Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

2021-03-13T16:33:01Z

Pudeo: /* Public figures */ revert March 11 addition of an essay link. This policy should not link to an individual editor's BLP-opining.

{{short description|Wikipedia policy on material about living persons}}
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{notice|{{strong|Report problems about particular biographical material on Wikipedia}} to the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living persons noticeboard]]. Also see "[[#Dealing with articles about yourself|Dealing with articles about yourself]]" below.}}
{{policy|WP:BLP|WP:LIVE}}
{{nutshell|Material about living persons added to {{em|any}} Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]], and [[Wikipedia:No original research|avoidance of original research]].}}
{{User:Oshwah/Templates/OfferHelp}}
[[File:Contactus-wmcolors.svg|thumb|If you have a complaint about a biography of a living person, and you wish to contact the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], see {{strong|[[foundationsite:about/contact|Contact us]]}}.]]

Editors must take particular care when adding '''information about living persons''' to {{em|any}} [[Wikipedia]] page.{{efn|People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people [[declared death in absentia|declared dead {{lang|la|in absentia}}]].}} Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere {{em|strictly}} to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] (NPOV)
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] (V)
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] (NOR)

We must get the article {{em|right}}. Be very firm about the use of high-quality [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|sources]]. All quotations and any material {{strong|challenged or likely to be challenged}} must be supported by an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]] to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be {{strong|removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}.<ref name="ZeroInformation">{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html|title=Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information|date=16 May 2006|access-date=22 June 2018|mailing-list=[[WP:WikiEN-l|WikiEN-l]]|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|author-link=Jimmy Wales|quote=It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.|archive-url=https://archive.is/20180622205129/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html|archive-date=22 June 2018}}{{pb}}{{Cite mailing list|url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html|title=Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information|date=19 May 2006|access-date=22 June 2018|mailing-list=WikiEN-l|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|quote=If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{tlf|citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.|archive-url=https://archive.is/20180622205914/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html|archive-date=22 June 2018}}{{pb}}{{Cite web|url=https://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/Jimbo_Keynote|title=Archives/Jimbo Keynote|last=Wales|first=Jimmy|date=4 August 2006|department=[[Wikimania 2006]]|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|archive-url=https://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archives/Jimbo_Keynote&oldid=9800|archive-date=8 August 2006|url-status=live|access-date=22 June 2018|quote=One of the social things that I think we can do is [[WP:BIO]] [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.}}</ref> Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]].

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]], not a [[tabloid journalism|tabloid]]: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.{{efn|For examples of arbitration cases that refer to this policy's parameters, see:{{pb}}
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article|Rachel Marsden case]], 28 November 2006: "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry."{{pb}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and article titles|Manning naming dispute]], 16 October 2013: "The [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page."}} The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations|burden of evidence]] rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

{{Content policy list}}

==Writing style==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPSTYLE}}
===Tone===
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources]] have published about the subjects, and [[#Using the subject as a self-published source|in some circumstances]] what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to [[WP:RECENTISM|recent events]]. Do not label people with [[WP:LABEL|contentious labels]], [[WP:PEACOCK|loaded language]], or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections)|trivia sections]].

===Balance===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPBALANCE}}
{{further|Wikipedia:Coatrack articles}}
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|disproportionate space]] to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure|article structure]] to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of [[Association fallacy|claims that rely on guilt by association]], and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea expressed in [[meta:Eventualism]]—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does {{em|not}} apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

===Attack pages===
{{see|Wikipedia:Attack pages|Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10}}
Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see [[#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking]]. Non-administrators should tag them with {{tl|db-attack}} or {{tl|db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

==Reliable sources==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPRS|WP:BLPSOURCES|WP:BLPSOURCE}}
==={{anchor|CHALLENGE}}Challenged or likely to be challenged===
{{main|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources}}
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, [[WP:V|Verifiability]], says that all quotations and any material {{strong|challenged or likely to be challenged}} must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that {{strong|contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion}}. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is [[tabloid journalism]]. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

==={{anchor|Misuse of primary sources}}Avoid misuse of primary sources===

{{see|Wikipedia:No original research#Primary}}
{{shortcut|WP:BLPPRIMARY}}
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do {{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do {{strong|{{em|not}}}} use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, [[WP:NOR|no original research]], and the other sourcing policies.{{efn|Please note that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional claims]] require exceptional sources.}}

===Self-published sources===
====Avoid self-published sources====
{{anchor|Avoid self-published sources}}
{{shortcut|WP:BLPSPS}}
Never use [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works|self-published sources]]—including but not limited to books, [[zine]]s, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published {{strong|by the subject of the article}}. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. See {{section link||Images}} below for our policy on self-published images.

====Using the subject as a self-published source====
{{shortcut|WP:BLPSELFPUB}}
{{further|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources}}
There are living persons who publish material {{strong|about themselves}}, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
# it is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.

===Avoid gossip and feedback loops===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPGOSSIP}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news}}
Avoid repeating [[gossip]]. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use [[weasel word]]s and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of [[circular reporting]], in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

===Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced===
{{anchor|Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material|Rm1}}
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Libel}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:GRAPEVINE|WP:BLPREMOVE}}{{anchor|Remove contentious material}}
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:
# is unsourced or poorly sourced;
# is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]);
# relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see [[#Using the subject as a self-published source]]); or
# relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]] standards.

Note that, although the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions|three-revert rule does not apply to such removals]], what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living persons noticeboard]] instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an [[WP:UNINVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrator at [[Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents]]. See {{section link|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Role of administrators}}.

===Further reading, External links, and See also{{anchor|Further reading and external links}}===
{{shortcut|WP:BLPEL|WP:BLPFR|WP:BLPSEEALSO}}
External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. [[WP:Verifiability#Questionable sources|Questionable]] or [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that BLP with caution (see {{section link||Using the subject as a self-published source}}). In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the [[Wikipedia:External links|external links guideline]]. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

"See also" links, whether placed in [[MOS:SEEALSO|their own section]] or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]].

==Presumption in favor of privacy==
===Avoid victimization===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:AVOIDVICTIM}}
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

===Public figures===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:PUBLICFIGURE|WP:WELLKNOWN|WP:BLPPUBLIC}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual}}
In the case of [[public figure]]s, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find {{em|multiple}} reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
* '''Example:''' "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, [[WP:LABEL|avoid use of "messy"]] and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
* '''Example:''' A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was {{em|alleged}} to have had the affair, not that the affair actually {{em|occurred}}.

If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate [[WP:DUE|due weight]] of all sources covering the subject and avoiding [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]].

===Privacy of personal information and using primary sources===
{{shortcut|WP:BLPPRIVACY|WP:DOB}}
{{see also|#Privacy of names}}
With [[identity theft]] a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline [[WP:N|notable]], err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to [[WP:ELOFFICIAL|websites maintained by the subject]] are generally permitted. See {{slink||Avoid misuse of primary sources}} regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and {{strong|[[WP:RFO|contact the oversight team]]}} so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the [[Streisand effect]], use a bland/generic edit summary and {{em|do not}} mention that you will be requesting Oversight.

===People who are relatively unknown{{anchor|Relatively unknown}}===
{{Redirect|WP:NPF|information regarding newly created pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed")|Wikipedia:Page Curation}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|WP:NPF}}
Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are [[WP:N|notable]] enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include {{em|only}} material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources]]. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see {{slink||Using the subject as a self-published source}}. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

===Subjects notable only for one event===

{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLP1E}}
{{See|Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event|Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not}}
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS|Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information]]. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
# If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
# If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a [[Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individual]]. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. In such cases, it is usually better to [[Wikipedia:Merging|merge]] the information and [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] the person's name to the event article.
# If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. [[John Hinckley Jr.]], for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the [[Reagan assassination attempt]], was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the ''[[Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event|people notable for only one event]]'' guideline (''[[WP:BIO1E]]'') when compared with this policy (''WP:BLP1E''): ''WP:BLP1E'' should be applied only to biographies of {{em|living}} people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of [[Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individuals]].

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as [[Wikipedia:Notability (sports)]], provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

==={{Anchor|BLPCRIME|BLPCRIM}}People accused of crime===
{{see also|Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts|Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators}}{{shortcut|WP:BLPCRIME|WP:SUSPECT}}
A living person accused of a crime is [[presumption of innocence|presumed innocent]] until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are [[WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|not public figures]]; that is, individuals not covered by {{section link||Public figures}}, editors must seriously consider {{strong|not}} including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,{{efn|For example, [[O. J. Simpson]] was [[O. J. Simpson murder case|acquitted]] in 1995 of the murder of [[Nicole Brown Simpson]] and [[Ronald Goldman]], but was found liable for their [[wrongful death]]s in a civil trial two years later.}} include sufficient explanatory information.

===Privacy of names===
{{shortcut|WP:BLPNAME|WP:LPNAME}}
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures {{em|must}} be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

==Using BLPs to continue disputes{{anchor|Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia}}==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPCOI}}
Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the [[WP:POTENTIALCOI|potential conflict of interest]]. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]], if they choose to edit it at all.{{efn|The [http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index.html Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning], Columbia University: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse – actual, apparent, or potential – of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."{{pb}}
[http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html The New York Times Company]: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may arise in many areas. They may involve tensions between journalists' professional obligations to our audience and their relationships with news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another; or with the company or one of its units. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them."}}

==Applicability of the policy==
BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and [[Wikipedia:Drafts|drafts]].

