User:Gitz6666/ArbCom

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

• 18-27 Dec 2019‎. Buidhe creates History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II
• 27 Dec. Piotrus removes content about Polish supervisors beating Jewish forced laborers because WP:REDFLAG, see talk [3] and adds tags:"dubious" to source Farkash, article in "Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust" [4]. JoeZ451 (Icewhiz SP) reverts. Brief t/p discussion: Piotrus argues that Farkash is a PhD student making exceptional claims per WP:REDFLAG. Buidhe edits toward consensus [5][6]
• 27 Dec 2019-2 Jan 2020 pre-GA review t/p discussion between Buidhe, Piotrus and Icewhiz SP. Collaborative and policy-compliant discussion (apart from the SP), AGF is very easy. Piotrus is worried by content involving Polish responsability, doubts the quality of the sources, asks for corroboration in other sources, which he gets. Buidhe works toward consensus. Article changes [7] (e.g., Farkash is no longer "historian"; used as source with attribution)
• 6 Mar 2020: GAN - Listed; 14 Sep 2020: FAC - Promoted. Buidhe continues to work intensively on the article‎ in 2021.
• 19 May 2021. Edit war starts. VM removes text on local ethnic Poles and Home Army being hostile to Jewish fugitives because not what Zimmerman says [8] (see here verbatim quotations from source) and removes simillar claims supported by Farkash because 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 [9]. Buidhe restores This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them [10]. VM reverts if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article [11]. Buidhe restores Your claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked [12]. VM adds tag:POV section [13]. GKB makes mininal inconsequential edit [14].
• 19 May 2021, VM joins the t/p discussion: I've tried to implement some of the suggestions and address the concerns made above [by Piotrus] ... However I was reverted by Buidhe with the usual "get consensus" edit summary ... User:Buidhe. Please stop edit warring ... stop using aggressive edit summaries ... I'm taking it up with the person who put the misrepresentation of the source in the article in the first place. You ... Please stop claiming "no consensus! no consensus!" ... use of graduate student's work for WP:REDFLAG claims. In fact you yourself acknowledged these concerns in a positive manner in your comments from December! So why are you reverting now?
• 23-24 May. Edit war continues. VM removes restoring edit per NO CONSENSUS [15]. Buidhe restores The article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus [16]. GCB removes Buidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you [17]. Buidhe restores [18]. VM removes [19]. DrKay restores [20]. GCB removes [21]. DrKay restores removing the contentious word "fugitives" [22].
• 25-26 May. Chumchum7 adds the tag:"citation needed" [23]; Z1720 removes [24]; Chumchum7 restores [25]; Chipmunkdavis removes [26].
• 26 May. Piotrus modifies [27], adds Poles helping Jews [28]. Buidhe reverts with detailed edit summary [29]. Piotrus removes [30], 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. [31]. VM reverts You can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article! [32]
• 26 May. Ymblanter fully protects. 29-30 May. Virus Swatter (Icewhiz SP?) restores [33]. GCB reverts [34].

• 19 May-27 May 2021 (during the edit war) long t/p discussion quotations requests, followed by longer discussions. Notable points: VM disputes that the text refers to "Jewish fugitives"; GCB: Buidhe, could you clarify the major concern VM raised rather than reverting [12]. Such a reaction is not what's expected. Buidhe explains she rephrased per COPYVIO and replaced "Jewish bands" with "Jewish fugitives" per WP:IMPARTIAL. VM disagrees: your statement is both inaccurate and cherry picked ... I would also appreciate it Buidhe, if you made an actual effort to discuss the disagreements and not only when you’re edit warring ... And let me point out, *again*, that some of these issues were already discussed previously back in Dec 19 ... don’t try to construct strawman here. I’m also not interested in your own original research. GCB concurrs with VM. Chipmunkdavis joins and supports Buidhe: The sentences cited to Zimmerman 2015 213 & 361 seem a reasonable reflection of the content per the quote provided; also Z1720 agrees: I think the above text is verified by the sources and I do not understand why it was so important for this text to be removed before consensus was reached. GCB is completely puzzled by their analysis. Piotrus joins We should make it clear that per the source cited, the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants and also Chumchum7 adds to that side of the argument challenging the notion that the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people (they were hostile to them because they stole food and were communists, not because they were Jewish). Buidhe I hope you agree that we do not want to be reproducing zydokomuna stereotypes on Wikipedia. Informal RfC proposed by GCB: instead of stable version

