the edit summary I don't see any red flags in this, please explain on talk what is this OR and misrepresentation of sources here? 15:49: Piotrus removes the last sentence of Tatzref's property edit with the summary this seems not particularly relevant, and could have neutrality/undue problems, also difficult to verify due to convoluted and offline (?) reference 18:16: Tatzref adds information about the Alfonse pogrom 21:97: Galassi reverts the Alfonse pogrom addition February 24 1:59: יניב הורון (Yaniv) removes the remaining text about property with the edit summary rv antisemitic vandalism 6:36: Volunteer Marerk reverts Yaniv with the edit summary please refrain from using false and offensive edit summaries 7:03: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Use of 1947 primary source not acceptable. Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa (37 cited pages) - reading the book in question leads to a different conclusion. 7:07: Icewhiz begins a talk page discussion about the property edits 13:55: Galassi undoes Icewhiz's property removal with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Icewhiz (talk): Meets all the WP:RS criteria (formatting removed) 21:25: Tatzref restores the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary Highly relevant info discussed by major historians. Meets all the WP:RS criteria February 25 5:39: Piotrus redlinks Alfonse pogrom with the edit summary interesting, probably notable, but it seems a pogrom not of but by the Jews, not sure if this is relevant here? 12:33: Icewhiz removes the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary A number of misrepresentations, miss-attribution, and probably UNDUE.

• February 25 22:48: TonyBallioni fully protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute: AE action (formatting removed) until 22:49, 11 March 2019
• March 12 12:23: Icewhiz rewrites the property section with the edit summary Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online

The content remains unchanged until April 15 2:52 - 5:50 when Piotrus makes 7 edits all under 250 bytes to the property section, which is followed by other editors making further changes.

Timeline of April and May edits

7:16 & 7:18 Icewhiz replaces two {{fact}} placed by Piotrus with sources April 20 21:13: Tatzref removes a sentence saying a small number of Jews recovered property with the edit summary This book (Shattered Spaces) contains no research or source to support this highly speculative claim. 21:17: Galassi reverts Tatzref 21:47: Tatzref adds commentary on the source restored by Galassi and content similar to their initial edit about how easy it was for Jews to reclaim property with the edit summary Functioning of postwar restitution process based on scholarly research into Polish court records 21:49: Galassi reverts Tatzref with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Tatzref (talk): Rv editorializing (formatting removed) May 7 4:28: Tatzref rewrites the property section 5:50: Icewhiz reverts Tatzref with the edit summary WP:NOENG, misuse of primary source, use of WP:SPS by editor/author condemned by SPLC, misrepresentations / selective use of sources (e.g. Stola in Dean). restore STABLE (formatting removed) 6:10: Piotrus reverts Icewhiz with the edit summary nope, no support for this version. Nobody supports your criticism of Chodakiewicz, your NOENG request got denied by ArbCom. This is a more informative and copyedited version 9:31: François Robere edits twice, first removing content with the edit summary In order: removed SPS by well known nationalist historian; tagged some claims; some CE; removed dated (primary) source; removed some irrelevant claims and then reverts himself while also adding and commenting out some of the disputed content. May 9 4:32 - 5:39: Piotrus makes a series of edits which included adding {{verify}} tags, work on references, and copy-editing. These edits include work on areas beyond the property section dispute. May 10 5:46: Icewhiz reverts Piotrus with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. WP:NOENG, misrepresentation of source, use of fringe source self-published by SPLC designated editor/publisher dismissed as fringe in reviews. (formatting removed) 10:04: Piotrus attempts to blend Icewhiz's and Tatzref's versions with the edit summary incorporate most relevant parts of old and new revisions, remove excessive detail and a quotation about parasites attributable to a PhD thesis May 11 0:30 & 0:51: K.e. coffman restores early versions of Piotrus' with the edit summaries Not an improvement, non RS -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Arbitrary_break (formatting removed) and Better version 1:44: Volunteer Marek reverts K.e. coffman with the edit summary um, those are RS and yes, it's an improvement and there is no consensus for these changes 2:56: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. This version still contains an essay in a self published book, misuse of PRIMARY and very local sources and what appears to be OR on top of them (formatting removed) 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute (formatting removed)

• May 11 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary {{{1}}} (formatting removed)
• May 13 4:20: Volunteer Marekt reverted Icewhiz with the edit summary per talk, this version is both more neutral and well sourced. Ample, extensive, detailed, exhaustive rationale has been provided. Anything beyond this is really just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you wish to ADD material based on RS that's fine but plz stop removing existing well sourced material}

May 13 - 19 edits

4:26 - 4:35 Piotrus makes a series of edits under 85 bytes. May 14 19:01 - 1938: Tatzref edits 3 times, removing 1 source and adding in 2 previously removed pieces of information 22:08: François Robere reverts Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, and Tatzref with the edit summary No consensus for these changes, and watch your comments on RS for WP:BLP violations (formatting removed) May 15 2:23: My very best wishes reverts François Robere with the edit summary rv - do not see any BLP violations or other reasons to remove this sourced content 9:52: François Robere undid My very best wishes with the edit summary No consensus. See TP for BLP issue. 11:39: François Robere added some of the disputed sources with the edit summary ncorporated sources from TP (including the American Jewish Year Book and Skibinske); CE May 16 5:48-5:55: Piotrus makes 3 edits 5:58 - 5:59: Piotrus adds content in two edits (1, 2) with the edit summaries restore previous version of this para, current version seems referenced only to the 1940s source + OR and restore another reliablely referenced section that was removed because ? 6:06: Icewhiz removes content with the edit summary emove self-published source, remove duplications. Please discuss on talk page as opposed to edit warring. Fix gross misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - you want to enter him - then full context, and specify this is specific to Radom and Kalisz - entered. May 17 10:32 - 10:41: François Robere removes two paragraphs with the edit summaries This is not a discussion of general property issues, but of the treatment of Jewish returnees and CE; please don't use popular sources or commentaries when we have such good academic sources 14:32 - 14:56: Volunteer Marek makes 17 edits to the article, with a focus on the organization, the amount of detail, and tagging sources/content. 21:05: François Robere reverts the last 13 of Volunteer Marek's edits, restoring to a version that just has the organizational changes with an edit summary Reverted to revision 897509749 by Volunteer Marek: That's not the NPOV version, and you can't just ignore the discussions we've had about Chod. in multiple forums (formatting removed) 23:37 Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary Reverted to revision 897553745 by Rfl0216 (talk): There was no consensus for most of these changes and i've asked you several times to stop referring to BLPs by insulting nicknames (formatting removed) and then makes two smaller changes, the first of which has the edit summary clarify since pedantry is being used as an excuse May 18 18:51: François Robere adds back some of the disputed content with an edit summary There was certainly no consensus for including Chodakiewicz et al. May 19 22:50:Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary restore NPOV version per talk. Please get consensus for these changes 3:35: Tatzref restores some of the disputed content with the edit summary additional important information about actual functioning of restitution process and removing incorrect information not found in sources

• May 20 3:37: El C full protects the article with the edit summary {tqq (formatting removed)
• May 20 - 23: El C performs two small edits in response to edit requests
• June 3 19:03: François Robere removes content with the edit summary Discussion concluded with a consensus to remove the MJC's book, so I'm restoring the previous, well-sourced version
• 20:26: Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary 'm sorry, but no such consensus was achieved. Can you please provide a link where this consensus you claim exists was formed? At RSN, the discussion tended to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore EVEN IF there are issues with one particular source that does not justify making OTHER mass deletions of sourced text or unsupported changes
• June 4 2:51: K.e. coffman removes content with the edit summary No consensus to include this source / content -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Edit_break (formatting removed)

(Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

---

An over 185 kb discussion about this content lasted until June. Major topics of discussion included:

• Whether the sources were being accurately represented
• Whether the sources were reliable
• Whether certain sources were primary sources and if so how to use them
• Whether the content added followed a neutral point of view, particularly whether or not the level of detail was appropriate for the article topic
• Whether any of the content added as the result of synthesis or other forms of original research
• How the non-English sources policy applies or should be applied
• Whether it was appropriate to revert to a "stable" version

There were separate sub-sections of proposed additional sources, discussion of an alleged biographies of living people policy violation, on the use of Lukasz Krzyżanowski, on the use of Alina Skibińska, and on the General level article. Much of this discussion involved non-parties to the case, particularly two editors who have since been indefinitely blocked (Icewhiz and Tatzref).

Comments by Volunteer Marek in the discussion included: 1, 2 (Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

François Robere and Volunteer Marek

See also #Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017
Prior to this arbitration case being accepted, an interaction ban between François Robere and Volunteer Marek was being considered by Callanecc due to allegations of diff stalking from each party towards the other. (Callanecc evidence)

Four times in February 2021 Volunteer Marek said François Robere was stalking him: Bogdan Musiał, Dalej jest noc), The Holocaust in Poland, and Witold Pilecki. Evidence by Buidhe suggesting François Robere did not stalk Volunteer Marek at Bogdan Musiał. Possible explanation by K.e. coffman suggesting François Robere did not stalk Volunteer Marek at Witold Pilecki. (François Robere evidence)

In March 2021 François Robere reported Volunteer Marek to Trust and Safety. Trust and Safety responded, in part, there are sufficient community governance actions available... to handle the issue", and that "it doesn't appear that you or anyone else has attempted to report ongoing personal attacks or harassment by VM to either Arbcom... or a noticeboard in the past two years... so there's no way to confirm that the community isn't willing to handle the matter (François Robere evidence)

In July 2021 François Robere said Volunteer Marek followed him to Guerillero's user talk. Volunteer Marek explained he had Guerillero's user talk watchlisted. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In July 2021 Volunteer Marek reported a potential interaction ban violation by François Robere against GizzyCatBella at Jan Grabowski to Guerillero. François Robere replied that he had long been editing Jan Grabowski. Guerillero blocked François Robere for an interaction ban violation, after determining François Robere had not edited the article for over a year. (François Robere evidence)

In August 2021, Volunteer Marek replied to a list of proposed Arbitration Committee reforms proposed by François Robere on Barkeep49's user talk page. In this reply Volunteer Marek discussed ways he felt Icewhiz had violated conduct policies and noted François Robere had supported Icewhiz during Arbitration Committee proceedings. François Robere replied with 12 diffs. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In February 2023, in a discussion about Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust Volunteer Marek replies to François Robere with the comment Francois Robere, since you participated very extensively in the Icewhiz case, posting comments supporting him, and since you subsequently made numerous efforts to have him rehabilitated and to relitigate the case, even after you became well aware of his extensive harassment of Wikipedians, and since you also apparently provided commentary to the authors of this article, perhaps your opinion here is not particularly useful? François Robere reports this and 4 other concerns, about Volunteer Marek to Callanecc. Volunteer Marek then volunteers to strike the comment. Callanecc found one of the 5 edits in violation of Volunteer Marek's civility ban and asked both Volunteer Marek and François Robere if they would like an interaciton ban. François Robere declined the offer.