===Non-article space===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPTALK}}
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or [[WP:Oversight|oversighted]], as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating {{tq|[http://www.example.com This link] has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?}} The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not]], though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy|here]].{{efn|See [[Wikipedia:Credentials]] and its talk page.}} Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]].

==={{Anchor|BLPABUSE}}Usernames===

{{see also|Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames violating the BLP policy}}{{shortcut|WP:BLPNAMEABUSE}}
Disruptive and offensive usernames (for example, names containing contentious material about living persons, or that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social group) should be immediately blocked and [[Wikipedia:Suppression|suppressed from logs]]. Requests for removing attack usernames from logs should be [[User:Oversight|reported]] to the [[Wikipedia:Oversight|oversight]] team for evaluation.

===Images===
{{see|Wikipedia:No original research#Original images}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:MUG|WP:BLPIMAGE}}
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]].

===Categories, lists, and navigation templates===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPCAT}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Categorization of people|Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates|Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality|Wikipedia:Eponymous overcategorization}}

[[WP:CATEGORY|Category]] names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or [[wikt:notability|notability]], according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see [[false light]]). For example, [[:Category:Criminals]] and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's [[WP:N|notability]]; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

These principles apply equally to {{strong|lists, navigation templates, and {{Tl|Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within {{em|any}} Wikipedia page)}} that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.

===Deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons===
====Recently dead or probably dead====
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BDP}}
Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after {{date|}} {{LASTYEAR|115}} [{{Purge|update}}]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead {{em|unless}} reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.

====Legal persons and groups====
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPGROUP}}
This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as [[legal person]]s, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using [[WP:SOURCES|high-quality sources]].

==Maintenance of BLPs==
===Importance of maintenance===
{{dablink|Report BLP incidents at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living persons noticeboard]].}}
Wikipedia contains [[:Category:Living people|hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons]]. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles about non-[[WP:N|notable]] publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases [[WP:Office actions|action]] by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

===Templates {{anchor|Templates}}===
{{tl|BLP}} alerting readers to this policy may be added to the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that focus on living persons. {{tl|Blpo}} is suitable for articles containing material on the deceased that also contains material about living persons. If a {{tl|WikiProject Biography}} template is present, you can add <code>|living=yes</code> to the template parameters. If a {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}} template is also present, add <code>|blp=yes</code> to it.

For articles, {{tl|BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{tl|BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{tl|BLP primary sources}}); and {{tl|BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all. {{tl|BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the talk page of BLP articles that are being discussed on the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living persons noticeboard]].

For editors violating this policy, the following can be used to warn them on their talk pages:
* {{tl|uw-biog1}}
* {{tl|uw-biog2}}
* {{tl|uw-biog3}}
* {{tl|uw-biog4}}
* {{tl|uw-biog4im}}
* {{tl|uw-bioblock}} for when a block is issued

The template {{tl|BLP removal}} can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.

==Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia==
===Dealing with edits by the subject of the article===
{{shortcut|WP:BLPEDIT|WP:BLPKIND|WP:BLPKINDNESS}}
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. {{strong|Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.}}

Although Wikipedia discourages people from [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|writing about themselves]], removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005:

{{Quote box
|bgcolor=#F8F8FF
|salign=center
|width=70%
|align=center
|fontsize= 98%
| quote=[[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]], a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article—to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|don't bite the newbies]] to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy]]. Passed 6-0-1.</ref>
}}

===Dealing with articles about yourself===
{{shortcut|WP:BIOSELF|WP:BLPSELF|WP:BLPCOMPLAIN|WP:BLPCOMPLAINT}}
{{further|Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you}}
Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (''see'' [[Help:Talk pages]]), or place {{tl|help me}} on your [[Special:MyTalk|user talk page]]. You may also post an explanation of your concern on the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living persons noticeboard]] and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced.

If you are an article subject and you find the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, {{strong|[[WP:RFO|contact the oversight team]]}} so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly [[WP:REVDEL|remove it from the page history]].

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective.

===Legal issues===
Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's [[Wikipedia:Volunteer response team|volunteer response team]] (known as OTRS). Please e-mail
{{strong|[mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org {{nospam|info-en-q|wikimedia.org}}]}} with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see {{strong|[[Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects|here]]}}. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.

===How to contact the Wikimedia Foundation===
[[File:Contactus-wmcolors.svg|thumb|150px|{{strong|[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Contact us]}}]]
{{seealso|Wikimedia Foundation}}
If you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See {{strong|[[foundationsite:about/contact|Contact us]]}} for details.

===Wikimedia Foundation resolution===
{{see|Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people}}
On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.

==Role of administrators==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPADMINS}}
===Page protection, blocks===
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at [[Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents]].

See {{section link||Templates}} for appropriate templates to use when warning or blocking for BLP violations.

===Discretionary sanctions===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPDS}}
Editors are also subject to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] pursuant to [[WP:NEWBLPBAN]], which in May 2014 authorized the application of discretionary sanctions to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator.

===Deletion of BLPs===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:BLPDEL|WP:BLPDELETE}}
====Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking====
{{see|Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs}}
Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.

Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable [[WP:N|notability]] or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussions]] rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to [[WP:Deletion review|deletion review]], but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion, any administrator may choose to [[WP:Salting|protect it against re-creation]]. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation.

====Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects====
{{see|Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs}}
{{shortcut|WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE}}
Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] says: "Discussions concerning [[WP:BLP|biographical articles]] of relatively unknown, [[WP:NPF|non-public figures]], where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, {{em|may}} be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced [[WP:BIO|biographical articles]] of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, {{em|may}} be deleted after discussions have been completed."

====Restoring deleted content====
{{shortcut|WP:BLPUNDEL|WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE}}
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|burden of proof]] is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of an administrator deleting a complete article, wherever possible such disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article.

====Proposed deletion of biographies of living people====
{{see|Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people}}
All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. [[Template:Prod blp|The tag]] may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere.

==See also==
{{Commons|Template:Personality rights}}
{{Wikipedia glossary}}
{{Div col}}
===Foundation policies and resolutions===
* [[wmf:Privacy policy|Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy]]
* [[wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people|Wikimedia Foundation resolution on biographies of living persons]], amended November 2013.

===Arbitration cases===
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff]], July 2007.
* [[WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons]], June 2008.
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Motion regarding BLP deletions|Arbitration Committee/Motion regarding BLP deletions]], January 2010.
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs]], September 2011.

===Policies===
* [[Wikipedia:Attack page|Attack page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]

===Guidelines===
* [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|Autobiography]]
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]]
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Treatment of living persons|Fringe theories § Treatment of living persons]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography|Manual of Style/Biography]]
* [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|Notability (people)]]

===Requests for comment===
* Requests for comment/Biographies of living people—[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I|Phase I]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people|Phase II]]

===FAQs===
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects|FAQ/Article subjects]]
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|FAQ/Organizations]]

===Essays===
{{category see also|User essays on BLP}}
* [[Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing|An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing]]
* [[Wikipedia:Avoiding harm|Avoiding harm]]
* [[Wikipedia:Coatrack articles|Coatrack articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Criticism|Criticism]]
* [[Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent|Minors and persons judged incompetent]]
* [[Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons|Signatures of living persons]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false|Verifiable but not false]]

===Discussion forums===
* [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people|WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people]]

===Related pages===
* [[Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography]]
* [[Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue]]
{{Div col end}}

==Notes==
{{notelist|30em}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* [[:wmf:Resolution:Media about living people|Wikimedia Foundation Resolution: Biographies of living people (2009), Media about living people (2013)]]

{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
[[Category:WikiProject Biography work groups and child projects|Living persons]]
[[Category:Wikipedia BLP policy]]
[[Category:Wikipedia content policies]]

Horst Brünner

2021-03-06T21:57:17Z

Pudeo: wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

{{Infobox person
| name = Horst Brünner
| birth_name =
| image = Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1988-1018-307, Horst Brünner.jpg
| caption = Horst Brünner (1988)
| imagesize = 295px
| birth_date = 21 February 1929
| birth_place = [[Bukowiec, Jelenia Góra County|Buchwald, Hirschberg im Riesengebirge]], [[Province of Lower Silesia]], [[Weimar Republic|Germany]]
| death_date = 19 June 2008
| death_place = [[Blankensee]], [[Mecklenburg-Vorpommern]], [[Germany]]
| occupation = deputy Defense Minister [[Generaloberst]]
| language =
| party = [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|SED]]
| spouse =
| children =
| alma_mater =
| nationality = [[Germany|German]]
|awards=[[File:Badge GenStaffCol SU.png|35px]]
}}

'''Horst Brünner''' (1929–2008) was deputy Defense Minister in the [[East Germany|East German]] [[Council of Ministers of the GDR|Council of Ministers]] and chief of the Central Political Administration of the [[National People's Army]].<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB>{{cite web|url=http://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=442|author1=[[Helmut Müller-Enbergs]]|author2=[[:de:Andreas Herbst (Historiker)|Andreas Herbst]]|title=Brünner, Horst * 21.2.1929, † 19.6.2008: Chef der Politischen Hauptverwaltung der NVA |publisher= Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur: Biographische Datenbanken|accessdate= 17 November 2014}}</ref>

== Life ==
The son of a bricklayer, Brünner trained between 1943 and 1946 for a career in industry and commerce. In 1945 the frontier between Poland and Germany [[Oder–Neisse line|moved west]] and Brünner was one of the millions of Germans [[Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II|obliged to relocate]] as part of this [[Potsdam Agreement|militarily and politically driven]] process, ending up in the [[Soviet occupation zone]] of Germany which was in the process of becoming the [[German Democratic Republic|German Democratic Republic (East Germany)]]. In 1947 he switched to railway construction work.