  According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants

  she wants

  According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources

  From there on, the discussion becomes TL;DR: around the end of May, no less than 8 proposals were ready for an upcoming RfC. Eventually Z1720 and Buidhe very reluctantly agree to remove the quotation from Zimmerman 361 (12 and 18 June). VM agrees No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work. However, the text is never restored. Buidhe has abandoned the article. She explains in an interview with Shira Klein [35]:

  I completely stopped editing in the topic area at all because of people deleting content for ideological reasons (this happened, for example, at "History of the Jews in Deblin and Irena during World War II" and the 2018 Polish Holocaust law). I found it was a waste of time to argue and my efforts were better spent in other areas where people didn't delete my work

• 31 March 2023. I Restored version that passed as featured article (FAC). Text removed in May-June 2021 without consensus on the talk page [36]

Zero's arguments

With regard to Zero's arguments (G&K's essay does not consist of facts, it consists of claims … his essay with Klein is not about history and not a work of scholarship … it is especially necessary to treat assertions as claims to be checked, not automatically as statements of fact), I think Arbs should make a distinction between two types of statements in G&K essay.

Some are controversial interpretations on which disagreement is legitimate. When the authors claim that For the last few years, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland have been shaped by a group of individuals (…) with a Polish nationalist bent. Their Wikipedia names are [party names follow], this is not an authoritative statement of fact on which the Arbs can rely. The peer reviewers didn't bother to check whether the named editors were Polish nationalists who shaped WP articles by inserting deliberate distortions. Peer reviewers need not agree with the essay they are reviewing. That Polish nationalists shaped WP articles is G&K's interpretation, which is legitimate, undoubtedly honest and well-researched – but it's their interpretation, and the Arbs, as well as the reviewers, may or may not agree with it.

Examples of the second type of statement in G&K's essay include "Wikipedia article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles During the Holocaust’ (...) inflates the number of Polish victims and saviors"; "Wikipedia also downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans"; "argu[ing] that hundreds of thousands of Jews found shelter in Polish homes is nonsensical", etc. (many more examples in François Robere's evidence). These are not opinions, interpretations, hypotheses, but statements of fact from a reliable source. Two academics would not risk their reputations by making statements like these if the matter were still controversial among scholars: they would only prove to be ignorant and biased. And a conscientious reviewer would not allow them to present as facts statements that are only legitimate opinions.

This is important for Arbs because when they read the talk page discussions they must be in a position to know that sometimes (obviously not always) one side is simply right and the other is simply wrong: e.g., Chodakiewicz's book, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold, is not reliable; the administrative and judiciary system in 1945–1947 facilitated the transfer of "abandoned" Jewish property into the hands of ethnic Poles; the insinuation that Jews played a key role in perpetuating the Naliboki massacre echoes distortions popular among right-wing fringe groups (examples from my evidence). On the basis of uncontroversial background knowledge such as this, Arbs must check whether there are editors who are systematically on the wrong side, and who do so with an aggressive and insistent attitude. They must try to understand why editors who put forward the best arguments, the best sources and the best texts are sidelined and succumb in the editorial process.

Arbs must be open to the hypothesis that Icewhiz ("Auschwitz") was very often right: the unbearable frustration of not being able to correct the distortions of the topic area (which, mind you, is not Egyptian numismatics, the Academy Awards, coleoptera and fungi: it's the memory of the Holocaust) may have turned him into the arch-POV-pusher you loath, commander of legions of socks, ready to do anything to publish his content, heedless of any WP policy and even common decency. If that were the case, than the "argument from Icewhiz" (since Icewhiz made the argument, and Icewhiz is bad, the argument must also be bad) would be particulary deceptive and mistaken. As I told Volunteer Marek here, I believe that it is not not Icewhiz who created Icewhiz's content, but rather it is Icewhiz's content (the need to rebalance the area and the impossibility of doing so) that created the Icewhiz. Addressing the causes of distortions in the topic area's malaise is not only a duty to our readers, but also to our editors, and besides a problem of distortions, there's a health and safety problem that needs to be solved.