In April 2023, Volunteer Marek reported a potential interaction ban violation by François Robere against GizzyCatBella at François Robere's user talk regarding the July 2021 block to Guerillero. Guerillero deferred to the drafters of this case. Barkeep49 wrote, in part, For me it falls in the "not great but not sanctionable" bucket. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

---

The article Property restitution in Poland was created by François Robere at 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC) and he linked it from the main Holocaust in Poland article at 15:49. 93 minutes later, Volunteer Marek made a series of changes starting at 17:48. At 18:16, an apparent sockpuppet reverted Volunteer Marek. The apparent sock and Volunteer Marek reverted each other at 18:17, 18:20, 18:24, 18:32, and 18:56. At 20:32, Volunteer Marek removed a different claim he had previously tagged as {{dubious}} which was cited to Gera & Federman (2021), Easton (2021), and Lis (2021). At 21:03, El_C protected the page to enforce the 30/500 restriction in the topic area. François Robere reverted Volunteer Marek at 21:30. At 21:33, Volunteer Marek reverted saying ...no sources actually support this claim.... Following a talk page discussion, at 10:32, 16 August 2021, Francois Robere revised the line under dispute and restored content removed during the earlier dispute with the apparent sock puppet. At 6:16 17 August 2021, Volunteer Marek removed a claim François Robere had readded arguing that it was original research by synthesis; the claim was cited to Becker (2001), Charnysh (2015), and Pankowski (2018). At 10:44 François Robere restored the claim and quoted the relevant sources in the talk page discussion. (GizzyCatBella evidence; additional context by Wugapodes)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017

In June 2021 Volunteer Marek removed content about Poland from the Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017 article with the edit summaries this is obviously an UNDUE coatrack1, who cares what a neo Nazi thinks2, and ditto. Someone will protest something sometime always. Doesn’t mean it’s encyclopedic info. 3. François Robere restored some of the content Volunteer Marek removed in two edits (1, 2). Volunteer Marek reverted François Robere with the edit summary Please stop following me around, please get consensus for inclusion. François Robere then began a talk page discussion about this removal on the talk page and provided diffs of Volunteer Marek calling the article "NPOV" and "neutral", noted that they had both edited the article over the years, and asked for an explanation. Volunteer Marek replied Sure. The amount of text that was dedicated to Poland was UNDUE and served as a COATRACK. I’m bothered by the fact that you’ve shown up on several articles in the recent past solely to revert me. and a minute later added Theres also multiple tags on the article, obviously, and my edit was intended to at least partly address these problems. In his response to the first reply, François Robere again denied following Volunteer Marek, noted issues he had with Volunteer Marek at other articles and concluded with This reeks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:BATTLEGROUND and is damaging for the encyclopedia. (formatting removed). In subsequent discussion François Robere noted Piotrus and Volunteer Marek had placed some of the content tags with the comment And who put them there, I wonder?. After further discussion François Robere, Piotrus, and Volunteer Marek were unable to come to agreement and so François Robere eventually launched an RfC following a suggestion from Piotrus. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

François Robere and Icewhiz

Between 2019 and 2022 François Robere and Icewhiz (or the latter's sockpuppets) would agree with each other in discussions. These agreements happened in both directions (i.e. François Robere was not always the first to post, nor were they always the one to agree). Their interactions largely took place within the topic area or in discussions related to it (such as at WP:BLPN). (GizzyCatBella evidence)

Contentious claims about living people

Since 2019, François Robere has made contentious claims about living people:

• On 10 November 2019 he said antisemitic sources, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, "Mark Paul" and Gilad Atzmon. The article on Chodakiewicz at the time contained a sourced quote to Jan T. Gross saying "he's anti-Semitic". The article on Atzmon at the time contained a section on allegations of anti-Semitism. No article or source was given for the contentious claim about Mark Paul. Robere expands on these descriptions in a later edit referencing others who make these claims but without providing specific citations to them.
• In a November 2019 AfD discussion Robere stated a number of facts about Chodakiewicz followed by a description of him as completely fucking nuts
• On 20 January 2020 Robere edited the article Krzysztof Jasiewicz with the edit summary source which added a reference to Tzur (2013) and also changed the article text from He has also been described as a "well-known expert on Polish-Jewish relations" through a 2013 interview statement of his has caused some controversy. to Formerly a reputable expert on Polish-Jewish relations, he has been fired from the academy after stating that "the Jews worked for centuries to bring the Holocaust about... the scale of the German crime was only possible because the Jews themselves participated in the murder of their own people."
• In a 21 January 2020 RSN post Robere described Krzysztof Jasiewicz as discredited but giving no citation for that claim at the time.
• On 27 January 2020 Robere again changed the text of Krzysztof Jasiewicz to Formerly a reputable expert..., but adding a citation to Weinbaum (2016). In his edit summary, Robere describes Jasiewicz as fired in disgrace and disavowed by his university.

(GizzyCatBella evidence; quotes and context by Wugapodes)

Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666

Gitz6666 began editing in this topic area in February 2023, having edited elsewhere before that (xtools). One month before, Gitz6666 had been topic banned from the Russo-Ukrainian War as a single uninvolved administrator editing restriction following a discussion at ANI. When Gitz6666 begain editing in the topic area, Volunteer Marek left Gitz6666 a talk page message entitled "Welcome to the topic... I guess?" that read, in part, Let me express my primary concern right at the outset. It is definitely eye-brow raising that you would choose to appear in this topic area immediately after you were topic banned in another topic area, in good part because of the disputes between me and you...Having said that allow me to say I regard you as an smart, constructive and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I do think there are certain parts to your approach which get you into trouble but there's no point in rehashing these. I think it's quite likely that your contributions in this new topic area will be quite valuable as well and welcome your participation. In Gitz6666's reply to Volunteer Marek he wrote, in part,

Allow me to congratulate you on the tact and amiability with which you have framed this conversation. I appreciate it very much and it sets me up to be as cooperative and open with you as possible.

First of all, I can assure you that I don't hold any grudge or vendetta against you.

and denying that he had followed Volunteer Marek around. (Volunteer Marek evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In June 2022, Gitz posted 20kb report at ANI initially titled "Volunteer Marek's incivility and POV-pushing" and later renamed "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666" which concluded with Gitz writing It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. An example of the issues raised is On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. The thread was never formally closed. (Volunteer Marek evidence)

On January 9, 2023 Ostalgia posted a report at ANI titled "Hounding and edit warring by Volunteer Marek". On January 10, 2023 TimothyBlue started a subsection in that discussion proposing that Gitz6666 be boomeranged. Horse Eye's Back replied suggesting a topic ban for Gitz6666 from the Ukrainian-Russian conflict broadly construed. In his reply to Horse Eye's Back, Gitz6666 denied making personal attacks towards Volunter Marek and wrote that he believed he had complied with the neutral point of view policy. In that reply, Gitz contrasted his behavior with Volunteer Marek's writing, in part, In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been (at least since 2010 at WP:EEML). (link changed from URL to wikilink to work with the quote template). On January 11 in a reply to Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666 wrote Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you? (Volunteer Marek evidence)

---

Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, and My very best wishes have all edited 84 pages with-in a week of each other. (Elinruby evidence, with further background by Barkeep49)

Jedwabne pogrom

On March 9, 2023 Chumchum7 began a discussion about wording in the lead of Jedwabne pogrom. The discussion focused on how to summarize the work of historian Jan T. Gross. Chumchum7 was concerned about impassioned editorializing in the lead and including the use of a "however", including a link to WP:HOWEVER. Gitz6666 replied, in part, the "however" was already there in the source, and omitting it distorts Gross's findings. and quoted a passage from Gross. Gitz6666 also committed to not restore a bold edit they'd made without further discusison, but remove something they chracterized as contentious quotation/misrepresentation of Gross until a consensus is reached. Gitz6666 Diff/1143854620 proceeded to remove part of the lead referencing Gross. Volunteer Marek replied beginning Gitz, I'm sorry but this looks like original research on your part., stating that "own initiative" were Gitz6666's words not Gross, and concluding I am going to restore this text as I don't see much beyond creative and selective reading of the source here.. Volunteer Marek reverted Gitz6666 with the edit summary this is based on an editor's own original research and fairly inaccurate reading of the source. "Of own free will" and "on own initiative" are two different things and either are not really relevant to the text which is included. (Gitz6666 evidence)

Positive contributions in the topic area

Elinruby has contributed to Collaboration with the Axis powers extensively (over 30% of content and edits). (#Evidence presented by Piotrus) Elinruby feels they have shown colloboration on that article by Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite. (Evidence presented by Elinruby) TrangaBellam has created four articles (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba) in this topic area. (#Evidence presented by Piotrus)

Marcelus, with input from Elinruby and Gitz6666, wrote a section at Collaboration with the Axis powers § Jewish collaboration to provide a neutral summary of the subject material. Piotrus has also provided collegial discussion on sources relating to the same article. (#Evidence presented by Elinruby)

Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

During arbitration enforcement proceedings while this case was pending, GizzyCatBella went over the diff limit by twice the accepted limit (#Evidence presented by El_C; analysis). This was claimed to have been done in error, and a patrolling admin allowed the diffs to be kept in the case. (#Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella)

Collaboration with the Axis Powers

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust claims that Collaboration with the Axis Powers "downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans" (pp. 9 - 10). On February 18, 2023 Elinruby started a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about Adam Hempel's Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945. A focus of the discussion was on whether or not Polish police officers faced the death penalty if they did not cooperate with the Nazis. GrizzlyCatBella provided translation of the wording from the source (in Polish) to English as the "severest punishments" and asked What were the severest punishments back in 1939? (emphasis in the original). Elinruby replied writing, in part, So you think this would mean death if you don't join, then I take it? I'd still rather find a source that says that exactly. GrizzlyCatBella replied, in part, Do you still have doubts what that source says? If you do have doubts that severest penalty doesn’t mean death threat, then maybe someone has access to that book, I also want to see it. - (emphasis in the original). Piotrus traced the change of arrest to death to an IP editor in 2008. K.e.coffman, pinging Elinruby and Piotrus suggested the sourcing was insufficient to support the claim of the death penalty. Piotrus agreed and changed the wording in the Blue Police article. Elinruby agreed and changed the wording in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers article. (Elinruby evidence with additional links and quotes by Barkeep49)

Jan Żaryn

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust wrote, in part, about Jan Żaryn After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,²³³ Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism.²²⁴ (footnotes in the original). According to Lembit Staan, his edits referenced in footnote 234 should not be described as simply removing content. Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust chracterizes Zaryn as having the position that Jews were to blame for the Kielce pogrom which it says is baseless. The Jan Żaryn article characterizes his position as Żaryn, a co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom, has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for being part of Communist censorship and propaganda organs, who were "deceitfully ... silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. (lack of sourcing in the original). (Evidence presented by Lembit Staan)

Identifying high quality sources

• c. May 30, 2018:
  • At Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, editors discussed the reliability of Paul (2017) on the talk page. The book is not published by an academic press nor were Paul's credentials known at the time. GizzyCatBella opposed removal of Paul (2017) claiming Mark-Paul is one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to this particular topic and citing 8 bibliographic entries. When asked on her talk page about Paul's credentials, Where was he educated? Does he have a PhD? Where does he teach? Are there scholarly reviews of his works, published in peer-reviewed publications? GizzyCatBella responded Some think he is a monk. IDK but his work is really detailed and cited by many historians. Respected institutions reference him as well (see references in the actual talk page) so we, a bunch of amateurs can’t just wipe him out.
  • At Jan Grabowski, editors discussed whether a {{POV}} tag was still necessary. The discussion considered whether the views by particular scholars are considered "controversial" or "fringe" including Jan T. Gross. Of Gross, GizzyCatBella says Please keep in mind that Gross is very controversial in Poland. The article is about the Polish history. Therefore it is apparent that Polish (and Jewish) historians are the most engaged. Jewish historians do not represent “the rest of the World.” It just happens that most of them operate in English.
  • At Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust editors requested comment on whether to include information sourced to the self-published Paul (2010) and Paul (2008). GizzyCatBella criticized Gross and Grabowski, saying Gross and Grabowski are considered the most dubious historians in Poland, probed and rejected by virtually everyone else. Later in that discussion GizzyCatBella said of Gross and Paul that Gross is fringe not M.Paul. on the basis of The Associated Press (2016).
• On 21 February 2020 GizzyCatBella created Lazar Berenzon (version as of 21 February 2020) including citations to three sources: Байчорова (2018), Саламатова (2019), and Глущенко et al. (2019). These sources are in Russian and do not seem to support the article content as "Берензон", the subject's last name in Russian, does not appear in them. The title of Глущенко et al. (2019) translates to "Servisology as a scientific basis for the development of the service sector" which seems unrelated to the subject who was a senior officer in the Soviet secret police. GizzyCatBella explained that she had translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there. I originally didn't introduce any sources of my own. (link for verifying [1]). The RuWikipedia version linked by GizzyCatBella for verification did not include Байчорова (2018), Саламатова (2019), or Глущенко et al. (2019) as sources.
• On 30 January 2020 GizzyCatBella removed content at Prosto z mostu which might have cast the defunct periodical in a negative light. The removal had the edit summary Removing unsourced content. The sentence following the edited sentence cited Urbanowski (2016) which (according to a Google Translate translation) supported the removed content. Specifically, the removal was as follows:

  While the publication [Prosto z mostu] was heavily antisemitic and opposed to presence of Jews in Poland, at the same time it supported alliance with Zionist movement and creation of Jewish state in Palestine, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews.

  And the Urbanowski (2016) translation says:

  That is why Prosto z mostu supported the idea of Jewish emigration from Poland, preferably to the Zionist state in Palestine. Hence the sympathy for 'national, healthy and normal Jewish longings...'

• On 16 February 2021, GizzyCatBella edited Naliboki Massacre. The edit removed a sourced claim and replaced Harrison (2009) and Wexler (2008) with {{Better source needed}} while retaining Bogdan Musiał (2009). The following content supported by the removed Harrison (2009) citation was retained despite the removal of the source:

  prosecutor Anna Gałkiewicz [...] reported that surviving eyewitnesses from Naliboki recognized Jews who had previously been in the Bielski partisans participating in the attack.

  While the following content supported by the Wexler (2008) citation was removed:

  Polish journalist Piotr Głuchowski said witnesses mentioning the Bielskis were merely "parroting what they had read in a book by an avowed anti-Semite".