He joined the [[Free German Youth|FDJ]] in 1946,<ref>[[:de:Junge Generation (Zeitschrift)|Junge Generation (newspaper)]] Nr. 2 / 1981</ref> and the new country's ruling [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|SED (party)]] in 1948.<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB/> He joined the [[Volkspolizei|Volkspolizei (police)]], and was based at [[Löbau]]. Between 1949 and 1951 he worked as a [[Political commissar]] at the Police academy in nearby [[Pirna]].<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB/> Brünner served in various positions with the [[Volkspolizei|police service]] before becoming, in 1956, Deputy Commander and Leader of the (quasi-military) Police section of the [[:de:6. motorisierte Schützendivision|Sixth Motorised Protection Division]] at [[Prenzlau]]. Then for three years, from 1959 till 1962, he studied for and received a Military Diploma at the prestigious [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] at [[Dresden]].<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB/> Following this, from 1962 till 1965, Brünner was departmental head in the Political Central Administration of the [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|East German Ministry for National Defence]].

In 1964 he was promoted to the rank of [[colonel]].<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB/> Between 1965 and 1968 he served in the [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic|National Border Troops]]. After this he spent two years in [[Moscow]] at the [[Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia|Soviet Military Academy]], returning with a Degree in Military Sciences. He was promoted in March 1971 to the rank of [[major general]] and became deputy head of Military District III ([[Leipzig]]) and Head of Political Administration. In 1972 he transferred back to the [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|national Ministry for Defence]], where he served in the Main Political Bureau.

Brünner was able to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the [[National People's Army]] with another promotion in March 1976, this time to the rank of lieutenant general. In the same year he was nominated as a candidate for [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|The Party]] Central Committee: appointment to the committee followed in 1986. In 1985 he succeeded [[Heinz Kessler]] as Deputy Minister for National Defense and Chief of the Central Political Administration. He remained in this post till 1989, receiving a further military promotion, to [[Generaloberst]], in 1987. Horst Brünner was one of only eleven officers to be promoted to this level during the lifetime of the [[German Democratic Republic]].

From 1986 till 1989 Brünner was a member of the country's powerful [[National Defense Council of East Germany|National Defense Council]], and for approximately the same period, from 1986 till 17 March 1989, he sat as a member of the [[People's Chamber]]. Following [[Die Wende|the events]] during the closing weeks of 1989, however, on 31 December 1989 Horst Brünner was released from active service, along with his fellow [[Colonel General]]s [[:de:Horst Stechbarth|Horst Stechbarth]] and [[Wolfgang Reinhold]].

On 9 November 1989, as the [[Berlin Wall#The Fall|Berlin Wall]] came down, and the government spokesman [[Günter Schabowski]] announced at a press conference (mistakenly, as it later transpired) that the government leadership intended the wall to be opened with immediate effect (''"sofort, unverzüglich"''), Horst Brünner was reported to be one of several horrified government hardliners calling for the immediate closure of all the East German borders in order to save [[German Democratic Republic|The Republic]].<ref name=spiegel471989>{{cite web|url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13497792.html |title=Erlaubt, was nicht verboten: Ost-Berlin hat eine neue Regierung, aber noch keine starke Führung. Während Ministerpräsident Modrow Reformen versprach, ohne sie näher zu benennen, begab sich das Volk auf Westreise; es wird vom Verlangen nach wirklich freien Wahlen und nach Bestrafung der Schuldigen für die Wirtschaftsmisere nicht lassen.|publisher=[[Der Spiegel]] (online) |date=20 November 1989|accessdate=17 November 2014|author=Editor in chief: [[Rudolf Augstein]] }}</ref> In the end the call of the hardliners went unheeded.

Horst Brünner later appeared in one of the [[:de:Mauerschützenprozesse|series of trials]] of former [[East Germany|East German]] senior officials accused of involvement in the murder of people killed while trying to cross the [[Berlin Wall]] from [[East Berlin|East]] to [[West Berlin]]. In the early summer of 1998 the [[Landgericht Berlin|Berlin Regional Court]] sentenced Brünner, along with his co-accused [[:de:Manfred Grätz|Manfred Grätz]], [[:de:Wolfgang Herger|Wolfgang Herger]] and [[:de:Heinz Tappert|Heinz Tappert]], to a two-year suspended jail term.<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHB/>

== Awards ==
* 1978 [[Patriotic Order of Merit]] in Silver
* 1980 [[:de:Ernst-Schneller-Medaille|Ernst Schneller Medal]] in Gold
* 1981 [[:de:Verdienter Angehöriger der Nationalen Volksarmee|Honoured member of the National People's Army]]
* 1984 [[Scharnhorst Order]]
* 1986 [[Patriotic Order of Merit]] in Gold
* 1989 [[Order of Karl Marx]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brünner, Horst}}
[[Category:1929 births]]
[[Category:2008 deaths]]
[[Category:People from Karkonosze County]]
[[Category:People from the Province of Lower Silesia]]
[[Category:Members of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany]]
[[Category:Members of the 9th Volkskammer]]
[[Category:Colonel generals of the National People's Army (Ground Forces)]]
[[Category:Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union alumni]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Scharnhorst Order]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Order of Karl Marx]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Patriotic Order of Merit in gold]]

Otfried Nassauer

2021-03-06T21:56:38Z

Pudeo: wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2020}}
{{short description|German journalist and peace researcher}}
[[File:Otfried Nassauer, Juni 2018 in Bad Herrenalb.jpg|thumb|Nassauer in 2018 at the [[Protestant Academy Baden]] in [[Bad Herrenalb]]]]
'''Otfried Nassauer''' (August 20, 1956, in [[Siegen]] – October 1, 2020, in [[Berlin]]) was a German journalist and [[Peace and conflict studies|peace researcher]], who interacted between [[civil society]], mass media and politics. Over the course of four decades he had a profound impact on the [[Public sphere|public discourse]] in Germany and beyond about German and international [[military policy]], especially in the fields of [[arms control]] and [[Arms industry|arms exports]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Brzoska|first=Michael|date=October 5, 2020|title=Vorkämpfer für den Frieden – Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://ifsh.de/news-detail/vorkaempfer-fuer-den-frieden-nachruf-auf-otfried-nassauer|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|last=Dewitz|first=Christian|date=October 5, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer: Militärexperte, Friedensforscher, Journalist|url=http://www.bundeswehr-journal.de/2020/otfried-nassauer-militaerexperte-friedensforscher-journalist/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=bundeswehr-journal|language=en}}</ref>

== Life ==
[[File:1992BookPresentation-Satansfaust OtfriedNassauer-SiefriedFischer PhotoByGuenterPrust.jpg|thumb|Nassauer (right) with Fischer in 1992 at the book presentation of "Satansfaust"]]
Nassauer studied [[Protestantism|Protestant theology]] at the [[University of Hamburg]].<ref>{{Cite news|date=October 13, 2001|title=otfried nassauer|language=de|pages=4|work=Die Tageszeitung: taz|url=https://taz.de/!1146579/|access-date=October 12, 2020|issn=0931-9085}}</ref> Shortly after the founding of the political party ''[[Alliance 90/The Greens|The Greens]]'' in 1980 he joined its section "[[Peace]] and [[International relations|International Affairs]]" and its federal working group "Peace" as an independent expert. Three years later he became also an adviser on security policy in the newly formed coordination committee of the German [[peace movement]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Biermann|first=Wolfgang|last2=Blum|first2=Inga|last3=Brandt|first3=Peter|last4=Finckh-Krämer|first4=Ute|last5=Frey|first5=Uli|last6=Zimmermann|first6=Burkhard|date=October 8, 2020|title=Wir trauern um Otfried Nassauer|url=https://neue-entspannungspolitik.berlin/wir-trauern-um-otfried-nassauer/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=neue-entspannungspolitik.berlin|language=de}}</ref> When [[Angelika Beer]] – a leading politician of the Green party at the time – was elected to be a member of the [[Bundestag]], Germany's Federal Parliament, Nassauer served as a close adviser to her, especially with regard to her membership in the defense committee.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|last=Beer|first=Angelika|date=October 16, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer ins Tot! Ein Brief an Otfried|url=http://www.angelika-beer.de/?p=24477|access-date=October 17, 2020|website=angelika-beer.de|language=de}}</ref>
[[File:Unsere Zukunft Atomwaffenfrei - Demo Büchel 2008-2.jpg|thumb|Protests at Büchel Air Base in 2008]]
Following the fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] in 1989, Nassauer organised a meeting between [[Officer (armed forces)|officers]] of the [[National People's Army]] from the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in [[Dresden]] and their [[West Germany|West German]] counterparts from the [[Bundeswehr Command and Staff College]] in Hamburg.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Flocken|first=Andreas|date=October 5, 2020|title=Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/streitkraefte_und_strategien/Nachruf-auf-Otfried-Nassauer,streitkraefte634.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=www.ndr.de|language=de}}</ref> Along with East German military members and peace activists he then attended events both at the [[NATO headquarters]] in Brussels and at the [[General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation|General staff of the Armed Forces]] in Moscow.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Schwarz|first=Wolfgang|last2=Fischer|first2=Siegfried|last3=Trenin|first3=Dmitri|last4=Schreiber|first4=Wilfried|date=October 9, 2020|title=In memoriam Otfried Nassauer (1956–2020)|url=https://das-blaettchen.de/2020/10/in-memoriam-otfried-nassauer-1956-2020-54453.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Das Blattchen|language=de-DE}}</ref>