Postwar Property Restitution

Prolonged edit war at History of the Jews in Poland between Feb-June 2019. Evidence of misrepresentation of sources, tendentious editing (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and disruptive editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

• 16:37, 22 February 2019 Tatzref adds text on restitution of abandoned property to Jews in postwar Poland reporting that a simplified procedure was set in place, entailing minimal costs, the return of property proceeded smoothly, thousands of claims were successful, there were cases of Jews advancing fraudulent claims. Sources are hard to verify (on paper, in Polish) or fail verification (Icewhiz claims the passage misrepresented a volume edited by Grabowski&Libionka to the point it was libelous in t/p discussion).
• 23-25 Feb. First edit war between Icewhiz and Yaniv (removing) and Piotrus, Volunteer Marek (VM) and Galassi (restoring) [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Notable points:

1. uncivil edit summary by Yaniv (rv antisemitic vandalism)
2. despite the explicit request [44], the sources were made available on the t/p by Tatzref two months later, on 21 April 2019, and the analysis by Piotrus and Icewhiz highlighted serious shortcomings, such as misrepresentation of sources (Grabowski-Libionka, eds., Klucze i Kasa, generally, spec. Skibińska, ivi), undue generalization of local microhistory's findings (Krzyżanowski, ivi), use of primary sources ("American Jewish Year Book", 1947-48) and (from 7 May 2019 onward) extensive reliance on a low-quality (biased or fringe, possibly SPS) source, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? (Leopolis Press, 2012).

• 22:49, 25 February 2019 TonyBallioni protects.
• 25 Feb-1 March 2019. AE request against Tatzref (Icewhiz filer). No action taken. VM is T-ban'd for six months, François Robere is blocked for a week. T-ban for VM is overturned on 4 March.
• 12:23, 12 March 2019 Icewhiz 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. Text reports that Polish gov. placed new limitations on inheritance, de facto preventing restitution to Jews, property of killed Jews and "unproductive and parasite factors" was devolved to the state, lengthy proceedings when Jewish property was occupied by Poles, Jewish heirs often murdered when attempting to reclaim property, extremely small numbers of Jews got property back. Based on high-quality, easily verifiable sources: essay in "Jewish Culture and History" [45], books by CUP [46], Palgrave [47], OUP [48], Harvard UP [49].
• 04:28, 7 May 2019 Tatzref reverts Icewhiz and restores an expanded version of their own text, now extensively based on Golden Harvest .
• 7-20 May. Second edit war between Icewhiz, François Robere (FR) and K.e.coffman (reverting), and Piotrus, VM and My very best wishes (restoring) [50], [51], [52] and [53], [54], [55], [56] (incorporating/merging some of the two competing texts), [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]‎, [62], [63], [64] and [65], [66], [67]‎, [68], [69]‎, [70], [71]. Notable points:

1. Five reverts by VM and FR, four by Icewhiz, three by Piotrus.
2. The analysis of texts and t/p discussion proves conclusively that Icewhiz's text is far better than Tatzref's "improved" text. See also FR's a few more sources in the collapsible box at 17:39, 12 May 2019 in the t/p discussion.
3. Dubious allegation of BLP vio in Tatzref's text made by FR and Icewhiz here, conclusive evidence of misrepresentation of source Krzyżanowski here and misrepresentation of source Skibińska here.
4. After Icewhiz and FR on 15-16 May published 3,500 words demolishing Tatzref's sources (misrepresentation of Krzyzanowski and Skibińska), the first to reply in the t/p is VM with This is a general level article. All kinds of details and speculations and academic arguments belong in dedicated article on the subject, not here [72] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).
5. 17 May-6 June, RSN thread on Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?, opened by Piotrus (see also here on t/p), followed by RfC opened by FR (result: not an RS, 9 July).

• 03:37, 20 May 2019 El C protects This edit war has gone on for long enough. 30-31 May AE request against VM (Icewhiz filer) referred to ArbCom.
• 3-4 June. Final skirmish: 19:03, 3 June 2019‎ FR restores Icewhiz's text; 20:26, 3 June 2019‎ VM reverts I'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; 02:51, 4 June 2019‎ K.e.coffman restores pointing to this discussion. Notable points: this and this comment by VM (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND).