• On 14 June 2022, GizzyCatBella removed 2kB of content from Rajgród reducing the section from five paragraphs to one with the edit summary WP:UNDUE and general clean up. All references to Crago & Tomkiewicz (2018) were removed along with content supported by that source.
• In a Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread on Blue Police in Poland, GizzyCatBella cited Krüger (1939) to support the claim that Polish policemen were subject to death penalty for not answering the conscription call from the German occupation authorities. GizzyCatBella translates the text of Krüger (1939) as saying that those officers who fail to report will face "the severest punishments" arguing that this supports the claim.
• In a user talk discussion regarding the removal of an allegedly unreliable source, GizzyCatBella repeatedly claimed that the author in question was reliable because Wikipedia's article on the subject did not specifically indicate that the author was unreliable.

(K.e.coffman's evidence with additional links and quotes by Wugapodes)

Behaviour during discussions

On 7 March 2023 GizzyCatBella received a logged warning at WP:AE for "addressing meta or procedural aspects but not the matter at hand". GizzyCatBella has made statements of a similar type elsewhere:

• At multiple WP:RSN discussions on the reliability of a given source (1 March 2023, 10 March 2023)
• During a talk page discussion about the reliability of a source (11 March 2023)
• Disagrees with a given statement without providing further explanation as to why (27 May 2018, 15 February 2023, 1 March 2023)

In March 2023 GizzyCatBella convinced another editor to file an AE request that was already at ANI despite the opposition of several other editors commenting on the thread. (K.e.coffman's evidence)

During a deletion discussion for the Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators, GizzyCatBella made the most edits and contributed the most out of any editor (52 edits / 21,493 added bytes). This editing included nominating the AfD itself for speedy deletion on the grounds that the nominator was not Extended Confirmed (WP:XCON) and striking the !votes of non-XCON participants (1, 2, 3). GizzyCatBella !voted to keep the article. (#Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney)

Glaukopis

On February 19 between 12:27 and 14:25, TrangaBellam created Glaukopis, about a Polish history journal catering to the far right.

• 14:36: Piotrus placed a {{npov}} tag.
• 14:46: TrangaBellam undid Piotrus tag. At 14:51 TrangaBellam started a talk page discussion disputing the NPOV tag.
• 14:56" TrangaBellam replied to themselves writing Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans.
• 15:02: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam writing on the talk page You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. (formatting in the original)
• 15:04-15:06: TrangaBellam replied in three edits You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. (emphasis in the original)
• 15:04: GizzyCatBella placed a {{Citation needed}} tag on the lead sentence and at 15:06 restored the {{npov}} tag and replied on the talk page Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag.
• 15:07: TrangaBellam replies You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating.
• 15:09: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam and writes you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Just negatives only. (emphasis in original)
• 15:09: Piotrus writes an explanation for his placing of the tag and suggests the Polish wiki's version of the article is more balanced
• 15:10: TrangaBellam replies to GizzyCatBella If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. (use of quote template in original) and later adding There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative.
• 15:10: Piotr replies saying his attempt to start a talk page discussion was lost in an edit conflict.
• 15:12: TrangaBellam reverted both tags with the edit summary Rv disruptive tag-teaming and then immediately undid themselves restoring the tags. A minute later TrangaBellam removed part of the lead sentence, the citation needed tag, and inserted a section about the journal's history.
• 15:13: GizzyCatBella replies to TrangaBellam :You do not remove the tag until this issue of WP:NPOV is resolved (formatting in the original) and replies again with This speaks for itself

Further discussion between Piotr and TrangaBellam discussing the sources ensues. Piotr removes the NPOV tag at 15:44 and concludes the talk page discussion at 16:00 writing to TrangaBellam, in part, ... which is why I agree with the generally critical portrayal of this source. I have to say I did not realize how problematic it was. Thanks for shining some light on this. (Barkeep49 evidence)

Summary of evidence involving Lembit Staan

Lembit Staan used to be named user:Staszek Lem. (Evidence presented by Lembit Staan)

Jan Żaryn

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust wrote, in part, about Jan Żaryn After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,²³³ Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism.²²⁴ (footnotes in the original). According to Lembit Staan, his edits referenced in footnote 234 should not be described as simply removing content. Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust chracterizes Zaryn as having the position that Jews were to blame for the Kielce pogrom which it says is baseless. The Jan Żaryn article characterizes his position as Żaryn, a co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom, has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for being part of Communist censorship and propaganda organs, who were "deceitfully ... silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. (lack of sourcing in the original). (Evidence presented by Lembit Staan)

Summary of evidence involving Levivich

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the talk page

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [2]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University.

In the discussion that followed, Piotrus and Marcelus suggested it should be included. In the discussion which followed Piotrus suggested it was appropriate to include owing to Hoffman's academic credentials as a political scientist since Holocaust Studies is an interdisciplinary field and the journal the review was published in was a reliable source. Marcelus suggested that was overlap between the disciplines and so it was appropriat to include (example edit If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader.). Levivich, TrangaBellam, and Shibbolethink suggested it was not appropriate for inclusion. They suggested that inclusion of the paper was not supported by the Neutral Point of View policy. Levivich also had an extended discussion with Piotrus and Marcelus about Hoffman's academic credentials (example edit First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing!) and the reliability of The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society (example comment ...Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. The discussion between these editors largely concluded after Piotrus wrote that he was going to seek additional input on the topic from the Reliable Source Noticeboard.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Also on February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported TNT should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting?
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Marcelus

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the talk page

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [10]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University.

In the discussion that followed, Piotrus and Marcelus suggested it should be included. In the discussion which followed Piotrus suggested it was appropriate to include owing to Hoffman's academic credentials as a political scientist since Holocaust Studies is an interdisciplinary field and the journal the review was published in was a reliable source. Marcelus suggested that was overlap between the disciplines and so it was appropriat to include (example edit If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader.). Levivich, TrangaBellam, and Shibbolethink suggested it was not appropriate for inclusion. They suggested that inclusion of the paper was not supported by the Neutral Point of View policy. Levivich also had an extended discussion with Piotrus and Marcelus about Hoffman's academic credentials (example edit First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing!) and the reliability of The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society (example comment ...Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. The discussion between these editors largely concluded after Piotrus wrote that he was going to seek additional input on the topic from the Reliable Source Noticeboard.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Also on February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported TNT should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting?
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Positive contributions in the topic area

Elinruby has contributed to Collaboration with the Axis powers extensively (over 30% of content and edits). (#Evidence presented by Piotrus) Elinruby feels they have shown colloboration on that article by Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite. (Evidence presented by Elinruby) TrangaBellam has created four articles (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba) in this topic area. (#Evidence presented by Piotrus)

Marcelus, with input from Elinruby and Gitz6666, wrote a section at Collaboration with the Axis powers § Jewish collaboration to provide a neutral summary of the subject material. Piotrus has also provided collegial discussion on sources relating to the same article. (#Evidence presented by Elinruby)

Summary of evidence involving My very best wishes

---

Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, and My very best wishes have all edited 84 pages with-in a week of each other. (Elinruby evidence, with further background by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Nihil novi

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the talk page

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [18]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University.

In the discussion that followed, Piotrus and Marcelus suggested it should be included. In the discussion which followed Piotrus suggested it was appropriate to include owing to Hoffman's academic credentials as a political scientist since Holocaust Studies is an interdisciplinary field and the journal the review was published in was a reliable source. Marcelus suggested that was overlap between the disciplines and so it was appropriat to include (example edit If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader.). Levivich, TrangaBellam, and Shibbolethink suggested it was not appropriate for inclusion. They suggested that inclusion of the paper was not supported by the Neutral Point of View policy. Levivich also had an extended discussion with Piotrus and Marcelus about Hoffman's academic credentials (example edit First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing!) and the reliability of The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society (example comment ...Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. The discussion between these editors largely concluded after Piotrus wrote that he was going to seek additional input on the topic from the Reliable Source Noticeboard.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Also on February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported TNT should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting?
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Dispute at Paradisus Judaeorum

On 25 March 2020, SlimVirgin (Sarah) added {{POV}} to the article Paradisus Judaeorum and then started a talk page discussion. In this discussion, K.e.coffman raises a concern about the use of Kot (1937) as a source for the article.

• K.e.coffman quotes Biskupski (2017) which describes Kot as "aggressively antisemitic" as justification for why she believes Kot is an unsuitable source for matters of Jewish history in Poland.
• Piotrus responds that the characterization of Kot in Biskupski (2017) is not commonly used in other sources and mentions Tokarska-Bakir references Kot favorably (the specific reference is not given, presumably Tokarska-Bakir (2004)).
• Sarah responds, referencing Zimmerman (2015) who describes a 1941 report by Kot as "tapping into age-old stereotypes of Jews and money".
• Piotrus replies saying that Kot's potential antisemitism is immaterial to whether the 1937 source is reliable, and he points to Krzyżanowski (1958) and Tokarska-Bakir having cited the work favorably as evidence for its reliability.
• Sarah then points out a 2018 discussion on the same topic and reiterates concerns about the propriety of using Kot (1937) saying Citing a 1937 source as an independent secondary source on Jews and arguably antisemitism is already skating on thin ice, but doing so knowing about the source's antisemitism is quite something.
• Piotrus contests the characterization of Kot as antisemitic saying I can't find any scholarly criticism of him outside the off hand remark by Biskuprski, which is contradicted by Wasserstein. And positively reviewed by Tokarska-Bakir, a scholar whose one area of expertise is Polish antisemtism (see Biskupski (2017), Wasserstein (1988), and presumably Tokarska-Bakir (2004)).
• Sarah again quotes a 1941 report by Kot to which Piotrus responds Right, I don't think anyone here is impressed by his views on this, to say the least. Yet this quote has nothing to do with this article. We are not talking about using his views to describe Polish-Jewish relations in the interwar period or WWII, where I'd agree we should be careful using contemporary Polish sources. Piotrus goes on to argue that Kot is considered an undisputed authority quoting Tokarska-Bakir (in Polish) and referencing Szczuki (1999). Piotrus brings the discussion back to K.e.coffman's original post, saying I think we are all in agreement that Kot is not a great source for "matters of Jewish history". Fortunately, he is not used as such. His 1937 doesn't discuss the Polish-Jewish history in depth, and I don't see any red flags for his use here, which is concerned not with Polish-Jewish history but with the literary analysis of the poem and such.
• The discussion briefly digresses to a discussion of Kot's biography, but Piotrus returns to the original topic saying The only relevant question here was "is Kot a RS for this article?" which I think has been answered sufficiently, given plethora of positive academic reviews of his work in related context
• Sarah responds, saying Using a 1937 source on a sensitive issue—the analysis of a text describing the position of Jews in Poland—as an independent secondary source was never a good idea. If we then find out that the author made explicitly antisemitic statements and was described by one historian as "aggressively antisemitic", then clearly it becomes a very bad idea.
• Piotrus replies that Kot's work is still respected and relevant today. Biskupski made a clear mistake, and he doesn't justify his assessment of Kot. No other source calls him antisemitic, and we have two that explicitly contradict such an assessment (Szczucki and Wasserstein). Kot's scholarly contributions are extremly well received, and praised by numerous scholars, such as Tokarska-Bakir, Szczucki, Soroka, Hurło, Brock, Pietrzyk, Tazbir, Fitowa, Weintraub and Wałęga. If you want, you can call Biskupski's passing comment a dissenting view, but the mainstream academic consensus is very clear that Kot is both reliable and valid. making reference to Szczucki (1999), Wasserstein (1988), and Soroka (1976) to support his view, among other authors not previously mentioned in the discussion.

At the end of March 29, Nihil Novi starts a new thread on a related topic, pointing out three examples where a scholars other interests don't necessarily (emphasis original) influence their scholarly work.

• Warshy replies, saying the scholarly work of Kot and his political views and actions cannot be hermetically separated, artificially isolated, as if there is no connection whatsoever between one realm and the other. His influence in both realms have very serious consequences for one central issue: the relations between Poles and Poland and Jews since the 17th century and up to the Second World War.
• Piotrus replies, saying Nobody has ever pointed out that any of Kot's scholarly works have issues with anti-semitism. and again mentioning Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988). He goes on to say a number of scholars who wrote about Kot's life [note] the need to separate discussion about Kot, the renown scholar, and Kot, the mediocre politician, also noting he was pretty good at keeping his political views from affecting (being seen in) his scholarly work. before acknowledging that Biskupski (2017) does contradict Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988). Piotrus concludes by referencing Adamczyk (2003) and Weintraub (1981) as overviews of Kot's work.
• Sarah replies saying Piotrus, what you've been doing here feels like gaslighting....You need to start engaging with the arguments, not throwing back walls of text in the hope that people get fed up and wander off.
• Piotrus replied saying You need to start responding to arguments by others, you have repeatedly ignored almost everything I've said, such as Wasserstein's and Szczucki's clear as day comments that Kot was not an antisemite, or Tokarska-Bakir's usage of Kot as a source, and calling his 1937 work solid, in the context of her article on antisemitism in Poland. You have ignored those important rebukes time and again.