In 1991, Nassauer and other peace researchers both from the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the defunct German Democratic Republic (GDR) co-founded the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS) in the former [[East Berlin|East-Berlin]].<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> In the following year he and his co-director Siegfried Fischer, a former [[field officer]] of the [[Volksmarine|People's Navy]] and military lecturer, edited the anthology ''Satansfaust, Das nukleare Erbe der Sowjetunion'' mit Beiträgen (The Fist of [[Satan]]: the Nuclear Legacy of the [[Soviet Union]]") with contribution by experts from both the Western world and the former [[Eastern Bloc]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Nassauer|first=Otfried|title=Satansfaust: Das nukleare Erbe der Sowjetunion|last2=Fischer|first2=Siegfried|publisher=[[Aufbau-Verlag]]|year=1992|isbn=978-3-351-02401-7|location=Berlin}}</ref>
[[File:INS Tanin (Dolphin II class).JPG|thumb|A Dolphin II class [[submarine]] commissioned for the [[Israeli Navy]] at the [[Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft|HDW]] [[shipyard]] in [[Kiel]] (2012)]]
As director of BITS for almost three decades Nassauer went on to analyse the whole [[spectrum]] of developments in the field of security policy. One major focus he kept were the arms control regimes for nuclear weapons, particularly Germany's [[nuclear sharing]] through hosting [[Nuclear weapons of the United States|U.S. nuclear weapons]] at [[Büchel Air Base]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Nassauer|first=Otfried|date=January 2013|title=Germany’s Tornado Nuclear Weapons Carrier|url=https://bits.de/public/unv_a/orginal-tornado_eng.htm|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=bits.de}}</ref> Another main area of his expertise was the complex of German arms exports. It was especially his research on the transfer of German-built [[Dolphin-class submarine]]s – and his conclusion that they could deploy [[Nuclear weapons delivery|nuclear missiles]] – to Israel which confirmed his expert status on the international level.<ref>{{Cite web|date=November 25, 2003|title=Subs a Ploy in Battle for Middle Eastern Influence|url=https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/subs-ploy-battle-middle-eastern-influence|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=[[Stratfor]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=January 20, 2010|title=Israel, Germany in sub deal negotiations|url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2010/01/20/Israel-Germany-in-sub-deal-negotiations/54401264025609/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=UPI|language=en}}</ref> However, he concentrated not only on heavy [[weapon]]s, but also on [[Firearm|small arms]],<ref>{{Cite web|last=Knight|first=Ben|date=February 3, 2017|title=Heckler & Koch bids to replace its own tarnished gun|url=https://www.dw.com/en/heckler-koch-bids-to-replace-its-own-tarnished-gun/a-37405579|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=[[Deutsche Welle]] (DW)|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Heckler & Koch|url=https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/hk.htm|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=www.globalsecurity.org}}</ref> first and foremost in cooperation with [[Pacifism|pacifist]] activist [[Jürgen Grässlin]] on German gun-maker [[Heckler & Koch]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Case 02: G36 in Mexico (Long version)|url=https://www.gn-stat.org/english/cases/mexico-lv-eng/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Global Net Stop The Arms Trade (GN STAT)|language=en}}</ref> After the founding of the German section of the [[International Campaign to Ban Landmines]] in 1995 Nassauer supported it by co-authoring a study book about [[land mine]]s [[made in Germany]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Küchenmeister|first=Thomas|title='Gute Mine' zum bösen Spiel? Landminen made in Germany|last2=Nassauer|first2=Otfried|publisher=KOMZI Vlg.|year=1997|isbn=978-3-929522-31-0|location=Idstein|language=de}}</ref>

As the Alliance 90/The Greens opened up to military interventions abroad over the course of the 1990s, Nassauer increasingly provided consultancy to the [[Party of Democratic Socialism (Germany)|Party of Democratic Socialism]] (PDS) and its successor, [[The Left (Germany)|The Left]].<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|last=Baron|first=Christian|date=October 7, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer ist tot – Möge er Frieden finden|url=https://digital.freitag.de/4120/die-woche/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=digital.freitag.de|language=de}}</ref>

Nassauer published his journalistic works regularly in a multitude of mass media outlets, amongst them the left-wing [[Newspaper|daily newspapers]] ''[[Die Tageszeitung]]'' (taz),<ref>{{Cite web|last=taz. die tageszeitung|title=Artikel von Otfried Nassauer – taz.de|url=https://taz.de/!a10688/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=taz.de|language=de}}</ref> ''[[Neues Deutschland]]'' (ND) and ''[[Junge Welt]]'', the weekly [[news magazine]] [[Der Spiegel]],<ref>{{Cite web|last=Nassauer|first=Otfried|last2=Gebauer|first2=Matthias|date=May 8, 2013|title=German Government Approves Export of Tanks to Indonesia|url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-government-approves-export-of-tanks-to-indonesia-a-898698.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=DER SPIEGEL international|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Nassauer|first=Otfried|last2=Repinski|first2=Gordon|last3=Trauvetter|first3=Gerald|date=May 10, 2013|title=Safety Problems: Eurofighter Costs Soar amid Mismanagment|url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/safety-problems-eurofighter-costs-soar-amid-mismanagment-a-910231.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=DER SPIEGEL international|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Becker|first=Markus|last2=Nassauer|first2=Otfried|date=November 6, 2013|title=US Modernizing Its Nuclear Arsenal Despite Criticism Over Weapons|url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/us-modernizing-its-nuclear-arsenal-despite-criticism-over-weapons-a-932188.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=DER SPIEGEL international|language=en}}</ref> and the bi-weekly ''[[Das Blättchen]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Schlagwort-Archiv: Otfried Nassauer (in 33 Beiträgen)|url=https://das-blaettchen.de/schlagwort/otfried-nassauer|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Das Blättchen|language=de-DE}}</ref> In radio broadcasting he particularly shaped the weekly programme ''Streitkräfte und Strategien'' ("Armed forces and strategies") of the public service broadcaster ''[[Norddeutscher Rundfunk]]'' (NDR) with more than 150 contributions since 1993.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Flocken|first=Andreas|date=October 5, 2020|title=Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/streitkraefte_und_strategien/Nachruf-auf-Otfried-Nassauer,streitkraefte634.html|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=NDR|language=de}}</ref> In the field of [[Television in Germany|television]] he was particularly active with background research for the [[Investigative journalism|investigative programmes]] of the public broadcaster [[ARD (broadcaster)|ARD]], e.g. ''[[Monitor (WDR)|Monitor]]'' and ''[[Report Mainz]]''.<ref>{{Cite news|date=October 5, 2020|title=MONITOR trauert um Otfried Nassauer|language=de|work=MONITOR (WDR)|url=https://www1.wdr.de/daserste/monitor/nachruf-nassauer-100.html|access-date=October 12, 2020}}</ref>

== Legacy ==
[[File:BITS-OtfriedNassauer 28062010.jpg|thumb|2010 at BITS during a meeting with MP [[Kathrin Vogler]] (The LEFT)]]
On September 30, 2020, the Berlin-based [[International League for Human Rights (Berlin)|International League for Human Rights]] informed Nassauer about its decision to award him the [[Carl von Ossietzky|Carl-von-Ossietzky]]-medal.<ref>{{Cite web|date=December 9, 2020|title=Carl-von-Ossietzky-Medaille 2020 an Otfried Nassauer (verstorben am 1.10.2020) {{!}} Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte|url=https://ilmr.de/2020/carl-von-ossietzky-medaille-2020-an-otfried-nassauer-verstorben-am-1-10-2020|access-date=December 10, 2020|website=Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte|language=de-DE}}</ref> On the very next day he passed away at his Berlin apartment aged 64.