Text comparison

TEXT 1, 22 February 2019

Jewish survivors returning to their homes in Poland found it practically impossible to reconstruct their prewar lives. Due to the border shifts, some Polish Jews found that their homes were now in the Soviet Union; in other cases the returning survivors were German Jews whose homes were now under Polish jurisdiction. Jewish communities and Jewish life as it had existed was gone. Jews who somehow survived the Holocaust often discovered that their homes had been looted or destroyed. A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process, entailing minimal costs, was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Many properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process. The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties). Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.

TEXT 2, 12 March 2019

Jewish survivors returning to their homes in Poland found it practically impossible to reconstruct their prewar lives. Due to the border shifts, some Polish Jews found that their homes were now in the Soviet Union; in other cases the returning survivors were German Jews whose homes were now under Polish jurisdiction. Jewish communities and Jewish life as it had existed was gone. Jews who somehow survived the Holocaust often discovered that their homes had been looted or destroyed. The Polish government enacted legislation on "abandoned property", placing severe limitations on inheritance not present in pre-war inheritance law which allowed inheritance by second-degree relatives, limiting restitution to the original owners or direct heirs. The unprecedented rate of extermination of Polish Jews in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis suggests "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property". Polish officials did not conceal this, the formulators of the law argued that it was necessary to prevent wealth concentration in the hands of "unproductive and parasite factors". The initial 1945 decrees were superseded by a 1946 law, with a claims deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state. Even if Jews regained de-jure control, when it was occupied by Poles additional lengthy proceedings were required. The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax. Jewish heirs were often murdered (as many as 1500) when attempting to reclaim property. Many surviving Polish Jews in the USSR were repatriated only after the end of the claims deadline in 1948, and Polish officials blocked return of Jews from DP camps. While it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back, it was undoubtedly extremely small.

TEXT 1, 16 May 2019

Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their relatives (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses and siblings), whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews. Until unclaimed abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures.> According to some scholars((who)), the 1945 and 1946 laws governing restitution were enacted with the intention of restricting Jewish restitution claims. The 1946 law had a deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state; many survivors residing in the USSR or in DP camps were only repatriated after the deadline had passed. All other properties that had been confiscated by the Nazi regime were deemed "abandoned"; however, as Yechiel Weizman notes, the fact most of Poland's Jewry had died, in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis, suggest "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property". A 1945 memorandum by the Joint states that "the new economic tendency of the Polish government... is against, or at least makes difficulties in, getting back the Jewish property robbed by the German authorities." Later laws, while more generous, remained mainly on paper, with an "uneven" implementation.

In general, restitution was easier for large organizations or well connected individuals.. The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax. Impoverished claimants could however obtain exemptions from court for legal fees; financial and legal assistance was provided by various Jewish organizations

Even if Jews regained control "on paper", most of the properties were already occupied and required additional lengthy proceedings. But more importantly: attempting to reclaim an occupied property often put the claimant at a risk of physical harm and even death. According Jan Gross, "there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise."

According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Based on studies of court records carried out by several historians, Alina Skibińska concludes that "relatively many" Jews were able to reclaim former Jewish properties. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles. The situation was similar in other towns in the Lublin Province: 281 applications were submitted in Zamość, 240 in Włodawa, some involving multiple properties, and 301 out of 894 former Jewish properties in Parczew were recovered by 1946.

Overall, it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back. Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned. However, Michael Meng in turn estimated that the number had to be "extremely small", since roughly 90% of Polish Jews perished in the Holocaust, many chose to settle in the new territories rather than the ones annexed by the Soviet Union, and yet the remainder faced "corruption and opposition" to their attempts to reclaim their property. Decades later, reclaiming pre-war property would lead to a number of controversies, and the matter is still debated by media and scholars as of late 2010s.