Later that same day (March 30, 2020) Chumchum7, previously uninvolved at the page, started a third thread saying:

• User:Piotrus has just asked me to take a look at this for outside comment. Having scanned this discussion very briefly I am convinced by SarahSV's quotes and share K.e.coffman's perspective that Kot expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. and then asking a series of questions about the dispute such as does anyone disagree with Piotrus that we are not citing him for anything that would be remotely considered controversial or such.
• Piotrus and Sarah both reply to Chumchum7, and Piotrus also replies to Sarah taking issue with her reply and again citing Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988).
• Chumchum7 replies to them both, laying out some issues and suggestions for improvement including Setting aside Kot's antisemitism for a moment, as dated to 1937 he is also a very old source and there may be a case for him being outdated versus the other sources in this article, namely Matyjaszek (2017), Polonsky (2017) and Tokarska-Bakir (2004). I don't now why they have been relegated to a 'note' with commentary when they should have at least equal weight. and Both you and Piotrus could try WP:DISENGAGE for a while..

The discussion then turns to the article title in which Chumchum7, Nihil Novi, and Piotrus participate; Sarah ceases editing the page. (Horse Eye's Back evidence; quotes and additional information by Wugapodes)

Summary of evidence involving Piotrus

Trust and Safety and the Arbitration Committee are aware of the harassment of Piotrus by (the Foundation banned) Icewhiz. (Piotrus evidence)

Examples of Piotrus reconsidering past actions/beliefs include Glaukopis, 19 February 2023 and Jedwabne pogrom, 9 March 2020 (Horse Eye's Back evidence)

While the edit count of Piotrus in this topic area increased significantly during the time period when Icewhiz was active (accounting for ~40% of all edits), their editing has returned to a similar level compared to before Icewhiz was active (7% of edits before and 13% of edits after). Since 2017 Piotrus has written 8 GAs in this topic area and 16 GAs elsewhere. Since 2021 ~13% (23 of 183) of their new articles were in this topic space, with none being marked as controversial or non-neutral. Piotrus was banned from the topic area for a month in February 2021, the only sanction they have received and the only time they have been to AE since 2011. (Piotrus evidence)

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the talk page

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [26]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University.

In the discussion that followed, Piotrus and Marcelus suggested it should be included. In the discussion which followed Piotrus suggested it was appropriate to include owing to Hoffman's academic credentials as a political scientist since Holocaust Studies is an interdisciplinary field and the journal the review was published in was a reliable source. Marcelus suggested that was overlap between the disciplines and so it was appropriat to include (example edit If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader.). Levivich, TrangaBellam, and Shibbolethink suggested it was not appropriate for inclusion. They suggested that inclusion of the paper was not supported by the Neutral Point of View policy. Levivich also had an extended discussion with Piotrus and Marcelus about Hoffman's academic credentials (example edit First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing!) and the reliability of The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society (example comment ...Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. The discussion between these editors largely concluded after Piotrus wrote that he was going to seek additional input on the topic from the Reliable Source Noticeboard.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Also on February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported TNT should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting?
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Collaboration with the Axis Powers

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust claims that Collaboration with the Axis Powers "downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans" (pp. 9 - 10). On February 18, 2023 Elinruby started a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about Adam Hempel's Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945. A focus of the discussion was on whether or not Polish police officers faced the death penalty if they did not cooperate with the Nazis. GrizzlyCatBella provided translation of the wording from the source (in Polish) to English as the "severest punishments" and asked What were the severest punishments back in 1939? (emphasis in the original). Elinruby replied writing, in part, So you think this would mean death if you don't join, then I take it? I'd still rather find a source that says that exactly. GrizzlyCatBella replied, in part, Do you still have doubts what that source says? If you do have doubts that severest penalty doesn’t mean death threat, then maybe someone has access to that book, I also want to see it. - (emphasis in the original). Piotrus traced the change of arrest to death to an IP editor in 2008. K.e.coffman, pinging Elinruby and Piotrus suggested the sourcing was insufficient to support the claim of the death penalty. Piotrus agreed and changed the wording in the Blue Police article. Elinruby agreed and changed the wording in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers article. (Elinruby evidence with additional links and quotes by Barkeep49)

Dispute at Paradisus Judaeorum

On 25 March 2020, SlimVirgin (Sarah) added {{POV}} to the article Paradisus Judaeorum and then started a talk page discussion. In this discussion, K.e.coffman raises a concern about the use of Kot (1937) as a source for the article.

• K.e.coffman quotes Biskupski (2017) which describes Kot as "aggressively antisemitic" as justification for why she believes Kot is an unsuitable source for matters of Jewish history in Poland.
• Piotrus responds that the characterization of Kot in Biskupski (2017) is not commonly used in other sources and mentions Tokarska-Bakir references Kot favorably (the specific reference is not given, presumably Tokarska-Bakir (2004)).
• Sarah responds, referencing Zimmerman (2015) who describes a 1941 report by Kot as "tapping into age-old stereotypes of Jews and money".
• Piotrus replies saying that Kot's potential antisemitism is immaterial to whether the 1937 source is reliable, and he points to Krzyżanowski (1958) and Tokarska-Bakir having cited the work favorably as evidence for its reliability.
• Sarah then points out a 2018 discussion on the same topic and reiterates concerns about the propriety of using Kot (1937) saying Citing a 1937 source as an independent secondary source on Jews and arguably antisemitism is already skating on thin ice, but doing so knowing about the source's antisemitism is quite something.
• Piotrus contests the characterization of Kot as antisemitic saying I can't find any scholarly criticism of him outside the off hand remark by Biskuprski, which is contradicted by Wasserstein. And positively reviewed by Tokarska-Bakir, a scholar whose one area of expertise is Polish antisemtism (see Biskupski (2017), Wasserstein (1988), and presumably Tokarska-Bakir (2004)).
• Sarah again quotes a 1941 report by Kot to which Piotrus responds Right, I don't think anyone here is impressed by his views on this, to say the least. Yet this quote has nothing to do with this article. We are not talking about using his views to describe Polish-Jewish relations in the interwar period or WWII, where I'd agree we should be careful using contemporary Polish sources. Piotrus goes on to argue that Kot is considered an undisputed authority quoting Tokarska-Bakir (in Polish) and referencing Szczuki (1999). Piotrus brings the discussion back to K.e.coffman's original post, saying I think we are all in agreement that Kot is not a great source for "matters of Jewish history". Fortunately, he is not used as such. His 1937 doesn't discuss the Polish-Jewish history in depth, and I don't see any red flags for his use here, which is concerned not with Polish-Jewish history but with the literary analysis of the poem and such.
• The discussion briefly digresses to a discussion of Kot's biography, but Piotrus returns to the original topic saying The only relevant question here was "is Kot a RS for this article?" which I think has been answered sufficiently, given plethora of positive academic reviews of his work in related context
• Sarah responds, saying Using a 1937 source on a sensitive issue—the analysis of a text describing the position of Jews in Poland—as an independent secondary source was never a good idea. If we then find out that the author made explicitly antisemitic statements and was described by one historian as "aggressively antisemitic", then clearly it becomes a very bad idea.
• Piotrus replies that Kot's work is still respected and relevant today. Biskupski made a clear mistake, and he doesn't justify his assessment of Kot. No other source calls him antisemitic, and we have two that explicitly contradict such an assessment (Szczucki and Wasserstein). Kot's scholarly contributions are extremly well received, and praised by numerous scholars, such as Tokarska-Bakir, Szczucki, Soroka, Hurło, Brock, Pietrzyk, Tazbir, Fitowa, Weintraub and Wałęga. If you want, you can call Biskupski's passing comment a dissenting view, but the mainstream academic consensus is very clear that Kot is both reliable and valid. making reference to Szczucki (1999), Wasserstein (1988), and Soroka (1976) to support his view, among other authors not previously mentioned in the discussion.

At the end of March 29, Nihil Novi starts a new thread on a related topic, pointing out three examples where a scholars other interests don't necessarily (emphasis original) influence their scholarly work.

• Warshy replies, saying the scholarly work of Kot and his political views and actions cannot be hermetically separated, artificially isolated, as if there is no connection whatsoever between one realm and the other. His influence in both realms have very serious consequences for one central issue: the relations between Poles and Poland and Jews since the 17th century and up to the Second World War.
• Piotrus replies, saying Nobody has ever pointed out that any of Kot's scholarly works have issues with anti-semitism. and again mentioning Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988). He goes on to say a number of scholars who wrote about Kot's life [note] the need to separate discussion about Kot, the renown scholar, and Kot, the mediocre politician, also noting he was pretty good at keeping his political views from affecting (being seen in) his scholarly work. before acknowledging that Biskupski (2017) does contradict Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988). Piotrus concludes by referencing Adamczyk (2003) and Weintraub (1981) as overviews of Kot's work.
• Sarah replies saying Piotrus, what you've been doing here feels like gaslighting....You need to start engaging with the arguments, not throwing back walls of text in the hope that people get fed up and wander off.
• Piotrus replied saying You need to start responding to arguments by others, you have repeatedly ignored almost everything I've said, such as Wasserstein's and Szczucki's clear as day comments that Kot was not an antisemite, or Tokarska-Bakir's usage of Kot as a source, and calling his 1937 work solid, in the context of her article on antisemitism in Poland. You have ignored those important rebukes time and again.

Later that same day (March 30, 2020) Chumchum7, previously uninvolved at the page, started a third thread saying:

• User:Piotrus has just asked me to take a look at this for outside comment. Having scanned this discussion very briefly I am convinced by SarahSV's quotes and share K.e.coffman's perspective that Kot expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. and then asking a series of questions about the dispute such as does anyone disagree with Piotrus that we are not citing him for anything that would be remotely considered controversial or such.
• Piotrus and Sarah both reply to Chumchum7, and Piotrus also replies to Sarah taking issue with her reply and again citing Szczucki (1999) and Wasserstein (1988).
• Chumchum7 replies to them both, laying out some issues and suggestions for improvement including Setting aside Kot's antisemitism for a moment, as dated to 1937 he is also a very old source and there may be a case for him being outdated versus the other sources in this article, namely Matyjaszek (2017), Polonsky (2017) and Tokarska-Bakir (2004). I don't now why they have been relegated to a 'note' with commentary when they should have at least equal weight. and Both you and Piotrus could try WP:DISENGAGE for a while..

The discussion then turns to the article title in which Chumchum7, Nihil Novi, and Piotrus participate; Sarah ceases editing the page. (Horse Eye's Back evidence; quotes and additional information by Wugapodes)

Positive contributions in the topic area

Elinruby has contributed to Collaboration with the Axis powers extensively (over 30% of content and edits). (#Evidence presented by Piotrus) Elinruby feels they have shown colloboration on that article by Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite. (Evidence presented by Elinruby) TrangaBellam has created four articles (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba) in this topic area. (#Evidence presented by Piotrus)

Marcelus, with input from Elinruby and Gitz6666, wrote a section at Collaboration with the Axis powers § Jewish collaboration to provide a neutral summary of the subject material. Piotrus has also provided collegial discussion on sources relating to the same article. (#Evidence presented by Elinruby)

Use of Jan T. Gross as a source

See also Jedwabne pogrom

In 2018, a student participating in a class taught by Chapmansh wished to use Jan Gross's 2006 book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz as a source. A Wiki-ed expert working with the class began a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about the source. Chapmansh explained why they felt the source was reliable citing its publisher (Princeton University Press) and linked and quoted peer reviews of the book as well as citing statements attesting Gross' experitse as a subject matter expert in general. Piotrus agreed the source was Of course reliable but expressed some concerns about the neutrality of the source and that Gross is not the final authority, just one of many voices in the ongoing discussion, and that some other reliable sources have criticized some of his findings (which doesn't mean he cannot be cited and considered reliable!). (Tryptofish evidence) Chapmansh later agreed with Piotrus and suggested the student compromise and implement Piotrus's suggestion. (Piotrus evidence)

Article and response

The article authored by Grabowski and Klein may contain factual errors or material omissions with regards to the conduct of named editors. Piotrus generally responds to these in this essay. Zero0000 has suggested that editors promote Nazi stereotypes (see also Piotrus #26) and that Wikipedia is pushing the idea that "money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" may be false.

History of the Jews in Poland

There were multiple additions and reverts to History of the Jews in Poland in February, April, and May 2019, which resulted in the page being fully protected three times.