The fact that both his expertise and personality were widely appreciated was demonstrated by a multitude of [[Obituary|obituaries]] not only from church and secular peace activist groups,<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|date=October 5, 2020|title=Wir trauern um Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.aufschrei-waffenhandel.de/neues/neuigkeiten/einzelansicht/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2779&cHash=da57598368aae4528b5356eeb8efef11|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Aktion Aufschrei – Stoppt den Waffenhandel!}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Ruttig|first=Thomas|date=October 4, 2020|title=RIP Otfried Nassauer (1956–2020)|url=https://thruttig.wordpress.com/2020/10/04/rip-otfried-nassauer-1956-2020/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Afghanistan Zhaghdablai|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Schmid|first=Michael|date=October 7, 2020|title=Trauer um Friedensforscher Otfried Nassauer (1956–2020)|url=https://www.lebenshaus-alb.de/magazin/013249.html|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Lebenshaus Schwäbische Alb e.V.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Müller-Langsdorf|first=Sabine|last2=Burggraf|first2=Wolfgang|date=October 5, 2020|title=Evangelische Friedensarbeit trauert um Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.evangelische-friedensarbeit.de/artikel/2020/evangelische-friedensarbeit-trauert-um-otfried-nassauer|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Evangelische Friedensarbeit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=October 5, 2020|title=pax christi trauert um Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.paxchristi.de/meldungen/view/5811775584862208/pax%20christi%20trauert%20um%20Otfried%20Nassauer|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=pax christi – Deutsche Sektion|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Böttger|first=Martin|date=October 4, 2020|title=Ein Guter weniger|url=https://extradienst.net/2020/10/04/ein-guter-weniger/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Beueler Extradienst|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Happe|first=Barbara|date=October 5, 2020|title=Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.kritischeaktionaere.de/ruestungsexporte/nachruf-auf-otfried-nassauer/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Dachverband der Kritischen Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Hall|first=Xanthe|last2=Steffen|first2=Jens-Peter|date=October 4, 2020|title=Die IPPNW betrauert den Verlust eines ganz engen Freundes – Nachruf für Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.ippnw.de/startseite/artikel/de/die-ippnw-betrauert-den-verlust-eine.html|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Deutsche Sektion der Internationalen Ärzte für die Verhütung des Atomkrieges/Ärzte in sozialer Verantwortung e.V. (IPPNW)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=October 9, 2020|title=>Kannte jede verdammte Schraube< - Stimmen zum Tod von Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.ohne-ruestung-leben.de/nachrichten/article/stimmen-zum-tod-von-otfried-nassauer-394.html|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Ohne Rüstung Leben|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Fischer|first=Martina|date=October 8, 2020|title=Zum Tod von Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/blog/2020-zum-tod-von-otfried-nassauer/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Brot für die Welt|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Zepp|first=Marianne|date=October 12, 2020|title=Nachruf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://diak.org/2020/10/12/nachruf-otfried-nassauer/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=diAk e.V.|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Grässlin|first=Jürgen|last2=Möhrle|first2=Stephan|date=October 5, 2020|title=Das RüstungsInformationsBüro trauert um Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.rib-ev.de/2020/10/05/das-ruestungsinformationsbuero-trauert-um-otfried-nassauer/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=RüstungsInformationsBüro e.V.|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Schlupp-Hauck|first=Wolfgang|date=October 14, 2020|title=Seine Unterstützung wird uns fehlen: Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.friedenskooperative.de/seine-unterstuetzung-wird-uns-fehlen-nachruf-auf-otfried-nassauer|access-date=October 14, 2020|website=Netzwerk Friedenskooperative – Network of the German Peace Movement|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Frey|first=Ulrich|date=October 15, 2020|title=Nachruf auf den Friedensforscher Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.fremd-vertraut.de/Otfried-Nassauer-701.php|access-date=October 16, 2020|website=Koordinationskreis der Ökumenischen Konsultation Gerechtigkeit und Frieden – Evangelische Akademie im Rheinland|language=de}}</ref> but also from leading journalists<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wiegold|first=Thomas|date=October 4, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer wird fehlen: Erst die Fakten, dann die Meinung – Augen geradeaus!|url=https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/10/otfried-nassauer-wird-fehlen-erst-die-fakten-dann-die-meinung/|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Augen geradeaus!}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Bauer|first=Max|date=October 5, 2020|title=Friedensforscher Otfried Nassauer ist tot – Ein ganz präziser Blick auf Krieg und Frieden|url=https://www.swr.de/swr2/leben-und-gesellschaft/friedensforscher-otfried-nassauer-ist-tot-ein-ganz-praeziser-blick-auf-krieg-und-frieden-100.html|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=SWR2 Journal am Mittag|language=de}}</ref> and [[Newspaper of record|newspapers of record]],<ref>{{Cite news|last=Winkelmann|first=Ulrike|date=October 4, 2020|title=Nachruf auf Otfried Nassauer: Beharrlich für den Frieden|language=de|work=Die Tageszeitung: taz|url=https://taz.de/!5715921/|access-date=October 13, 2020|issn=0931-9085}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=October 5, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer gestorben|url=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/ruestungsexperte-otfried-nassauer-gestorben-1.5054853|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Süddeutsche.de|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Heilig|first=René|date=October 4, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer wird fehlen – Renommierter Friedensforscher ist gestorben. Ein Nachruf|url=https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1142624.otfried-nassauer-otfried-nassauer-wird-fehlen.html|access-date=October 13, 2020|website=Neues Deutschland (nd)|language=de}}</ref><ref name=":4" /> academia,<ref name=":3" /> politicians of different parties and colours<ref>{{Cite web|last=W.|first=Karl|date=October 5, 2020|title=Otfried Nassauer gestorben|url=https://www.gruene-linke.de/2020/10/05/otfried-nassauer-gestorben/|access-date=October 12, 2020|website=Grüne Linke|language=de-DE}}</ref><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=Golla|first=Kristian|date=October 17, 2020|title=Wir nehmen Abschied von unserem Freund, Kollegen und Mitstreiter Otfried Nassauer|url=https://www.friedenskooperative.de/sites/default/files/traueranzeige_otfried.pdf|access-date=October 17, 2020|website=Netzwerk Friedenskooperative|language=de|format=PDF}}</ref> as well as from military circles.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:OtfriedNassauer VortragRheinmetall16042018 BodoPSchmitz-MutbuergerdokusDe.jpg|thumb|2018 in [[Düsseldorf]] at an [[Ethecon Foundation|Ethicon]] event on [[Rheinmetall]]'s arms business]]

He was mourned on the international stage, too. For instance, [[Hans M. Kristensen|Hans Kristensen]], director of the Nuclear Information Project at the [[Federation of American Scientists]] commented:<blockquote>"I'm saddened to learn of the passing of Otfried Nassauer, a friend and long-term collaborator on European nuclear weapons issues. He was a tireless researcher & advocate".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kristensen|first=Hans|date=2020-10-05|title=I’m saddened to learn of the passing of Otfried Nassauer|url=https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1313130063592857600|access-date=2020-10-12|website=Twitter|language=en}}</ref></blockquote>And the [[South Africa]]n writer, [[Civil society campaign|campaigner]] and ex-[[African National Congress|ANC]] MP [[Andrew Feinstein]] remarked: <blockquote>"The leading authority on German arms makers & exports. An extraordinary character, meticulous researcher & committed campaigner. A huge loss to the German & global peace movement. [[Rest in peace]], [[Comrade|kamerad]]"<ref>{{Cite web|last=Feinstein|first=Andrew|date=2020-10-03|title=The remarkable German arms researcher, Otfried Nassauer, has passed away.|url=https://twitter.com/andrewfeinstein/status/1312442713891954688|access-date=2020-10-12|website=Twitter|language=en}}</ref></blockquote>On October 17, 2020, a one-page death notice was published in the weekend edition of the daily ''taz'', which was signed by 228 individuals as well as by 83 organisations and groups.<ref name=":6" />

==See also==
* [[List of peace activists]]

== Further reading ==

* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-built-submarines-a-836784.html Operation Samson: Israel's Deployment of Nuclear Missiles on Subs from Germany] (DER SPIEGEL international, June 4, 2012)
* [http://bits.de/public/unv_a/surety-201210.htm U.S.-Nuclear Weapons Surety 1990/91 and the Bush PNI in 1991 – A Comparison] (bits.de, October 2012)
* [http://bits.de/public/reden/red05062012.htm NATO’s New Strategic Concept and Nuclear Weapons] (presentation at the [[European Parliament]], July 5, 2012)
* [http://bits.de/public/unv_a/orginal-200512eng.htm NATO: Nuclear (Non-) Sharing] (May 20, 2012)
* [http://bits.de/public/reden/red02052012.htm European Nuclear Disarmament – A Germany without nuclear weapons in the near future?] ([[Vienna International Centre]], May 2, 2012)
* [http://bits.de/public/unv_a/january12.htm Up for a new era? – German arms trade with the MENA region] (January 2012)

== External links ==

* [http://bits.de/index.html Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS)]
* [http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n87940037/ Nassauer's works in the Worldcat]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Nassauer, Otfried}}
[[Category:1956 births]]
[[Category:Peace and conflict scholars]]
[[Category:Nonviolence advocates]]
[[Category:European pacifists]]
[[Category:German anti-war activists]]
[[Category:German anti–nuclear weapons activists]]
[[Category:2020 deaths]]
[[Category:People from Siegen]]
[[Category:People from Berlin]]

Bernhard Elsner

2021-03-06T21:56:26Z

Pudeo: wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

'''Bernhard Elsner''' (30 January 1927 – 24 July 2017<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170818110153/http://www.mfs-insider.de/ mfs-insider]; abgerufen am 2. August 2017</ref>) was a [[Major general]] in the [[East Germany|East German]] [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security (''Stasi'')]]. During the course of a long career with the quasi-military ministry, between 1972 and 1987 he was [[:de:Kommandeur|Commander]] of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]].<ref name=BElautwww>{{cite web|url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=711|title=Elsner, Bernhard * 30.1.1927 Kommandeur des MfS-Wachregiments|author=Jens Gieseke|work="Wer war wer in der DDR?"|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin & Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur, Berlin| accessdate=3 August 2016}}</ref><ref name="Adams2009">{{cite book|author=Jefferson Adams|title=Historical Dictionary of German Intelligence| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gnEWm4kC844C&pg=PA95| date=1 September 2009| publisher=Scarecrow Press| isbn=978-0-8108-6320-0| pages=95–96}}</ref>