TEXT 2, 16 May 2019

The Polish government enacted legislation on "abandoned property", placing severe limitations on inheritance not present in pre-war inheritance law which allowed inheritance by second-degree relatives, limiting restitution to the original owners or direct heirs. The 1945 and 1946 laws governing restitution were enacted with the intention of restricting Jewish restitution claims. The 1946 law had a deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state; many survivors residing in the USSR or in DP camps were only repatriated after the deadline had passed. All other properties that had been confiscated by the Nazi regime were deemed "abandoned"; however, as Yechiel Weizman notes, the fact most of Poland's Jewry had died, in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis, suggest "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property". A 1945 memorandum by the Joint states that "the new economic tendency of the Polish government... is against, or at least makes difficulties in, getting back the Jewish property robbed by the German authorities." Later laws, while more generous, remained mainly on paper, with an "uneven" implementation.

In general, restitution was easier for large organizations or well connected individuals.. The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax.

Even if Jews regained control "on paper", most of the properties were already occupied and required additional lengthy proceedings. But more importantly: attempting to reclaim an occupied property often put the claimant at a risk of physical harm and even death. According Jan Gross, "there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise."

While it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back, according to Michael Meng the number was extremely small, and many who succeeded only received possession, not ownership, of their properties. Facing violence and a difficult and expensive legal process, many returnees eventually decided to leave rather than attempt reclamation. According to Łukasz Krzyżanowski's research into court cases in Radom and Kalisz, most moveable property taken over by Poles never left their hands. Krzyżanowski states that while it is impossible to determine the total number of successful property cases in Radom and Kalisz, there were many successful cases of initial decrees of ownership which were immediately resold to Poles. Krzyżanowski states that this fast resale process was also used by criminal gangs who illegally took over Jewish property, and that the declaration of "abandoned" property can be seen as the last stage of the process of transfer of ownership that began during German occupation.

TEXT 1, 3 June 2019

Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their relatives (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses and siblings), whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews. Until unclaimed abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures. According to some scholars, the 1945 and 1946 laws governing restitution were enacted with the intention of restricting Jewish restitution claims. The 1946 law had a deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state; many survivors residing in the USSR were only repatriated after the deadline had passed. All other properties that had been confiscated by the Nazi regime were deemed "abandoned"; however, as Yechiel Weizman notes, the fact most of Poland's Jewry had died, in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis, suggest "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property". In the years 1948-1971 the communist government in Poland signed several treaties with 14 other countries housing former property owners, and paying equivalent of today's 1.2 billion zlotys In 1960 a treaty signed between People's Republic of Poland and United States stated that all compensation claims in US need to be directed to the US government, as Poland had paid 40 million dollars (in 1960 value) to US authorities.

In general, restitution was easier for large organizations or well connected individuals. The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax. Impoverished claimants could however obtain exemptions from court for legal fees; financial and legal assistance was provided by various Jewish organizations.

Even if Jews regained control de jure, most of the properties were already occupied and required additional lengthy proceedings. However, attempting to reclaim an occupied property often put the claimant at a risk of physical harm and even death. According Jan Gross, "there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise."

According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Based on studies of court records carried out by several historians, Adam Kopciowski and Alina Skibińska conclude that "relatively many" Jews were able to reclaim former Jewish properties. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles. The situation was similar in other towns in the Lublin Province. Historian Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.”

Overall, it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back. Research of court records concluded that possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned.

Decades later, reclaiming pre-war property would lead to a number of controversies, and the matter is still debated by media and scholars as of late 2010s. Dariusz Stola notes that the issues of property in Poland are incredibly complex, and need to take into consideration unprecedented losses of both Jewish and Polish population and massive destruction caused by Nazi Germany, as well as expansion of Soviet Union and communism into Polish territories after the war, which dictated the property laws for the next 50 years.

TEXT 2, 3 June 2019

After the war ended, Poland's Communist government enacted a broad program of nationalization and land reform, taking over large numbers of properties, both Polish- and Jewish-owned. As part of the reform the Polish People's Republic enacted legislation on "abandoned property", placing severe limitations on inheritance that were not present in prewar inheritance law, for example limiting restitution to the original owners or their immediate heirs. The 1945 and 1946 laws governing restitution were enacted with the intention of restricting Jewish restitution claims. The 1946 law carried a deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948), after which unclaimed property devolved to the Polish state; many survivors residing in the USSR or in displaced-persons camps were repatriated only after the deadline had passed. All other properties that had been confiscated by the Nazi regime were deemed "abandoned"; however, as Yechiel Weizman notes, the fact most of Poland's Jewry had died, in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis, suggest "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property". According to Łukasz Krzyżanowski, the state actively sought to gain control over a large number of "abandoned" properties. According to Krzyżanowski, this declaration of "abandoned" property can be seen as the last stage of the expropriation process that began during the German wartime occupation; by approving the status-quo shaped by the German occupation authorities, the Polish authorities became "the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death". A 1945 memorandum by the Joint states that "the new economic tendency of the Polish government... is against, or at least makes difficulties in, getting back the Jewish property robbed by the German authorities." Later laws, while more generous, remained mainly on paper, with an "uneven" implementation.