The sequence begins February 22, 2019 16:37: Tatzref added content to History of the Jews in Poland suggesting that Jews were able to reclaim property taken during the war quickly, with the support of other Polish residents, and did so in the "thousands". According to Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust careful examination shows Tatzref plagiarized this paragraph from a Mark Paul online essay, ‘A Tangled Web: Polish–Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath (see pp. 381 - 386).

Timeline of February edits

16:42 and 17:26: Tatzref then added The trade in Christian slaves was opposed by the Catholic Church<ref>Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, ''Jews in Poland: A Documentary History'', Hippocrene Books (1993), pp. 257–266.</ref> February 23 6:23: Icewhiz reverted the paragraph about Jewish property with the edit summary OR, misrepresentation of sources 6:29: Icewhiz reverted the Catholic Church addition with the edit summary We discussed slavery at length at length in the talk page (last archive) - this waa rejected - gain consensus prior to reinserting, and please avoid cook. 15:34: Piotrus undid Icewhiz's 6:23 removal with the edit summary I don't see any red flags in this, please explain on talk what is this OR and misrepresentation of sources here? 15:49: Piotrus removes the last sentence of Tatzref's property edit with the summary this seems not particularly relevant, and could have neutrality/undue problems, also difficult to verify due to convoluted and offline (?) reference 18:16: Tatzref adds information about the Alfonse pogrom 21:97: Galassi reverts the Alfonse pogrom addition February 24 1:59: יניב הורון (Yaniv) removes the remaining text about property with the edit summary rv antisemitic vandalism 6:36: Volunteer Marerk reverts Yaniv with the edit summary please refrain from using false and offensive edit summaries 7:03: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Use of 1947 primary source not acceptable. Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa (37 cited pages) - reading the book in question leads to a different conclusion. 7:07: Icewhiz begins a talk page discussion about the property edits 13:55: Galassi undoes Icewhiz's property removal with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Icewhiz (talk): Meets all the WP:RS criteria (formatting removed) 21:25: Tatzref restores the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary Highly relevant info discussed by major historians. Meets all the WP:RS criteria February 25 5:39: Piotrus redlinks Alfonse pogrom with the edit summary interesting, probably notable, but it seems a pogrom not of but by the Jews, not sure if this is relevant here? 12:33: Icewhiz removes the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary A number of misrepresentations, miss-attribution, and probably UNDUE.

• February 25 22:48: TonyBallioni fully protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute: AE action (formatting removed) until 22:49, 11 March 2019
• March 12 12:23: Icewhiz rewrites the property section with the edit summary Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online

The content remains unchanged until April 15 2:52 - 5:50 when Piotrus makes 7 edits all under 250 bytes to the property section, which is followed by other editors making further changes.

Timeline of April and May edits

7:16 & 7:18 Icewhiz replaces two {{fact}} placed by Piotrus with sources April 20 21:13: Tatzref removes a sentence saying a small number of Jews recovered property with the edit summary This book (Shattered Spaces) contains no research or source to support this highly speculative claim. 21:17: Galassi reverts Tatzref 21:47: Tatzref adds commentary on the source restored by Galassi and content similar to their initial edit about how easy it was for Jews to reclaim property with the edit summary Functioning of postwar restitution process based on scholarly research into Polish court records 21:49: Galassi reverts Tatzref with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Tatzref (talk): Rv editorializing (formatting removed) May 7 4:28: Tatzref rewrites the property section 5:50: Icewhiz reverts Tatzref with the edit summary WP:NOENG, misuse of primary source, use of WP:SPS by editor/author condemned by SPLC, misrepresentations / selective use of sources (e.g. Stola in Dean). restore STABLE (formatting removed) 6:10: Piotrus reverts Icewhiz with the edit summary nope, no support for this version. Nobody supports your criticism of Chodakiewicz, your NOENG request got denied by ArbCom. This is a more informative and copyedited version 9:31: François Robere edits twice, first removing content with the edit summary In order: removed SPS by well known nationalist historian; tagged some claims; some CE; removed dated (primary) source; removed some irrelevant claims and then reverts himself while also adding and commenting out some of the disputed content. May 9 4:32 - 5:39: Piotrus makes a series of edits which included adding {{verify}} tags, work on references, and copy-editing. These edits include work on areas beyond the property section dispute. May 10 5:46: Icewhiz reverts Piotrus with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. WP:NOENG, misrepresentation of source, use of fringe source self-published by SPLC designated editor/publisher dismissed as fringe in reviews. (formatting removed) 10:04: Piotrus attempts to blend Icewhiz's and Tatzref's versions with the edit summary incorporate most relevant parts of old and new revisions, remove excessive detail and a quotation about parasites attributable to a PhD thesis May 11 0:30 & 0:51: K.e. coffman restores early versions of Piotrus' with the edit summaries Not an improvement, non RS -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Arbitrary_break (formatting removed) and Better version 1:44: Volunteer Marek reverts K.e. coffman with the edit summary um, those are RS and yes, it's an improvement and there is no consensus for these changes 2:56: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. This version still contains an essay in a self published book, misuse of PRIMARY and very local sources and what appears to be OR on top of them (formatting removed) 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute (formatting removed)

• May 11 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary {{{1}}} (formatting removed)
• May 13 4:20: Volunteer Marekt reverted Icewhiz with the edit summary per talk, this version is both more neutral and well sourced. Ample, extensive, detailed, exhaustive rationale has been provided. Anything beyond this is really just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you wish to ADD material based on RS that's fine but plz stop removing existing well sourced material}

May 13 - 19 edits

4:26 - 4:35 Piotrus makes a series of edits under 85 bytes. May 14 19:01 - 1938: Tatzref edits 3 times, removing 1 source and adding in 2 previously removed pieces of information 22:08: François Robere reverts Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, and Tatzref with the edit summary No consensus for these changes, and watch your comments on RS for WP:BLP violations (formatting removed) May 15 2:23: My very best wishes reverts François Robere with the edit summary rv - do not see any BLP violations or other reasons to remove this sourced content 9:52: François Robere undid My very best wishes with the edit summary No consensus. See TP for BLP issue. 11:39: François Robere added some of the disputed sources with the edit summary ncorporated sources from TP (including the American Jewish Year Book and Skibinske); CE May 16 5:48-5:55: Piotrus makes 3 edits 5:58 - 5:59: Piotrus adds content in two edits (1, 2) with the edit summaries restore previous version of this para, current version seems referenced only to the 1940s source + OR and restore another reliablely referenced section that was removed because ? 6:06: Icewhiz removes content with the edit summary emove self-published source, remove duplications. Please discuss on talk page as opposed to edit warring. Fix gross misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - you want to enter him - then full context, and specify this is specific to Radom and Kalisz - entered. May 17 10:32 - 10:41: François Robere removes two paragraphs with the edit summaries This is not a discussion of general property issues, but of the treatment of Jewish returnees and CE; please don't use popular sources or commentaries when we have such good academic sources 14:32 - 14:56: Volunteer Marek makes 17 edits to the article, with a focus on the organization, the amount of detail, and tagging sources/content. 21:05: François Robere reverts the last 13 of Volunteer Marek's edits, restoring to a version that just has the organizational changes with an edit summary Reverted to revision 897509749 by Volunteer Marek: That's not the NPOV version, and you can't just ignore the discussions we've had about Chod. in multiple forums (formatting removed) 23:37 Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary Reverted to revision 897553745 by Rfl0216 (talk): There was no consensus for most of these changes and i've asked you several times to stop referring to BLPs by insulting nicknames (formatting removed) and then makes two smaller changes, the first of which has the edit summary clarify since pedantry is being used as an excuse May 18 18:51: François Robere adds back some of the disputed content with an edit summary There was certainly no consensus for including Chodakiewicz et al. May 19 22:50:Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary restore NPOV version per talk. Please get consensus for these changes 3:35: Tatzref restores some of the disputed content with the edit summary additional important information about actual functioning of restitution process and removing incorrect information not found in sources

• May 20 3:37: El C full protects the article with the edit summary {tqq (formatting removed)
• May 20 - 23: El C performs two small edits in response to edit requests
• June 3 19:03: François Robere removes content with the edit summary Discussion concluded with a consensus to remove the MJC's book, so I'm restoring the previous, well-sourced version
• 20:26: Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary 'm sorry, but no such consensus was achieved. Can you please provide a link where this consensus you claim exists was formed? At RSN, the discussion tended to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore EVEN IF there are issues with one particular source that does not justify making OTHER mass deletions of sourced text or unsupported changes
• June 4 2:51: K.e. coffman removes content with the edit summary No consensus to include this source / content -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Edit_break (formatting removed)

(Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

---

An over 185 kb discussion about this content lasted until June. Major topics of discussion included:

• Whether the sources were being accurately represented
• Whether the sources were reliable
• Whether certain sources were primary sources and if so how to use them
• Whether the content added followed a neutral point of view, particularly whether or not the level of detail was appropriate for the article topic
• Whether any of the content added as the result of synthesis or other forms of original research
• How the non-English sources policy applies or should be applied
• Whether it was appropriate to revert to a "stable" version

There were separate sub-sections of proposed additional sources, discussion of an alleged biographies of living people policy violation, on the use of Lukasz Krzyżanowski, on the use of Alina Skibińska, and on the General level article. Much of this discussion involved non-parties to the case, particularly two editors who have since been indefinitely blocked (Icewhiz and Tatzref).

Comments by Volunteer Marek in the discussion included: 1, 2 (Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

Glaukopis

On February 19 between 12:27 and 14:25, TrangaBellam created Glaukopis, about a Polish history journal catering to the far right.

• 14:36: Piotrus placed a {{npov}} tag.
• 14:46: TrangaBellam undid Piotrus tag. At 14:51 TrangaBellam started a talk page discussion disputing the NPOV tag.
• 14:56" TrangaBellam replied to themselves writing Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans.
• 15:02: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam writing on the talk page You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. (formatting in the original)
• 15:04-15:06: TrangaBellam replied in three edits You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. (emphasis in the original)
• 15:04: GizzyCatBella placed a {{Citation needed}} tag on the lead sentence and at 15:06 restored the {{npov}} tag and replied on the talk page Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag.
• 15:07: TrangaBellam replies You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating.
• 15:09: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam and writes you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Just negatives only. (emphasis in original)
• 15:09: Piotrus writes an explanation for his placing of the tag and suggests the Polish wiki's version of the article is more balanced
• 15:10: TrangaBellam replies to GizzyCatBella If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. (use of quote template in original) and later adding There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative.
• 15:10: Piotr replies saying his attempt to start a talk page discussion was lost in an edit conflict.
• 15:12: TrangaBellam reverted both tags with the edit summary Rv disruptive tag-teaming and then immediately undid themselves restoring the tags. A minute later TrangaBellam removed part of the lead sentence, the citation needed tag, and inserted a section about the journal's history.
• 15:13: GizzyCatBella replies to TrangaBellam :You do not remove the tag until this issue of WP:NPOV is resolved (formatting in the original) and replies again with This speaks for itself

Further discussion between Piotr and TrangaBellam discussing the sources ensues. Piotr removes the NPOV tag at 15:44 and concludes the talk page discussion at 16:00 writing to TrangaBellam, in part, ... which is why I agree with the generally critical portrayal of this source. I have to say I did not realize how problematic it was. Thanks for shining some light on this. (Barkeep49 evidence)

Summary of evidence involving TrangaBellam

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

Positive contributions in the topic area

Elinruby has contributed to Collaboration with the Axis powers extensively (over 30% of content and edits). (#Evidence presented by Piotrus) Elinruby feels they have shown colloboration on that article by Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite. (Evidence presented by Elinruby) TrangaBellam has created four articles (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba) in this topic area. (#Evidence presented by Piotrus)

Marcelus, with input from Elinruby and Gitz6666, wrote a section at Collaboration with the Axis powers § Jewish collaboration to provide a neutral summary of the subject material. Piotrus has also provided collegial discussion on sources relating to the same article. (#Evidence presented by Elinruby)

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the talk page

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [34]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University.

In the discussion that followed, Piotrus and Marcelus suggested it should be included. In the discussion which followed Piotrus suggested it was appropriate to include owing to Hoffman's academic credentials as a political scientist since Holocaust Studies is an interdisciplinary field and the journal the review was published in was a reliable source. Marcelus suggested that was overlap between the disciplines and so it was appropriat to include (example edit If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader.). Levivich, TrangaBellam, and Shibbolethink suggested it was not appropriate for inclusion. They suggested that inclusion of the paper was not supported by the Neutral Point of View policy. Levivich also had an extended discussion with Piotrus and Marcelus about Hoffman's academic credentials (example edit First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing!) and the reliability of The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society (example comment ...Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. The discussion between these editors largely concluded after Piotrus wrote that he was going to seek additional input on the topic from the Reliable Source Noticeboard.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Also on February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported TNT should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting?
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus Diff/1142226813|stated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Mariusz Bechta

On February 19 and 20, 2023 TrangaBellam created Mariusz Bechta, about a Polish historian and publisher, affiliated with the Institute of National Remembrance. On February 19, TrangaBellam posted three sources on the talk page. The next day GizzyCatBella replied twice first writing, So is this WP:BLP article you created written conservatively TrangaBellam? (formatting in the original) and pinging TrangaBellam to ask This source you posted above is paywalled, do you have a subscription?. TrangaBellam replied to the first comment If you have specific issues with my write-up, I am all ears. Else, I plan to ignore your facile comments. and confirmed she have access to the paywalled source. On March 4, GizzyCatBella replied asking if TrangaBellam could provide her with the source. (Barkeep49 evidence)

Glaukopis

On February 19 between 12:27 and 14:25, TrangaBellam created Glaukopis, about a Polish history journal catering to the far right.