==Life==
Bernhard Elsner was born in [[Königsberg]], the capital of [[East Prussia]] which at that time was part of [[Weimar Germany|Germany]]. His father was a coachman. When he was six the [[Nazi Party]] [[Machtergreifung|took power]] in Germany. By the time he was thirteen [[Second World War|war]] had resumed. He attended middle school locally before undertaking a traineeship, between 1941 and 1944, as a machine fitter. He undertook his [[Reichsarbeitsdienst|National Labour Service]] in 1944 and then, towards the end of the year, volunteered for military service.<ref name=BElautJG02>{{cite web|url=http://www.bstu.bund.de/DE/Wissen/Publikationen/Publikationen/handbuch_wer-war-wer_gieseke.pdf?__blob=publicationFile| title=Elsner, Bernhard 30.1.1927 ... Wer war wer im Ministerium für Staatssicherheit: Kurzbiographien des MfS-Leitungspersonals 1950 bis 1989 |author=Jens Gieseke|page=19|work=Anatomie der Staatssicherheit: Geschichte, Struktur und Methoden ... MfS-Handbuch|publisher=Der Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (BStU), Berlin| date=2012|accessdate=4 August 2016}}</ref> He was captured in 1945 and spent the years from 1945 till 1949 in a Soviet Prisoner of War Camp.<ref name="Adams2009"/>

By the time of his release his home region had been subjected to a comprehensive [[Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)|ethnic cleansing programme]] and [[Kaliningrad Oblast|subsumed]] into [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russia]]. Elsner settled further to the west, in what was now [[Soviet Military Administration in Germany|administered]] as the [[Soviet occupation zone]], where he joined the [[Volkspolizei|People's Police]].<ref name=BElautwww/> Towards the end of 1949 the occupation zone was relaunched as the [[German Democratic Republic|German Democratic Republic (East Germany)]], a new [[Inner German border|separated]] German state with political and economic institutions consciously modelled on those of the [[Soviet Union]]. In 1950 Elsner joined the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party (''"Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands"'' / SED)]] which had been [[Merger of the KPD and SPD into the Socialist Unity Party of Germany|created]] four years earlier and was by now effectively consolidating its role as a new ruling party for a second German [[Single-party state|one-]][[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|party dictatorship]]. During the next year, 1951, he joined the recently formed [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security (Stasi)]], entering its prestigious "[[Adlershof]] Guards' Battalion" (later renamed as the "[[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]]").<ref name=BElautJG02/> In 1952 he was promoted to the rank of company commander. Five years later, relaunched in 1954 as the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]], the former Adlershof Battalion had itself grown to the point where it comprised ten battalions along with various support companies: in 1957 Bernhard Elsner became Chief of Staff for the regiment's First Battalion.<ref name=BElautwww/>

Following a period of preparatory training, from 1958 till 1959 Elsner was in [[Moscow]] where he studied at the [[:ru:Рязанский военный автомобильный институт|military institute]]. On his return he became [[Chief of staff]] for the Number 1 commando group, and in 1960 he became officer for military sciences in the Regimental Staff Group Number 1. In 1964 he became deputy commander of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]] and in 1962 he became the regimental Chief of Staff.<ref name=BElautJG02/>

Between 1965 and 1968 he attended the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in [[Dresden]],<ref name=BElautJG02/><ref>Sources differ as to whether he undertook a one year course at the Dresden military academy, ending in 1966, or a three year course, ending in 1968.</ref> emerging with a degree in military sciences.<ref name=BElautwww/> In 1971 he was promoted to the rank of [[colonel]], and in 1972 he took over command of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]]<ref name="Adams2009"/> in succession to {{Interlanguage link multi|Heinz Gronau|de}}.<ref name=HGlautwww>{{cite web|url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=1106| title=Gronau, Heinz * 1.1.1912, † 28.10.1977 Kommandeur des MfS-Wachregiments|author=Jens Gieseke| work="Wer war wer in der DDR?"|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin & Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur, Berlin| accessdate=3 August 2016}}</ref> On 6 February 1976 [[Erich Honecker|the Chairman]] of the [[National Defense Council of East Germany|National Defense Council]] promoted Elsner to the rank of [[Major general]].<ref>[[Neues Deutschland]], 7 February 1976, p. 1.</ref> In 1987, after fifteen years in command of the regiment, he was transferred to the [[Stasi|Ministry's]] Main Training Department, where he served as an officer for "special projects" (''"Sonderaufgaben"'').<ref name=BElautJG02/>

After [[Die Wende|the changes]] of 1989 and [[German reunification|reunification]] which followed it, the old East German [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security]] was dissolved and Elsner lost his job. He subsequently returned to prominence as the Chief Executive of the [[:de:Initiativgemeinschaft zum Schutz der sozialen Rechte|Community Initiative for the Protection of the Social Rights of former members of the East German Armed Services and Customs Administration (''"Initiativgemeinschaft zum Schutz der sozialen Rechte ehemaliger Angehöriger bewaffneter Organe und der Zollverwaltung der DDR e. V."'' / ISOR)]]. A principal focus is the protection of pension rights and entitlements earned before [[Die Wende|1989]].
<ref name=ISORlautWelt>{{cite web|url=https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article570763/Uni-Stasi-NVA-Die-Rente-ist-sicher.html| title= Uni, Stasi, NVA: Die Rente ist sicher: Sie waren die Führungskader der DDR. Nach der Wiedervereinigung wurden ihnen die Sonderpensionen gekürzt. Jetzt läßt das Bundesverfassungsgericht Professoren, Offiziere und Funktionäre hoffen. 330 000 Bürger der ehemaligen DDR erwarten eine Verbesserung ihrer Bezüge. Das kostet mehr als 100 Millionen Mark|publisher=[[Die Welt]] (online)|date=19 April 1999|accessdate=4 August 2016}}</ref>


==References==
{{reflist|30em}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Elsner, Bernhard}}
[[Category:People from Königsberg]]
[[Category:Stasi officers]]
[[Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany members]]
[[Category:German prisoners of war in World War II held by the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:1927 births]]
[[Category:2017 deaths]]

Wolfgang Thonke

2021-03-06T21:55:57Z

Pudeo: wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

{{Infobox military person
| name = Wolfgang Thonke
| image = GenMaj-DrW-Thonke 1990.JPG
| birth_date = {{birth date|1938|12|28}}
| death_date = {{death date and age|df=yes|2019|1|21|1938|12|28}}
| placeofburial=
| birth_place = [[Piła|Schneidemühl]] (Piła, [[Province of Pomerania (1815–1945)|Province of Pomerania]] [[Nazi Germany|DR]])
| death_place = [[Strausberg]] ([[Brandenburg]], [[Germany|DE]])
| placeofburial_coordinates =
| allegiance = {{flagicon|GDR}} [[German Democratic Republic]]
| branch = [[File:Flag of NVA (East Germany).svg|24px]] [[National People's Army]] 
[[File:Emblem of aircrafts of NVA (East Germany).svg|17px]] [[Air Forces of the National People's Army|NPA Air Force]]
| serviceyears = 1957–1990
| rank = [[File:GDR AF OF6MajGen Fly-suit.JPG|30px]] [[Major general]]
| commands =
* Commander [[:de:Jagdfliegergeschwader 1|Fighter squadron 1]]
* Commander [[:de:Offiziershochschule der Luftstreitkräfte/Luftverteidigung für Militärflieger Otto Lilienthal|Officers academy „Otto Lilienthal“]]
* DC general of the [[National People's Army|NPA]] AF/ADF (A3)
| awards =
{{center|[[File:Patriotic Order of Merit GDR ribbon bar bronze.png|35px]] 
[[File:GDR Combat-Order for Merit for the Nation and Fatherland - Silver BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:GDR Combat-Order for Merit for the Nation and Fatherland - Bronze BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:GDR Verdienstmedaille NVA 1 BAR.png|30px]]

[[File:GDR Verdienstmedaille NVA 2 BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:GDR Verdienstmedaille NVA 3 BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:GDR Brotherhood in Arms Medal - Silver BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:CombatCooperationRibbon.png|30px]]

[[File:GDR Ehrenmedaille 30 Jahre National Volksarmee BAR.png|30px]]
[[File:GDR Med-Faithful-Serv-NPA bar-20y.pdf|30px]]
[[File:GDR Med-Faithfol-Serv-NPA bar-15y.pdf|30px]]
[[File:GDR Med-Faithfol-Serv-NPA bar-10y.pdf|30px]]

[[File:Badge GenStaffCol SU.png|35px]] 
[[File:GDR AF Mil-pilot Lev1-1500.JPG|100px]]}}
}}

'''Wolfgang Thonke''' (December 28, 1938 – January 22, 2019), was a journalist, graduated military scientist, [[Major General|major general]], and was the last Deputy Commanding General ([[Staff (military)#Continental Staff System|A3]]) of the [[National People's Army]] [[Air Forces of the National People's Army|Air Force]] in the former [[German Democratic Republic]]. He was a ''military aviator/[[fighter pilot]]'' of “performance level I” (highest level) with more than 1,500 flight hours.<ref>„Aviator stories – from take oft to landing“, matters of fact and experiences – recorded by members of the NPA Air Force, Strausberg in 2013, original edition (page 80): {{ISBN|978-3-9814822-3-2}}, Strausberg, Berlin, 2013.</ref>

==Biography==
Thonke was born in [[Piła|Schneidemühl]], (modern Piła, Poland), as a child of a worker's family. After [[World War II]] he was [[Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II|expelled from his hometown]] and fled to relatives in [[Bautzen]].

=== Military career ===
He successfully passed the school-leaving examination of the secondary school and joined the National People's Army in 1957 as a volunteer. There he became a professional soldier and applied for the attendance of the ''Air Force Officer's School'' in [[Bautzen]]. In 1958 he became a member of the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany]].

