Kingsindian

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RE - AK

RE - this comment - first of all, you are correct that the AK in most sectors did not collaborate with the Nazis (unlike, for instance, the situation in Lithuania). There were however exceptions - specifically in modern day Western Belarus (Nowogródek) and Lithuania (Wilno) - in both of these areas from circa 1943 (as the Soviets advanced) - local units made truce and weapon supply agreements with the Nazis - in this regard the fairly recent (but comprehensive) The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939-1945 by Zimmerman is a good read for Nowogródek (search for Pilch) and for Jewish/Underground relations in WWII. HOWEVER - lack of Nazi collaboration does not mean that the AK (and particularly the NSZ - which was separate from the AK until parts of it joined the AK in 1944) had good relations with the Jews. Particularly, the reason Holocaust survivors and scholars make a comparison (on the danger or deadliness) is the hunting of Jews in the countryside and forest by the NSZ and some AK units (which varied quite a bit - the AK wasn't uniform - different units represented different Polish political factions) - In regards to Jews hiding out in the forest - the Polish underground was often the primary danger in many areas (not for lack of will by the Nazis, but rather since the Nazis did not go into the forest as much) - Jews out in the forests specifically targeted as "bandits" (to be liquidated) in AK orders (though there is some debate over the scope of the banditry order - whether this was a codeword, or that it applied to Jewish and non-Jewish bandits - however Jews in the forest were pretty much forced to a life of banditry (or petty theft) to survive). Zimmerman covers this in depth, but shorter coverage in English can be seen here and here. There are also issues with the AK's (or more specifically post-AK after its dissolution) record after the Soviet conquest in 1944-45. So the question here isn't one of Nazi collaboration (which, when done, was vs. the Soviet advance in 1943 and was of an "enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend/truce/weapon-supplier"), but rather actions independently carried out.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Re George Bell

Sorry Kingsindian. I had not scrolled down enough to see the "missing" text down at the bottom. Better where it is now though I think.Charles (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: No worries. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Word of advice

Hi, Kingsindian (cc: Clockback). I've closed the AN block appeal discussion, as it's clear there's not going to be any consensus for the unblock you seek. I closed the discussion now to spare the project of more drama than it has already received. However, let me be clear: had that discussion remained open for a sufficient period of time, and the discussion continued to trend in the way it was going, it would have been closed as a community-endorsed block, which, according to policy, is the same thing as a community ban. Administrators do not have the authority to overturn a community ban; a later community discussion authorizing an unblock would be required, and the bare minimum "time served" for that to happen would most likely be six months, per standard practice. I came very close to closing the discussion in that manner, but ultimately felt that the discussion had not been open long enough for there to have been the required "due consideration" sufficient for a community ban. There is nothing inherently harsh about an indefinite block. It can be as short as a few minutes. It's largely up to the blocked user. All that is required is a GAB-compliant unblock request. Blocked users have the right to re-appeal to a new admin, as many times as they want, they have the right to debate, dispute and discuss the block with administrators ad infinitum, they can negotiate unblock conditions, and hammer out what exactly needs to be said or done in order to secure an unblock. When you appeal to the community and the community endorses the block, all of that goes out the window and the user basically has no recourse but the six month standard offer, though it's still left up to another community discussion at that point. So, in your good faith effort to cast this indefinite block as "too harsh", you almost got the user indefinitely banned, which is substantially more draconian. I performed the close at this time on the assumption that nobody will have a problem with allowing the user to retain the regular options for an unblock. There is no guarantee that somebody won't insist on reopening the discussion, thus giving the block "due consideration", in order to secure a community-block, and if that happens, there's really nothing I can do. But, this is just a heads-up about the situation. I think the best thing you can do is bow out and let this user quietly negotiate an unblock. Like I said, there is no guarantee that things won't escalate further, but letting the user handle it with admins is going to be their best bet. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I have communicated with Clockback, and they would like to re-open the block review and let it run its course, even if it means that they might end up in an even bigger hole. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I've sent Clockback a message giving them one more chance to reconsider, but if they confirm that they fully understand the gravity of the consequences and still wish to reopen the discussion, I will do so. Swarm ♠ 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Clockback has now replied on the talkpage, asking for re-opening. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My sympathy is still with Clockback, as I consider he has been harshly and unfairly treated. But it's hard to help someone who shoots himself in the foot at every opportunity. I'd like to thank you for what you've done on his behalf. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Misc.

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your Herculean effort to raise the standard of debate on administrative noticeboards and throughout the project. Zerotalk 07:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thanks for the kind words. Btw, I would characterize it as "Sisyphean" rather than "Herculean". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens

I see that you have resigned from the discussion. Kind of a crowded forum. If you would like to talk via google hangouts or skype, i would be willing. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I would probably prefer email. In any case, I need a break from this matter for now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought talking would be more swift. (I would do that voice only if the anonymity is your concern).

I sympathize with your frustration; whatever you like, or nothing. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I usually need time to think through what I'm saying, and I do lots of edits and rewriting. That's why I prefer asynchronous communication like email. There's no hurry about the matter, since the outcome isn't really in the balance now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Email is fine. :) And only if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)