• 14:36: Piotrus placed a {{npov}} tag.
• 14:46: TrangaBellam undid Piotrus tag. At 14:51 TrangaBellam started a talk page discussion disputing the NPOV tag.
• 14:56" TrangaBellam replied to themselves writing Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans.
• 15:02: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam writing on the talk page You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. (formatting in the original)
• 15:04-15:06: TrangaBellam replied in three edits You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. (emphasis in the original)
• 15:04: GizzyCatBella placed a {{Citation needed}} tag on the lead sentence and at 15:06 restored the {{npov}} tag and replied on the talk page Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag.
• 15:07: TrangaBellam replies You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating.
• 15:09: GizzyCatBella pings TrangaBellam and writes you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Just negatives only. (emphasis in original)
• 15:09: Piotrus writes an explanation for his placing of the tag and suggests the Polish wiki's version of the article is more balanced
• 15:10: TrangaBellam replies to GizzyCatBella If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. (use of quote template in original) and later adding There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative.
• 15:10: Piotr replies saying his attempt to start a talk page discussion was lost in an edit conflict.
• 15:12: TrangaBellam reverted both tags with the edit summary Rv disruptive tag-teaming and then immediately undid themselves restoring the tags. A minute later TrangaBellam removed part of the lead sentence, the citation needed tag, and inserted a section about the journal's history.
• 15:13: GizzyCatBella replies to TrangaBellam :You do not remove the tag until this issue of WP:NPOV is resolved (formatting in the original) and replies again with This speaks for itself

Further discussion between Piotr and TrangaBellam discussing the sources ensues. Piotr removes the NPOV tag at 15:44 and concludes the talk page discussion at 16:00 writing to TrangaBellam, in part, ... which is why I agree with the generally critical portrayal of this source. I have to say I did not realize how problematic it was. Thanks for shining some light on this. (Barkeep49 evidence)

Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek

During a discussion on Gitz6666's user talk page while this case was pending, administrator El C revision deleted a comment by Volunteer Marek under the Biography of Living People policy. (El C evidence; analysis)

In 2022 Volunteer Marek only contributed ~100 edits to the topic area of World War II and/or the Holocaust in Poland, approximately 2% of their total contributions during this time period. 38 of those edits were made to Jan Karski and its talk page during a content dispute. (Volunteer Marek evidence)

Previous sanctions of Volunteer Marek

In March 2019, Volunteer Marek was topic banned by an administrator for six months for a comment made during an Arbitration Enforcement request about another editor. This topic ban was overturned on appeal 3 days later by a clear consensus of administrators at Arbitration Enforcement as disproportionate. (Gitz evidence)

In September 2019, Volunteer Marek was topic banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland by the Arbitration Committee during the Antisemitism in Poland case. This topic ban was lifted in December 2020 by the Arbitration Committee. (François Robere evidence)

In January 2023 Volunteer Marek was given "an indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area". (Callanecc evidence)

Holocaust in Poland edits (Volunteer Marek)

Buidhe removed content on 28 January 2021 from The Holocaust in Poland with the edit summary

• 11:19 28 Jan 2021, Buidhe rm content that duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the rescue section), or is opinion in wikivoice.

Among the text removed was the claim "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." This claim was cited to Paulsson (1998) and Snyder (2012). At the time, the concern was around stating this claim in encyclopedic voice, but concerns have been raised during this case that these sources might not support that claim. On 29 January 2021 Volunteer Marek restored that claim with the edit summary ditto (though should be in different section), a reference to earlier restorations with the edit summaries:

• 06:17 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek ditto (though should be in different section)
• 06:16 idem ditto - not clear why this was removed
• 06:13 idem ditto (this seems like just removing any use of Paulsson per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT under various pretenses)
• 06:11 idem also relevant, also removed for unclear reasons (end of ditto chain, earlier edits omitted}}

Three hours later, Buidhe reverted Volunteer Marek's changes removing the above claim with the edit summary

• 09:55 29 Jan 2021, Buidhe Restoration of content that fails article sourcing requirements, opinions presented in wikivoice.

Six hours later, Volunteer Marek reverted Buidhe's removal with the edit summary

• 16:47 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek undo blind revert. If your edits are challenged you need to discuss them. If your edits are controversial you need to discuss them. Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Please don't start edit wars.

This version, with the disputed claim above, stood for a week until Buidhe reverted on 5 February 2021 with the edit summary

• 08:11 5 Feb 2021, Buidhe Talk page consensus to work from this version (n.b. see relevant talk page archive)

which was reverted 5 hours later by Volunteer Marek with the edit summary

• 13:38 5 Feb 2021, Volunteer Marek there's absolutely no consensus on talk page to remove Yad Vashem as a source or Journal of Genocide Research or Yale University Press. Please don't use false edit summaries and make claims of "false consensus". This type of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing, while discussion is ongoing is disruptive.

Jedwabne pogrom

On March 9, 2023 Chumchum7 began a discussion about wording in the lead of Jedwabne pogrom. The discussion focused on how to summarize the work of historian Jan T. Gross. Chumchum7 was concerned about impassioned editorializing in the lead and including the use of a "however", including a link to WP:HOWEVER. Gitz6666 replied, in part, the "however" was already there in the source, and omitting it distorts Gross's findings. and quoted a passage from Gross. Gitz6666 also committed to not restore a bold edit they'd made without further discusison, but remove something they chracterized as contentious quotation/misrepresentation of Gross until a consensus is reached. Gitz6666 Diff/1143854620 proceeded to remove part of the lead referencing Gross. Volunteer Marek replied beginning Gitz, I'm sorry but this looks like original research on your part., stating that "own initiative" were Gitz6666's words not Gross, and concluding I am going to restore this text as I don't see much beyond creative and selective reading of the source here.. Volunteer Marek reverted Gitz6666 with the edit summary this is based on an editor's own original research and fairly inaccurate reading of the source. "Of own free will" and "on own initiative" are two different things and either are not really relevant to the text which is included. (Gitz6666 evidence)

---

When Gitz6666 begain editing in the topic area, Volunteer Marek left Gitz6666 a talk page message entitled "Welcome to the topic... I guess?" that read, in part, Let me express my primary concern right at the outset. It is definitely eye-brow raising that you would choose to appear in this topic area immediately after you were topic banned in another topic area, in good part because of the disputes between me and you...Having said that allow me to say I regard you as an smart, constructive and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I do think there are certain parts to your approach which get you into trouble but there's no point in rehashing these. I think it's quite likely that your contributions in this new topic area will be quite valuable as well and welcome your participation. In Gitz6666's reply to Volunteer Marek he wrote, in part,

Allow me to congratulate you on the tact and amiability with which you have framed this conversation. I appreciate it very much and it sets me up to be as cooperative and open with you as possible.

First of all, I can assure you that I don't hold any grudge or vendetta against you.

and denying that he had followed Volunteer Marek around. (Volunteer Marek evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In June 2022, Gitz posted 20kb report at ANI initially titled "Volunteer Marek's incivility and POV-pushing" and later renamed "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666" which concluded with Gitz writing It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. An example of the issues raised is On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. The thread was never formally closed. (Volunteer Marek evidence)

On January 9, 2023 Ostalgia posted a report at ANI titled "Hounding and edit warring by Volunteer Marek". On January 10, 2023 TimothyBlue started a subsection in that discussion proposing that Gitz6666 be boomeranged. Horse Eye's Back replied suggesting a topic ban for Gitz6666 from the Ukrainian-Russian conflict broadly construed. In his reply to Horse Eye's Back, Gitz6666 denied making personal attacks towards Volunter Marek and wrote that he believed he had complied with the neutral point of view policy. In that reply, Gitz contrasted his behavior with Volunteer Marek's writing, in part, In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been (at least since 2010 at WP:EEML). (link changed from URL to wikilink to work with the quote template). On January 11 in a reply to Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666 wrote Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you? (Volunteer Marek evidence)

---

Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, and My very best wishes have all edited 84 pages with-in a week of each other. (Elinruby evidence, with further background by Barkeep49)

---

Chapmansh and Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek pinged Chapmansh once in the Administrators Noticeboard discussion "Chapmansh" on February 10 and twice on February 12 in the Village Pump WMF discussion "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". After each ping in that discussion Horse Eye's Back replied suggesting Volunteer Marek stop, labeling it harassment and gratituous. Volunteer Marek responded to Horse Eye's Back on February 13 I'm sorry but are you Chapmansh? If Chapmansh wishes to ask me not to ping them then they can do that (I've only did it a few times where it was pertinent). And can I inquire why you find it necessary to reply and comment on almost every single comment I make? This is getting extremely tiresome and is looking like WP:harassment at this point. Subsequently on that day, Volunteer Marek pinged Chapmansh once on his user talk page and once at Arbitration/Requests/Case request for this case. (Horse Eye's Back evidence)

François Robere and Volunteer Marek

See also #Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017
Prior to this arbitration case being accepted, an interaction ban between François Robere and Volunteer Marek was being considered by Callanecc due to allegations of diff stalking from each party towards the other. (Callanecc evidence)

Four times in February 2021 Volunteer Marek said François Robere was stalking him: Bogdan Musiał, Dalej jest noc), The Holocaust in Poland, and Witold Pilecki. Evidence by Buidhe suggesting François Robere did not stalk Volunteer Marek at Bogdan Musiał. Possible explanation by K.e. coffman suggesting François Robere did not stalk Volunteer Marek at Witold Pilecki. (François Robere evidence)

In March 2021 François Robere reported Volunteer Marek to Trust and Safety. Trust and Safety responded, in part, there are sufficient community governance actions available... to handle the issue", and that "it doesn't appear that you or anyone else has attempted to report ongoing personal attacks or harassment by VM to either Arbcom... or a noticeboard in the past two years... so there's no way to confirm that the community isn't willing to handle the matter (François Robere evidence)

In July 2021 François Robere said Volunteer Marek followed him to Guerillero's user talk. Volunteer Marek explained he had Guerillero's user talk watchlisted. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In July 2021 Volunteer Marek reported a potential interaction ban violation by François Robere against GizzyCatBella at Jan Grabowski to Guerillero. François Robere replied that he had long been editing Jan Grabowski. Guerillero blocked François Robere for an interaction ban violation, after determining François Robere had not edited the article for over a year. (François Robere evidence)

In August 2021, Volunteer Marek replied to a list of proposed Arbitration Committee reforms proposed by François Robere on Barkeep49's user talk page. In this reply Volunteer Marek discussed ways he felt Icewhiz had violated conduct policies and noted François Robere had supported Icewhiz during Arbitration Committee proceedings. François Robere replied with 12 diffs. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

In February 2023, in a discussion about Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust Volunteer Marek replies to François Robere with the comment Francois Robere, since you participated very extensively in the Icewhiz case, posting comments supporting him, and since you subsequently made numerous efforts to have him rehabilitated and to relitigate the case, even after you became well aware of his extensive harassment of Wikipedians, and since you also apparently provided commentary to the authors of this article, perhaps your opinion here is not particularly useful? François Robere reports this and 4 other concerns, about Volunteer Marek to Callanecc. Volunteer Marek then volunteers to strike the comment. Callanecc found one of the 5 edits in violation of Volunteer Marek's civility ban and asked both Volunteer Marek and François Robere if they would like an interaciton ban. François Robere declined the offer.