=== Education and first assignments ===
After graduation with distinction in 1959, he became a professional officer and served as [[flight instructor]] in the ''3rd Fliegerausbildungsgeschwader'' of the ''Air Force Officer's School''. From 1961 to 1965 it was followed by an assignment as ''instructor flight tactics/ weapon's control'' ({{Lang-de|Leiter Lufttaktik/ Luftschießen}}) of the ''Fliegerausbildungsgeschwader 15'' on aerodrome Rotenburg/Görlitz.

=== Service as tutor/ instructor and staff officer ===
Due to his permanent excellent performance as tutor/ instructor and pilot, to train and educate officer students, possible future military pilots, on ground and on air, Thonke was promoted to captain, and in 1963 became A3 of the ''Air Force Officer's School''.

After this assignment he served as ''deputy commander on flight training'' of the ''Air Force Officer’s School'' from 1968 to 1973.

Because he performed on this staff position excellent as well, he was delegated to high-school study on the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in [[Dresden]] from 1973 to 1975. Here he passed all examination with excellence and graduation in [[military science]] (de: Diplommilitärwissenschaftler, Dipl.-Mil.).

After successful graduation [[lieutenant colonel]] Thonke was appointed to [[Commander]] of the [[:de:Jagdfliegergeschwader 1|Jagdfliegergeschwader 1]] (JG-1) from 1973 to 1975.
Hereafter Thonke was assigned to the command and general staff officers course to the [[General Staff Academy (Russia)]] from 1975 to 1977. After successful study and promotion to military scientist [[Scientist|Dr.rer.mil.]] [[colonel]] Thonke was assigned as ''chief of the flight inspection department'' of the [[Kommando LSK/LV]].

{{s-start|noclear=y}}
|+ Sequence of assignment to commander of the [[:de:Jagdfliegergeschwader 1|JG-1]]
{{succession box
| before = {{nobold|Major}} Siegfried Mittelbach {{nobold|(1968–1973) }}
| title = {{nobold|actual assignment}} {{nobold|LtCol}} Wolfgang Thonke
| years = (1973–1974)
| after = {{nobold|LtCol}} [[Eberhard Köllner]] {{nobold|(1974–1976) }}
}}
{{s-end}}

This was followed by an engagement as ''A3 of the fighter aircraft units'' in 1981, and after that he became ''commander of the fighter aircraft units'' also in the Kommando LSK/LV. He served in this position until 1986.
{| class="infobox"
! Promotions
|-
|
* August 5, 1957 [[:de:Offiziersschüler|Offiziersschueler]]
* December 1, 1959 [[:de:Unterleutnant|Unterleutnant]]
* November 1, 1960 [[Leutnant]]
* October 7, 1962 [[Oberleutnant]]
* October 7, 1965 [[Hauptmann]]
* March 1, 1969 [[Major]]
* March 1, 1973 [[Oberstleutnant]]
* March 1, 1978 [[Oberst]]
* October 7, 1987 [[Generalmajor]]
|}

=== Service as general ===
In 1986 W. Thonke was appointed to commander of the [[:de:Offiziershochschule der Luftstreitkräfte/Luftverteidigung für Militärflieger Otto Lilienthal|Officers high school „Otto Lilienthal”]] in Bautzen, and on October 7, 1987, he was appointed to [[major general]]. The final assignment on general rank from 1989 to 1990 W. Thonke performed as ''Assistant Commander in Chief A3 of the Air Force'' in the Kommando LSK/LV in [[Strausberg]].

{{s-start|noclear=y}}
|+ Sequence of assignment to ''Deputy Commander in Chief A3 of the Air Force
{{succession box
| before = {{nobold|Colonel}} Dieter Kleemann {{nobold|(Nov. 1, 1988 – Jan. 31, 1990)}}
| title = {{nobold|actual assignment}} {{nobold|Major general}} Wolfgang Thonke |years = (Feb. 1, 1990 – Oct. 2, 1990)
| after = none
}}
{{s-end}}

== Retirement ==
With the disbandment of the National People's Army, Major General Thonke retired with effective date of October 2, 1990.

== Orders and decorations ==
Among numerous orders and decorations major general Lothar Engelhardt was awarded with:

*[[Patriotic Order of Merit]], in bronze
* Combat order "Of Merit for the Nation and Fatherland" ([[German language|de:]] [[:de:Kampforden „Für Verdienste um Volk und Vaterland“|Kampforden „Für Verdienste um Volk und Vaterland]]), in silver, and bronze
* [[Meritorious Military Pilot of the German Democratic Republic]]
* [[Medal of Merit of the National People's Army]], in gold, silver and bronze
* [[Medal Brotherhood in Arms]], in silver
* [[Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms"]]
* Medal 30th Anniversary of the Foundation of the GDR (de: [[:de:Medaille 30. Jahrestag der Gründung der DDR|Medaille 30. Jahrestag der Gründung der DDR]])
* [[Medal for Faithful Service in the National People's Army]] in bronze, silver, gold, and XX-years service (gold)

== Private ==
[[Doctor (title)|Dr.]] Wolfgang Thonke worked as a freelance journalist since 1990 and was member of the [[Fliegerstammtisch Strausberg]]. He found his last resting-place in the family burial-place of the churchyard ''St. Marine'' of Strausberg, 1 March 2019. Dr. Thonke died leaving his widow Karin and three children.

== Sources, references ==
{{Reflist}}
* Schönbohm, Jörg. Two Armies and One Fatherland. Peter and Elfi Johnson, translators. Berghahn Books, Providence, Rhode Island, 1996 (originally published in 1992 in Germany as Zwei Armeen und ein Vaterland)

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thonke, Wolfgang}}
[[Category:1938 births]]
[[Category:2019 deaths]]
[[Category:Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union alumni]]
[[Category:German aviators]]
[[Category:Major generals of the Air Forces of the National People's Army]]
[[Category:People from Piła]]
[[Category:People from Strausberg]]
[[Category:People from the Province of Pomerania]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Patriotic Order of Merit]]
[[Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany members]]

Heinrich Dollwetzel

2021-03-06T21:55:26Z

Pudeo: wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

{{Orphan|date=June 2015}}
{{Infobox person
| name = Heinrich Dollwetzel
| birth_name =
| birth_date = {{birth date|1912|03|30|df=y}}
| birth_place = [[Hamburg]], [[German empire|Germany]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|1966|04|23|1912|03|30|df=y}}
| death_place = [[Berlin]], [[East Germany]]
| party =
| occupation = [[Major General]] ([[National People's Army]])
| alma_mater =
| parents = Max Dollwetzel ([[Communist Party of Germany|KPD official]])
| spouse =
| children =
}}

'''Heinrich Dollwetzel''' ( 30 March 1912 – 23 April 1966) was a [[Major general]] in [[East Germany]]'s [[National People's Army]]. Prior to the army's foundation, he held several successive high ranks in the country's [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Kasernierte Volkspolizei (quasi-military police battalion)]].<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHD>{{cite web |url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=503|author2=|author1=Peter Erler|title=Dollwetzel, Heinrich (Heini o. Heinrich Wolf) * 30.3.1912, † 23.4.1966 Leiter der Militärakademie »Friedrich Engels« |publisher= Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur: Biographische Datenbanken |language= German| accessdate= 5 June 2015}}</ref>

==Life==
Born into a working-class family, Dollwetzel began an industrial training as a fitter in 1926. His training was concluded in 1930. Between 1930 and 1933 he was unemployed: he joined the [[Communist Party of Germany|Communist Party]] in 1932. In January 1933 the [[NSDAP|NSDAP ("Nazi Party")]] [[Machtergreifung|took power]] in Germany. Later that year Dollwetzel emigrated via [[Denmark]] to the [[Soviet Union]] where he remained till 1937. He then, during 1937 and 1938, participated with the [[International Brigades]] in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as a tank commander on the Republican side. He returned to the Soviet Union in 1939, taking work as a fitter, and later working for the Soviet Interior Ministry.<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHD/>

He returned to what remained of Germany in 1948, not returning to Hamburg but settling in the [[Soviet occupation zone]]. He joined the [[Volkspolizei|Police service]] as well as the recently [[Merger of the KPD and SPD into the Socialist Unity Party of Germany|formed]] [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party (SED / ''Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands'')]]. In 1949 the area under [[Soviet Military Administration in Germany|Soviet administration]] was refounded as the [[Group of Soviet Forces in Germany|Soviet sponsored]] standalone [[German Democratic Republic]]. There was still no German army in existence, but Dollwetzel was able to join the "[[Kasernierte Volkspolizei]]", a quasi-military police unit which in 1956 formed the basis for a new [[National People's Army]]. During the early 1950s he achieved a succession of rapid promotions, serving from August 1954 till November 1955, with the rank of colonel, as deputy chief of the "Kasernierte Volkspolizei" with special responsibility for training and educational establishments. On 1 November 1954 he was appointed General Inspector of the overall unit. In 1956, the year of the army's foundation, he became a member of the College of the Defence Ministry, also appointed first deputy minister for National Defence. From 1956 till 1958 he headed the Office Training Schools in [[Döbeln]] and [[Plauen]], before in 1958 being appointed head of the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in [[Dresden]]. However, in 1959 he was transferred to the reserve list on health grounds. In 1960 he briefly returned to full-time work as deputy head of the Training Department in the Defence Ministry, but on 30 June 1961 he was permanently released from military service. He died in Berlin in 1966.<ref name=BiographischeDatenbankenHD/>