Many of the properties that were previously owned or by Jews were taken over by others during the war. Attempting to reclaim an occupied property often put the claimant at a risk of physical harm and even death. Many who proceeded with the process were only granted possession, not ownership, of their properties; and completeing the restitution process, given that most properties were already occupied, required additional, lengthy processes. The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help, due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax. While it is hard to determine the total number of successful reclamations, Michael Meng estimates that the it was extremely small.

In general, restitution was easier for larger organizations or well connected individuals, and the process was also abused by criminal gangs.

"Movable" property such as housewares, that was either given by Jews for safekeeping or taken during the war, was rarely returned willfully; oftentimes the only resort for a returnee looking for reappropriatation was the courts. Most such property was probably never returned. According Jan Gross, "there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise."

Facing violence and a difficult and expensive legal process, many returnees eventually decided to leave the country rather than attempt reclamation.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, a law was passed that allowed the Catholic Church to reclaim its properties, which it did with great success. According to Stephen Denburg, "unlike the restitution of Church property, the idea of returning property to former Jewish owners has been met with a decided lack of enthusiasm from both the general Polish population as well as the government". However, the church's success in reclaiming its communal properties paved the way to similar claims by Jewish organizations, which in the earlier years proved difficult.

Poland remains "the only EU country and the only former Eastern European communist state not to have enacted [a restitution] law," but rather "a patchwork of laws and court decisions promulgated from 1945-present." As stated by Dariusz Stola, director of the POLIN Museum, "the question of restitution is in many ways connected to the question of Polish-Jewish relations, their history and remembrance, but particularly to the attitude of the Poles to the Holocaust."

Naliboki massacre, 2018-2019

With regard to Jewish partisans being responsible for the Naliboki massacre. Background knowledge: that is not supported by historical evidence, since basically no RS says that the massacre was made by Jewish partisans in general nor by the Bielski partisans in particular. Some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans/by Jews, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence. In the 2000s Polish nationalists began blaming Jews, possibly as a balancing counterweight to the culpability of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom.

Since February-March 2018 various edits from IP and Yaniv adding/removing claims about the Jewish ethnicity of the perpetrators; March 2018, Icewhiz removes FRINGE, UNDUE, BLPCRIME. This enough space for this error [73].

• Notable point: extensive section on "Bielski partisans" (Jews). The section is nearly 50% of the text of the article. It doesn't say that the Jews were responsible (because it can't - no RS supports that claim) but is inherently, paradigmatically WP:UNDUE. It ends with the words Nevertheless, the presence of several Jewish residents of Naliboki during the massacre has also been confirmed by their names.

VM reverts WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKE it are not valid reasons for POVing an article. Rmv spurious tags.[74]; Icewhiz removes revert. Promotion of FRINGE theories. COATRACKing. NPOV. Use of non-RS (interim documents of an politically appointed investigative agency who did not choose to prosecute in the end [75]; VM restores text [76] pointing to t/p discussion. T/p discussion shows that VM is aware of IPN investigation (in Polish) concluding there's no evidence they were Jewish, e.g. Please. Stop. Making. Shit. Up. The article DOES NOT promote any fringe theories. The article freakin' says that the Bielskis were NOT there, according to sources from the IPN (13:56, 15 March 2018).

June 2018 Icewhiz removes The IPN has since revised its interim investigative reports - going to "this is one of many versions", onwards to "some witnesses said this, but didn't provide a basis for it", to omitting it all together in later reports [77][78]; VM reverts while you can expand on the text, please don't just remove well sourced text [79].