In April 2023, Volunteer Marek reported a potential interaction ban violation by François Robere against GizzyCatBella at François Robere's user talk regarding the July 2021 block to Guerillero. Guerillero deferred to the drafters of this case. Barkeep49 wrote, in part, For me it falls in the "not great but not sanctionable" bucket. (François Robere evidence, with additional background by Barkeep49)

---

The article Property restitution in Poland was created by François Robere at 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC) and he linked it from the main Holocaust in Poland article at 15:49. 93 minutes later, Volunteer Marek made a series of changes starting at 17:48. At 18:16, an apparent sockpuppet reverted Volunteer Marek. The apparent sock and Volunteer Marek reverted each other at 18:17, 18:20, 18:24, 18:32, and 18:56. At 20:32, Volunteer Marek removed a different claim he had previously tagged as {{dubious}} which was cited to Gera & Federman (2021), Easton (2021), and Lis (2021). At 21:03, El_C protected the page to enforce the 30/500 restriction in the topic area. François Robere reverted Volunteer Marek at 21:30. At 21:33, Volunteer Marek reverted saying ...no sources actually support this claim.... Following a talk page discussion, at 10:32, 16 August 2021, Francois Robere revised the line under dispute and restored content removed during the earlier dispute with the apparent sock puppet. At 6:16 17 August 2021, Volunteer Marek removed a claim François Robere had readded arguing that it was original research by synthesis; the claim was cited to Becker (2001), Charnysh (2015), and Pankowski (2018). At 10:44 François Robere restored the claim and quoted the relevant sources in the talk page discussion. (GizzyCatBella evidence; additional context by Wugapodes)

History of the Jews in Poland

There were multiple additions and reverts to History of the Jews in Poland in February, April, and May 2019, which resulted in the page being fully protected three times.

The sequence begins February 22, 2019 16:37: Tatzref added content to History of the Jews in Poland suggesting that Jews were able to reclaim property taken during the war quickly, with the support of other Polish residents, and did so in the "thousands". According to Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust careful examination shows Tatzref plagiarized this paragraph from a Mark Paul online essay, ‘A Tangled Web: Polish–Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath (see pp. 381 - 386).

Timeline of February edits

16:42 and 17:26: Tatzref then added The trade in Christian slaves was opposed by the Catholic Church<ref>Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, ''Jews in Poland: A Documentary History'', Hippocrene Books (1993), pp. 257–266.</ref> February 23 6:23: Icewhiz reverted the paragraph about Jewish property with the edit summary OR, misrepresentation of sources 6:29: Icewhiz reverted the Catholic Church addition with the edit summary We discussed slavery at length at length in the talk page (last archive) - this waa rejected - gain consensus prior to reinserting, and please avoid cook. 15:34: Piotrus undid Icewhiz's 6:23 removal with the edit summary I don't see any red flags in this, please explain on talk what is this OR and misrepresentation of sources here? 15:49: Piotrus removes the last sentence of Tatzref's property edit with the summary this seems not particularly relevant, and could have neutrality/undue problems, also difficult to verify due to convoluted and offline (?) reference 18:16: Tatzref adds information about the Alfonse pogrom 21:97: Galassi reverts the Alfonse pogrom addition February 24 1:59: יניב הורון (Yaniv) removes the remaining text about property with the edit summary rv antisemitic vandalism 6:36: Volunteer Marerk reverts Yaniv with the edit summary please refrain from using false and offensive edit summaries 7:03: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Use of 1947 primary source not acceptable. Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa (37 cited pages) - reading the book in question leads to a different conclusion. 7:07: Icewhiz begins a talk page discussion about the property edits 13:55: Galassi undoes Icewhiz's property removal with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Icewhiz (talk): Meets all the WP:RS criteria (formatting removed) 21:25: Tatzref restores the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary Highly relevant info discussed by major historians. Meets all the WP:RS criteria February 25 5:39: Piotrus redlinks Alfonse pogrom with the edit summary interesting, probably notable, but it seems a pogrom not of but by the Jews, not sure if this is relevant here? 12:33: Icewhiz removes the Alfonse pogrom content with the edit summary A number of misrepresentations, miss-attribution, and probably UNDUE.

• February 25 22:48: TonyBallioni fully protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute: AE action (formatting removed) until 22:49, 11 March 2019
• March 12 12:23: Icewhiz rewrites the property section with the edit summary Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online

The content remains unchanged until April 15 2:52 - 5:50 when Piotrus makes 7 edits all under 250 bytes to the property section, which is followed by other editors making further changes.

Timeline of April and May edits

7:16 & 7:18 Icewhiz replaces two {{fact}} placed by Piotrus with sources April 20 21:13: Tatzref removes a sentence saying a small number of Jews recovered property with the edit summary This book (Shattered Spaces) contains no research or source to support this highly speculative claim. 21:17: Galassi reverts Tatzref 21:47: Tatzref adds commentary on the source restored by Galassi and content similar to their initial edit about how easy it was for Jews to reclaim property with the edit summary Functioning of postwar restitution process based on scholarly research into Polish court records 21:49: Galassi reverts Tatzref with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Tatzref (talk): Rv editorializing (formatting removed) May 7 4:28: Tatzref rewrites the property section 5:50: Icewhiz reverts Tatzref with the edit summary WP:NOENG, misuse of primary source, use of WP:SPS by editor/author condemned by SPLC, misrepresentations / selective use of sources (e.g. Stola in Dean). restore STABLE (formatting removed) 6:10: Piotrus reverts Icewhiz with the edit summary nope, no support for this version. Nobody supports your criticism of Chodakiewicz, your NOENG request got denied by ArbCom. This is a more informative and copyedited version 9:31: François Robere edits twice, first removing content with the edit summary In order: removed SPS by well known nationalist historian; tagged some claims; some CE; removed dated (primary) source; removed some irrelevant claims and then reverts himself while also adding and commenting out some of the disputed content. May 9 4:32 - 5:39: Piotrus makes a series of edits which included adding {{verify}} tags, work on references, and copy-editing. These edits include work on areas beyond the property section dispute. May 10 5:46: Icewhiz reverts Piotrus with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. WP:NOENG, misrepresentation of source, use of fringe source self-published by SPLC designated editor/publisher dismissed as fringe in reviews. (formatting removed) 10:04: Piotrus attempts to blend Icewhiz's and Tatzref's versions with the edit summary incorporate most relevant parts of old and new revisions, remove excessive detail and a quotation about parasites attributable to a PhD thesis May 11 0:30 & 0:51: K.e. coffman restores early versions of Piotrus' with the edit summaries Not an improvement, non RS -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Arbitrary_break (formatting removed) and Better version 1:44: Volunteer Marek reverts K.e. coffman with the edit summary um, those are RS and yes, it's an improvement and there is no consensus for these changes 2:56: Icewhiz undoes Volunteer Marek with the edit summary Restore WP:STABLE version. This version still contains an essay in a self published book, misuse of PRIMARY and very local sources and what appears to be OR on top of them (formatting removed) 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary Edit warring / content dispute (formatting removed)

• May 11 3:04: Oshwah fully-protects the page with the edit summary {{{1}}} (formatting removed)
• May 13 4:20: Volunteer Marekt reverted Icewhiz with the edit summary per talk, this version is both more neutral and well sourced. Ample, extensive, detailed, exhaustive rationale has been provided. Anything beyond this is really just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you wish to ADD material based on RS that's fine but plz stop removing existing well sourced material}

May 13 - 19 edits

4:26 - 4:35 Piotrus makes a series of edits under 85 bytes. May 14 19:01 - 1938: Tatzref edits 3 times, removing 1 source and adding in 2 previously removed pieces of information 22:08: François Robere reverts Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, and Tatzref with the edit summary No consensus for these changes, and watch your comments on RS for WP:BLP violations (formatting removed) May 15 2:23: My very best wishes reverts François Robere with the edit summary rv - do not see any BLP violations or other reasons to remove this sourced content 9:52: François Robere undid My very best wishes with the edit summary No consensus. See TP for BLP issue. 11:39: François Robere added some of the disputed sources with the edit summary ncorporated sources from TP (including the American Jewish Year Book and Skibinske); CE May 16 5:48-5:55: Piotrus makes 3 edits 5:58 - 5:59: Piotrus adds content in two edits (1, 2) with the edit summaries restore previous version of this para, current version seems referenced only to the 1940s source + OR and restore another reliablely referenced section that was removed because ? 6:06: Icewhiz removes content with the edit summary emove self-published source, remove duplications. Please discuss on talk page as opposed to edit warring. Fix gross misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - you want to enter him - then full context, and specify this is specific to Radom and Kalisz - entered. May 17 10:32 - 10:41: François Robere removes two paragraphs with the edit summaries This is not a discussion of general property issues, but of the treatment of Jewish returnees and CE; please don't use popular sources or commentaries when we have such good academic sources 14:32 - 14:56: Volunteer Marek makes 17 edits to the article, with a focus on the organization, the amount of detail, and tagging sources/content. 21:05: François Robere reverts the last 13 of Volunteer Marek's edits, restoring to a version that just has the organizational changes with an edit summary Reverted to revision 897509749 by Volunteer Marek: That's not the NPOV version, and you can't just ignore the discussions we've had about Chod. in multiple forums (formatting removed) 23:37 Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary Reverted to revision 897553745 by Rfl0216 (talk): There was no consensus for most of these changes and i've asked you several times to stop referring to BLPs by insulting nicknames (formatting removed) and then makes two smaller changes, the first of which has the edit summary clarify since pedantry is being used as an excuse May 18 18:51: François Robere adds back some of the disputed content with an edit summary There was certainly no consensus for including Chodakiewicz et al. May 19 22:50:Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary restore NPOV version per talk. Please get consensus for these changes 3:35: Tatzref restores some of the disputed content with the edit summary additional important information about actual functioning of restitution process and removing incorrect information not found in sources

• May 20 3:37: El C full protects the article with the edit summary {tqq (formatting removed)
• May 20 - 23: El C performs two small edits in response to edit requests
• June 3 19:03: François Robere removes content with the edit summary Discussion concluded with a consensus to remove the MJC's book, so I'm restoring the previous, well-sourced version
• 20:26: Volunteer Marek reverts François Robere with the edit summary 'm sorry, but no such consensus was achieved. Can you please provide a link where this consensus you claim exists was formed? At RSN, the discussion tended to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore EVEN IF there are issues with one particular source that does not justify making OTHER mass deletions of sourced text or unsupported changes
• June 4 2:51: K.e. coffman removes content with the edit summary No consensus to include this source / content -- pls see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Edit_break (formatting removed)

(Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

---

An over 185 kb discussion about this content lasted until June. Major topics of discussion included:

• Whether the sources were being accurately represented
• Whether the sources were reliable
• Whether certain sources were primary sources and if so how to use them
• Whether the content added followed a neutral point of view, particularly whether or not the level of detail was appropriate for the article topic
• Whether any of the content added as the result of synthesis or other forms of original research
• How the non-English sources policy applies or should be applied
• Whether it was appropriate to revert to a "stable" version

There were separate sub-sections of proposed additional sources, discussion of an alleged biographies of living people policy violation, on the use of Lukasz Krzyżanowski, on the use of Alina Skibińska, and on the General level article. Much of this discussion involved non-parties to the case, particularly two editors who have since been indefinitely blocked (Icewhiz and Tatzref).

Comments by Volunteer Marek in the discussion included: 1, 2 (Gitz6666 evidence, with additional background/links by Barkeep49)

Summary of other in scope evidence

Naliboki massacre

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

Disruption in the topic area over time

There was a high of 14 AE reports in 2018 dropping to 0 reports in 2022. In May 2020 the Arbitration Committee imposed a 500/30 restriction in the topic area of history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II and changed it to an extended confirmed restriction in September 2021. (Volunteer Marek evidence)

A search of the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents archive by Volunteer Marek revealed 1 thread in 2022 that mentioned the topic area and 2 about Poland more generally (about Kvass and a small town in Poland) ignoring reports which are just dealing with routine vandalism or where Poland is mentioned only in passing. A search of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by Volunteer Marek showed 0 mentions of Poland in 2022. The only 2022 mention of Poland on the Administrator's Noticeboard found by Volunteer Marek was about a declined Arbitration Committee case request. Link to data compiled by Volunteer Marek (Volunteer Marek evidence)

At least 45 sockpuppets, most of them sockpuppets of Icewhiz, have been blocked since June 2020. These sockpuppets have disrupted the topic area and other Wikipedia process through harassment, misrepresentation, and at one point an attempt to gain administrator privileges in 2021. (GizzyCatBella evidence)

In 2022, the Arbitration Committee received a private request for action against an editor for harassment in this topic area. The Arbitration Committee declined to consider the matter privately and advised the requester to file a request publicly. Subsequently a submission was made to Trust and Safety alleging harassment, which was deferred to ArbCom per policy for handling under their existing ArbCom procedures. Committee statement on private request received in 2022

Previous noticeboard discussions

Note from Barkeep49: Not every noticeboard discussion in this topic area needs to be entered into evidence. In particular, old noticeboard discussions are not useful. Instead recentish (and I am intentionally not defining that right now but letting interested editors show their judgement) discussions that shed light into the conduct of named parties can certainly be submitted.

