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.

Summary of evidence involving Chapmansh

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!) (no specifics about the reliable sources who criticized were given). (Tryptofish 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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Fringe Theory Noticeboard

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