July 2018 Yaniv removes [80], IP address restores you are attempting to whitewash Jewish crimes by removing cited sources of perpetrators [81]; Yaniv stop disrupting [82]; VM restores because you can't claim "this is being discussed on talk page" when you yourself haven't made a single comment there (and are here just to revert on someone else's behalf) [83]; Icewhiz removes Remove non rs (talk at hist club). Removing singling out of a single possible ethnicity in Soviet unit. Stable ver from 23 March is withoutthis [84]; Yaniv includes text The IPN has said that there was no supporting documentation for this premise [Jew partisans did it] + sources [85] and removes text and sources involving Jews partisans [86]; Tatzref restores [87] and removes new content [88].

February 2019 IP’s well-argued edit summary I removed the very problematic generalizing statement that Jewish partisans were perpetrators. This is still very much a debated question and if individuals were involved it was part of a Soviet attack [89]; VM restores [90] (no edit summary). VM keeps on restoring contents about Jews partisans being possible perpetrators of the massacre because... well, there were Jews among the partisans, were they not? Text includes The IPN historian Kazimierz Krajewski reported that in the forest around Lida some 25% of the partisans were Jewish. [91][92]

Last step in the saga: after G&K's article was published, new users, including me, landed on the page to clean it up. TrangaBellam and I got a little upset with Marcelus, who was still very interested in reconstructing the movements of the Jewish partisans in the forest, to the point that he made an edit war on this (GizzyCatBella concurring on the talk page). It ended up at AE but the article is now in decent conditions, and the reading of the section Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators is quite instructive.

One final point, sorry. G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, Various editors over the years tried to fix these edits, but they were brought back by Piotrus and by his like-minded colleague, Volunteer Marek. This is unfair. G&K share these two diffs by Piotrus [93][94], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Not submitted as evidence

• Icewhiz adds info on the self defense unit collaborating with the Nazi police in the killing of hidden Jews, source 2012 book on mass killings by Macmillan International [95], GizzyCatBella reverts this is false, see talk page [96]; once restored, Volunteer Marek removes again the source is not even on topic and can't verify it [97], and GizzyCatBella [98]
• Icewhiz removes editorializing/POV language describing the action of the Soviet partisans as murder of peasants by way of terrorizing them [99]; MyMoloboaccount and GizzyCatBella restore: the fact that they obtained provisions by terrorizing the villagers is rather important [100] [101]

Other materials

Collaboration was insignificant (March 2023)

1. My bold edit 03:15, 4 March 2023 Removed dubious and poorly sourced content: 1) It is false that "There is general consensus" among historians that collaboration was insignificant. E.g., Claus-Peter Friedrich explicitly rejects that thesis and also Grabowski 's study on the Blue Policy is incompatible with it; 2) That thesis can be attributed to Lukas (biased if not unreliable) and Connelly, but not to quoted essay of Carla Tonini.
2. VM restores 04:26, 4 March 2023 since it looks like it's well sourced and is relevant but remove the claim of "consensus". Text now is "Several scholars have stated that, unlike in Western Europe, Polish collaboration with the Nazi Germans was insignificant."
3. 02:29, 5 March 2023 WP:WEASEL to be addressed. Added template:Who. Text now is "Several scholars have stated that, unlike in Western Europe, Polish collaboration with the Nazi Germans was insignificant."

Poeticbent

• History of the Jews in Poland, 17:18, 12 June 2009 (content) + 16:59, 18 May 2016 (editing) Poeticbent adds 3 fringe claims & misrepresentations of sources:

1. "growing tensions between Jews and Poles" in inter-war Poland were the product of an increasing proportion of Jews living "separate lives". Quoted source (Ilya Prizel) says the opposite: an increasing proportion of Jews living separate lives ("a reversal of assimilation") was the product of growing tensions between Jews and Poles, i.e. antisemitism ("the rejection of Jews on both religious and racial grounds");
2. growing tensions were also caused by the influx of Russian Jews escaping persecution especially in Ukraine; none of the quoted sources (Kadish, Gitelman and Engelking Boni) supports this claim;
3. "Increase in anti-semitic activity in pre-war Poland was nevertheless typical of anti-semitism found in other parts of Europe at that time"; quoted source (Szaynok, in Robert Blobaum's book at p. 277) does not support this claim.