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

From Horse Eye's Back evidence unless otherwise indicated

• Encyklopedia II wojny światowej March 2020
• Glaukopis_journal February 2021
• The_Volunteer_(book) February 2021
• Gazeta_Wyborcza_and_OKO.press February 2021
• Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance March 2021
• RfC:_Polish_sources September 2021
• Encyclopedia_of_Ukraine November 2022
• Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust February 2023
• Blue Police in Poland February 2023
• Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust February 2023
• Hoffman and The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society February 2023
• volunteermarek.substack.com March 2023
• Glaukopis (ongoing permalink as of 18:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ) March 2023

Fringe Theory Noticeboard

From Horse Eye's Back evidence unless otherwise indicated

• Maria Trzcińska as a source for her own claims to provide context for later refutation December 2021
• Święciany massacre and others (ongoing permalink as of 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC) ) March 2023

NPOVN

From Horse Eye's Back evidence unless otherwise indicated

• More eyes on Institute of National Remembrance January 2020
• Jewish collaboration February 2023
• Dueness of a book review March 2023

Personal information in Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust contains personal information about Wikipedia editors. (Jayen466 evidence)

Bibliography

ArbCom access key

• Publisher's version is freely available on the internet.
• An arbitrator has independent access to publisher's version. Ask for access.
• Arbitrators have independent access, but the source is in a language which no arbitrator speaks.
• No arbitrator has independent access. If an arbitrator discovers they do have access, please change to blue.

Regarding The Holocaust in Poland

1. Relating to information removed 28 Jan 2021 and restored 29 Jan 2021
   • Paulsson, Gunnar (1998). "The Rescue of Jews by Non-Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland". Journal of Holocaust Education. 7. doi:10.1080/17504902.1998.11087056.
   • Lukas, Richard, ed. (1989). Out of the inferno : Poles remember the Holocaust (1 ed.). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
     • Article cites 2013 edition, WorldCat lists the 2013 edition as being an eBook publication.
   • Snyder, Timothy (December 20, 2012). "Hitler's Logical Holocaust". New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on December 7, 2012.
2. Relating to information added in 2018 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Smith, David (2000). Moral geographies: ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. OCLC 44435516.
   • Lukas (supra)
   • Mirriam-Goldberg, Caryn (2012). Needle in the bone: how a Holocaust survivor and a Polish resistance fighter beat the odds and found each other. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. OCLC 821177968.
     • Other editions on WorldCat
   • Kwiatkowski, Richard (2016). The Country That Refused to Die: The Story of the People of Poland. Xlibris. OCLC 1124501951.
3. Relating to information added in 2019 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Yahad - in unum (n.d.). "Execution of Jews in Koło". Holocaust by bullets. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
   • United States Holocaust Museum (n.d.). "Holocaust Encyclopedia". Retrieved 18 March 2023.
     • Idem. "Nazi camps". In United States Holocaust Museum (n.d.).
     • Idem. "Einsatzgruppen". In United States Holocaust Museum (n.d.).
   • Megargee, Geoffrey; Dean, Martin; Hecker, Mel, eds. (2018). Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. Vol. 2. Indiana University Press. OCLC 809381664.
     • Ziółkowska, Anna; Reichelt, Katrin. "Koło". In Megargee, Dean & Hecker (2018), pp. 62-3.
4. Relating to information added in 2017 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Cherry, Robert; Orla-Bukowska, Annamaria, eds. (2007). Rethinking Poles and Jews: troubled past, brighter future. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. OCLC 85862099.
   • United States Holocaust Museum. "Belzec (rev. Dec. 7, 2020)". In United States Holocaust Museum (n.d.).
     • Ealdgyth's nota bene: Belzec/Sobibor/Treblinka are collectively known as the Reinhard camps - for Operation Reinhard which operated those three death camps

Regarding Judenrat

• Aderet, Ofer (August 24, 2019). "The crime: Collaborating with the Nazis. The punishment: Excommunication from Judaism". Haaretz. Retrieved 2023-03-24.
• Schwarz, Jan (2015). Survivors and Exiles: Yiddish Culture after the Holocaust. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-8143-3906-0. OCLC 910650494.
• Gilliatt, Stephen (2000). An Exploration of the Dynamics of Collaboration and Non-resistance. Symposium series. Vol. 63. Edwin Mellen Press. p. 95, 99. ISBN 978-0-7734-7770-4. OCLC 43757521.

Regarding Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

• Rozett, Robert; Spector, Schmuel, eds. (2000). Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Facts on File library of world history. New York: Facts on File. OCLC 44016317.
• Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: the Nazi persecution and murder of the Jews (English ed.). Oxford UP. OCLC 649831350.
• Cesarani, David (2016). Final solution: the fate of the Jews 1933-49. London: Macmillan. OCLC 936302830.
• Krakowski, Schmuel (1984). The war of the doomed: Jewish armed resistance in Poland, 1942-1944. Translated by Blaustein, Orah (English ed.). New York: Holmes and Meyer. OCLC 9970421.

Regarding General Government

• United States Holocaust Museum. "Defining the Enemy". In United States Holocaust Museum (n.d.).
• Grabowski, Jan (2010). "Propaganda antyżydowska w Generalnej Guberni, 1939–1945" [Anti-Jewish propaganda in the General Government, 1939–1945]. Holocaust. Studies and Materials (in Polish). 6. doi:10.32927/zzsim.711.

From K.e.coffman's evidence

• Regarding Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust discussion
  • Paul, Mark (2017). Neighbours on the eve of the Holocaust: the Polish minority and Jewish collaboration in Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland, 1939-1941 (PDF). Toronto: Polish Education Foundation in North America. OCLC 1038021450.
    • Worldcat lists a 2001 abridged print version, but only held by two libraries.
  • The Associated Press (April 14, 2016). "Holocaust scholar questioned on claim Poles killed more Jews than Germans in war". The Guardian.
  • Paul, Mark (2010). "Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy. The Testimony of Survivors" (PDF). Polish Educational Foundation in North America. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 May 2015.
  • Paul, Mark (2008). "A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath" (PDF). Polish Education Foundation in North America. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 1, 2016.
    • As cited in the article. Only version found online is: Paul, Mark (2016). "A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath" (PDF) (Rev. 2016 ed.). Polish Education Foundation in North America.
• Regarding Lazar Berenzon
  • Байчорова, Ф.Х. (2018). "Негативное-агрессивное поведение жертвы преступления" [Negative-aggressive behavior of a crime victim]. Trends in the Development of Science and Education (in Russian). doi:10.18411/lj-28-02-2018-14. Assisted by Google Translate
  • Саламатова, Марина Сергеевна (2019). "НКВД и ВЦИК: роль в организации избирательных кампаний в РСФСР (1917 – 1924 гг.)" [The NKVD and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee: the role in organizing election campaigns in the RSFSR (1917 - 1924)]. Genesis: Historical Research (in Russian). 5 (5): 46–60. doi:10.25136/2409-868x.2019.5.29857. Assisted by Google Translate
  • Глущенко, В.В.; Глущенко, И.И.; Козырев, В.А.; Глущенко, И.И. (2019). "Сервисология как научная основа развития сферы сервиса" [Servisology as a scientific basis for the development of the service sector]. Trends and management (in Russian). 1 (1): 13–26. doi:10.7256/2454-0730.2019.1.20595. Assisted by Google Translate
• Regarding Prosto z mostu
  • Urbanowski, Maciej (June 30, 2016). "Paradoksy żydożerców II RP" [Paradoxes of the Jews of the Second Republic of Poland]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). Assisted by Google Translate
• Regarding Naliboki massacre
  • Harrison, David (January 10, 2009). "Bielski brothers were heroes, says survivor". The Telegraph.
  • Wexler, Martha (December 27, 2008). "Jewish Brothers' Resistance Inspired 'Defiance'". All Things Considered. National Public Radio.
  • Bogdan Musiał (January 31, 2009). "Bielski w puszczy niedomówień" [Bielski in the forest of understatements]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). Assisted by Google Translate
• Regarding Rajgród
  • Crago, Laura; Tomkiewicz, Monika. "Rajgród". In Megargee, Dean & Hecker (2018), pp. 944-6.
• Regarding RSN thread on Blue Police in Poland
  • Krüger, Friedrich Wilhelm (October 30, 1939). Odezwa obligująca urzędników Policji Polskiej do zgłoszenia się okupantowi [A proclamation obliging Polish Police officials to report to the occupier] (Poster) (in Polish).
• Regarding Polish Operation of the NKVD
  • Chodakiewicz, Marek Jan (15 January 2011). "Nieopłakane ludobójstwo" [Genocide Not Mourned]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). Archived from the original on 4 October 2012.
  • Sommer, Tomasz (2010). "Execute the Poles: The Genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union, 1937–1938. Documents from Headquarters". The Polish Review. 55 (4): 417–436. JSTOR 27920673.
  • Sommer, Tomasz (2011). "The Polish Operation Stalin's First Genocide of Poles 1937–1938". Sarmatian Review. 31 (3): 1618–1625.
  • Polska Agencja Prasowa (24 June 2010). "Publikacja na temat eksterminacji Polaków w ZSRR w latach 30" [Publication on the Subject of Extermination of Poles in the Soviet Union during the 1930s)]. Portal Wiara.pl.

Regarding Paradisus Judaeorum

• Kot, Stanisław (1937). Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty [Poland as Paradise for the Jews, Hell for the Peasants, and Heaven for the Nobles] (in Polish). Warszawa. OCLC 29553714.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Biskupski, Mieczysław (2017). War and diplomacy in East and West: a biography of Józef Retinger. Routledge studies in modern history. Routledge. OCLC 971462460.
• Zimmerman, Joshua (2015). The Polish underground and the Jews, 1939-1945. New York: Cambridge UP. OCLC 910935082.
• Krzyżanowski, Julian (1958). Madrej głowie dość dwie słowie: trzy centurie przysłów polskich [Word to the Wise: Three centuries of Polish proverbs] (in Polish) (1st ed.). Warsawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. OCLC 2272434.
• Wasserstein, Bernard (1988). Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945 (1988 ed.). Institute of Jewish Affairs. OCLC 781471209.

  Unclear what the 1988 printing was; the 1999 printing (OCLC 39458880) is marked as the 2nd edition, and the edition we have access to is older:

  Wasserstein, Bernard (1979). Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945. London and New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs; Oxford UP. OCLC 5100959.

• Stola, Dariusz (2015). "The Polish Government-in-exile: National Unity and Weakness". Holocaust Studies. 18 (2–3). doi:10.1080/17504902.2012.11087314.
• Soroka, Wacła (1976). "Professor Stanisław Kot: Scholar". The Polish Review. 21 (1/2): 93–112. JSTOR 25777374.
• Szczuki, Lech (1999). "Stanisław Kot" (PDF). Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce (in Polish). 43.
• Flemming, Michael (2014). Auschwitz, the allies and censorship of the Holocaust. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. OCLC 863127574.
• Adamczyk, Arkadiusz (2003). ""Stanisław Kot 1885-1975: biografia polityczna", Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, Warszawa 2000 [recenzja]" ["Stanisław Kot 1885-1975: political biography", Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, Warsaw 2000 [review]] (PDF). Piotrkowskie Zeszyty Historyczne (in Polish). 5: 423–430.
• Weintraub, Wiktor (1981). "Charting new ways for Polish cultural history: Stanisław Kot" (PDF). Organon. 16/17: 267–281.
• Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2004). Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia [Hazy Things: Essays and Studies] (in Polish). Fundacja Pogranicze. ISBN 978-83-86872-60-2. OCLC 57565782.

Regarding Property restitution in Poland

• Gera, Vanessa; Federman, Josef (15 August 2021). "Israel condemns Poland restitution law, recalls top diplomat". The Associated Press. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
• Easton, Adam (14 August 2021). "Polish law on property stolen by Nazis angers Israel". BBC News. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
• Lis, Jonathan (14 August 2021). "In protest over Polish restitution law, Lapid recalls Israel's top diplomat to Warsaw". Haaretz. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
• Becker, Avi, ed. (2001). The plunder of Jewish property during the Holocaust: confronting European history. Palgrave. OCLC 46831172.
• Charnysh, Volha (2015). "Historical Legacies of Interethnic Competition: Anti-Semitism and the EU Referendum in Poland". Comparative Political Studies. 48 (13). doi:10.1177/0010414015598921.
• Pankowski, Rafał (2018). "The Resurgence of Antisemitic Discourse in Poland". Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. 12 (1). doi:10.1080/23739770.2018.1492781.

Miscellaneous

• Tzur, Nissan (June 2, 2013). "Polish prof. to be axed for anti-Semitic views". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
• Weinbaum, Laurence (2016). "Amnesia and Antisemitism in the Second Jagiellonian Age". In Wistrich, Robert (ed.). Anti-Judaism, antisemitism, and delegitimizing Israel. Studies in antisemitism. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. OCLC 946906390.