10:35, 25 March 2019Kostja notes point sub 2) and adds tag:citation needed. Fix [102][103][104][105]

• History of the Jews in Poland, 17:53, 17 August 2009 Poeticbent adds misrepresentation of source (Melzer). The claim about the campaign for Jewish emigration being based not on antisemitism but on objective social and economic factor cannot be attributed to the source; as reported by Melzer, it summarises the argument made by the Polish government in international fora. Fix [106]
• Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946, 19:54, 4 January 2009 Poeticbent adds The number of Jewish victims is a subject of debate also, because among them were the Stalinist functionaries of the new political order assassinated without ulterior motives; at 18:08, 10 January 2009 Piotrus modifies numerous Stalinist functionaries - "numerous" is not supported by quoted RS; recent research says 84 individuals were supporters of the new government out of more than 1,000 victims. Fix [107]

demonstrable evidence of a combative nature between two named parties

Thanks for clarifying this. I'm worried, however, by the demonstrable evidence of a combative nature between two named parties bit. With regard to this, I can provide you with all the evidence you need: a well-reasoned and comprehensive "confession", so to speak, that I'm now submitting as "evidence".

Since June 2022 I've argued that VM's editing is tendentious, disruptive and uncivil, and I've done so on numerous occasions. I'm aware that per WP:AOTE this can be seen as a personal attack. However, note the following:

• I've always made my accusations in the appropriate fora to address behaviour - ANI, AE and user talk pages (e.g. [108]). Contrary to VM, I don't use article talk pages and edit summaries to cast aspersions (t/p discussions: e.g., [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116] edit summaries: [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]: purely indicative, highly incomplete list);
• I've always substantited my accusations with diffs, e.g. at ANI, this post leading to WP:BOOMERANG and my T-ban from the RU area [123];
• I've never harassed and wikihounded VM. In particular, I did not do so at Torture in Ukraine, which was on my WL, nor at Marxism-Leninism, where I commented in an RfC, and I regularly take part to RfCs, as I explained to VM [124][125]. As far as I remember, the only time I came upon an article by consulting VM's list of contributions was at Vita Zaverukha and here I explained how this happened and the reason why I was checking VM's contributions [126].

In my interactions with VM I'm usually polite and respectful (which is not reciprocated). I have no grudge against him and no personal animosity. However, on the basis of my repeated and unpleasant experiences, I have come to the conviction that he is often tendentious, disruptive and uncivil when editing on a topic he's passionate about.

I did not start editing the HiP topic area because of the upcoming ArbCom case (in fact, I started editing before, on 9 Feb 2023 [127]) but because of the publication of G&K paper (as this 10 Feb comment makes clear [128]) Given my past experiences with VM, I had no difficulty believing the paper. Therefore I'm not, and don't pretend to be, "unbiased" and detached in this case: I'd like to persuade others that VM's editing may be harmful to the encyclopedia and to its editors. Is this a sign of my "combative nature"? If so, please tell me now and, without the need to apply sanctions, I will refrain from presenting evidence against him. If, on the other hand, my contribution can be helpful, then please don't sanction me for that contribution. Note that these are exactly the same things I told VM on my talk page on 12 February 2023, where you can find all the evidence you need [129]:

I can assure you that I don't hold any grudge or vendetta against you ... I have no feeling of enmity towards you and the last thing I want to do is chase you around in Wikipedia to personally annoy you. I also sympathise with the recent attack on your privacy ... What I read in the essay by Grabowski and Klein corresponds closely to my experiences in the area of war crimes in the Ukraine ... With regard to noticeboard and other general discussions, I will always express my concerns and warn the community of the risk of severe disruption, deviations from our policies and removal of users, resulting from a deeply problematic pattern of behaviour

Notes

• 04:38, 9 January 2009 05:23, 9 January 2009 05:29, 9 January 2009 Volunteer Marek adds a selective quotation from Gross: only a fraction of these deaths can be attributed to antisemitism; reverted by Malik Shabazz, VM restores (don't make unsubstantiated accustations of OR). However, in the very same page Gross also mentions the atmosphere of widespread anti-Semitism they encountered after the war ended; Fix [130]
• 07:51, 20 November 2018 Icewhiz removes hoax ("Jewish welcome banner"), 09:40, 20 November 2018 Piotrus restores