== Awards and honours ==
* 1955 [[Patriotic Order of Merit]] in silver<ref>[[Neues Deutschland]] 7 May 1955</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|35em}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dollwetzel, Heinrich}}
[[Category:Major generals of the National People's Army (Ground Forces)]]
[[Category:Military personnel from Dresden]]
[[Category:Military personnel from Hamburg]]
[[Category:Communist Party of Germany politicians]]
[[Category:International Brigades personnel]]
[[Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany members]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Patriotic Order of Merit]]
[[Category:1912 births]]
[[Category:1966 deaths]]
[[Category:Refugees from Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union]]

National People's Army

2021-03-06T21:54:48Z

Pudeo: /* Ideology */ wl Friedrich Engels Military Academy

{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2017}}
{{more footnotes|date=May 2010|thumb}}
{{short description|Armed forces of the German Democratic Republic (1956–1990)}}
{{Infobox national military
| name = National People's Army
| native_name = Nationale Volksarmee
| image = Coat of arms of NVA (East Germany).svg
| alt =
| caption = Coat of arms of the ''Nationale Volksarmee''
| image2 = Flag of NVA (East Germany).svg
| alt2 =
| caption2 = Flag of the National People's Army
| motto = ''Für den Schutz der Arbeiter-und-Bauern-Macht'' (For the protection of the workers' and peasants' power)
| founded = 1 March 1956
| current_form =
| disbanded = 2 October 1990
| branches =
* [[File:Emblem of the Ground Forces of NVA (East Germany).svg|15px]] [[Land Forces of the National People's Army|''Landstreitkräfte'']]
* [[File:Insignia of the Volksmarine.svg|15px]] ''[[Volksmarine]]''
* [[File:Emblem of aircraft of NVA (East Germany).svg|15px]] [[Air Forces of the National People's Army|''Luftstreitkräfte'']]
* [[File:Bestenabzeichen DDR Grenztruppen.png|15px]] [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic|''Grenztruppen'']]
| headquarters = [[Strausberg]]
| flying_hours =
| website = 

| commander-in-chief = {{List collapsed|title=''See list''
| [[Wilhelm Pieck]]
| [[Walter Ulbricht]]
| [[Willi Stoph]]
| [[Erich Honecker]]
| [[Egon Krenz]]
| [[Manfred Gerlach]]
| [[Sabine Bergmann-Pohl]]}}
| commander-in-chief_title = [[Leadership of East Germany|Head of State]]
| chief minister =
| chief minister_title =
| minister = {{List collapsed|title=''See list''
| [[Willi Stoph]]
| [[Heinz Hoffmann]]
| [[Heinz Kessler]]
| [[Theodor Hoffmann (admiral)|Theodor Hoffmann]]
| [[Rainer Eppelmann]]}}
| minister_title = [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|Minister of Defence]]
| commander ={{List collapsed|title=''See list''
| [[Vincenz Müller]]
| [[Heinz Hoffmann]]
| [[Sigfrid Riedel]]
| [[Heinz Kessler]]
| [[Fritz Streletz]]
| [[Manfred Grätz]]}}
| commander_title = [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)#Headquarters|Chief of Staff]]

| age =
| conscription = Yes
| manpower_data =
| manpower_age =
| available =
| available_f =
| fit =
| fit_f =
| reaching =
| reaching_f =
| active = 176,850 nominal, peacetime, 1990 
561,350 nominal, wartime, 1990<ref>[[Theodor Hoffmann (admiral)|Theodor Hoffmann]]: "Das letzte Kommando", Mittler, 1993, {{ISBN|3-8132-0420-0}}, p. 320</ref>
| ranked =
| reserve =
| deployed =

| amount =
| percent_GDP =

| domestic_suppliers =
| foreign_suppliers =
* [[Czechoslovakia]]
* [[Soviet Union]]
| imports =
| exports =

| history = [[Cold War]]
*[[Invasion of Czechoslovakia]]
| ranks = [[Ranks of the National People's Army]]
}}

The '''National People's Army''' ({{lang-de|Nationale Volksarmee}}, {{IPA-de|ˌnat͡si̯oˈnaːlə ˈfɔlksʔaʁˌmeː|pron|De-Nationale Volksarmee.ogg}}, '''NVA''', {{IPA-de|ɛn faʊ̯ ˈʔaː|lang|De-NVA.ogg}}) were the [[armed forces]] of the [[East Germany|German Democratic Republic]] (GDR) from 1956 to 1990.

The NVA was organized into four branches: the ''[[Landstreitkräfte]]'' (Ground Forces), the ''[[Volksmarine]]'' (Navy), the ''[[Air Forces of the National People's Army|Luftstreitkräfte]]'' (Air Force), and the [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic|''Grenztruppen'']] (Border Troops). The NVA belonged to the [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|Ministry of National Defence]] and commanded by the [[National Defense Council of East Germany]], [[headquartered]] in [[Strausberg]] {{convert|30|km|sp=us}} east of [[East Berlin]]. From 1962, [[conscription]] was mandatory for all GDR males aged between 18 and 60 requiring an 18-month service, and it was the only [[Warsaw Pact]] military to offer non-combat roles to [[conscientious objectors]], known as "[[construction soldier]]s" (''Bausoldat''). The NVA reached 175,300 personnel at its peak in 1987.

The NVA was formed on 1 March 1956 to succeed the ''[[Kasernierte Volkspolizei]]'' (Barracked People's Police) and under the influence of the [[Soviet Army]] became of the Warsaw Pact militaries opposing [[NATO]] during the [[Cold War]]. The majority of NATO officers rated the NVA the best military in the Warsaw Pact based on [[Military discipline|discipline]], thoroughness of training, and the quality of [[Officer (military)|officer]] leadership.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/world/east-german-military-warsaw-pact-s-finest.html|title=East German Military: Warsaw Pact's Finest|first1=Bernard E.|last1=Trainor|first2=Special to the New York|last2=Times|date=8 November 1988|via=NYTimes.com}}</ref> The NVA did not see significant combat but participated in the [[Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia]] in 1968, deployed [[military advisor]]s to [[communist government]]s in other countries, and manned the [[Berlin Wall]] where they were [[List of deaths at the Berlin Wall|responsible for numerous deaths]]. The NVA was dissolved on 2 October 1990 with the GDR before [[German reunification]], and its facilities and equipment were handed over to the ''[[Bundeswehr]]'' (the armed forces of [[West Germany]]), which also absorbed most of its personnel below the rank of [[non-commissioned officer]].

==History==
{{main|History of the Volkspolizei}}
[[File:Nva-ehrenwache.jpg|thumb|Soldiers of the [[Guard Regiment Friedrich Engels]] marching at a [[Guard Mounting|changing-of-the-guard]] ceremony at the ''[[Neue Wache]]'' on the ''[[Unter den Linden]]'' in Berlin]]
[[File:Fahnenspitze Regiment Nationale Volksarmee DDR 0.jpg|thumb|A GDR colors cap, here for a flag of a Ministry of the Interior (MdI) unit; the NVA had the same in gold.]]
The German Democratic Republic (GDR) established the National People's Army on 1 March 1956<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www1.wdr.de/stichtag/stichtag-nva-ddr-100.html|title=Stichtag - 1. März 1956: Gründung der Nationalen Volksarmee (NVA)|date=2016-03-01|website=www1.wdr.de|language=de|access-date=2019-11-04}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hdg.de/lemo/kapitel/geteiltes-deutschland-gruenderjahre/weg-nach-osten/nationale-volksarmee.html|title=Nationale Volksarmee|last=Würz|first=Markus|website=Lebendiges Museum Online, Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland|access-date=4 November 2019}}</ref> (six months after the formation of the West German ''[[Bundeswehr]]'') from the ''Kasernierte Volkspolizei''. This formation culminated years of preparation during which former ''[[Wehrmacht]]'' officers and communist veterans of the [[Spanish Civil War]] helped organize and train [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|paramilitary units]] of the [[Volkspolizei|People's Police]]. Though the NVA featured a German appearance – including uniforms and ceremonies patterned after older German military traditions – its doctrine and structure showed the strong influence of the [[Soviet Armed Forces]].

During its first year, about 27 percent of the NVA's officer corps had formerly served in the ''Wehrmacht''.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ndWtsJWWaIEC&q=27+prozent+der+nationalen+volksarmee+ehemalige+wehrmachtsmitglieder&pg=PA68|title=Parteiherrschaft in der Nationalen Volksarmee: zur Rolle der SED bei der inneren Entwicklung der DDR-Streitkräfte (1956 bis 1971)|last=Hagemann|first=Frank|date=2002|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag|isbn=9783861532798|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bpSSAgAAQBAJ&q=27+prozent+der+nationalen+volksarmee+ehemalige+wehrmachtsmitglieder&pg=PA103|title=Ulbrichts Soldaten: Die Nationale Volksarmee 1956 bis 1971|last=Wenzke|first=Rüdiger|date=2013-01-16|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag|isbn=9783862842063|language=de}}</ref> Of the 82 highest command positions, ex-''Wehrmacht'' officers held 61; however, very few of them had served in high ranks. The military knowledge and combat experience of these veterans were indispensable in the NVA's early years, although by the 1960s most of these World War II veterans had retired. (The West German ''Bundeswehr'' was even more reliant on ''Wehrmacht'' veterans, who initially comprised the majority of its commissioned ranks.)

In its first six years the NVA operated as an all-volunteer force. ([[West Germany]], in contrast, re-introduced universal military service in 1956.) The GDR introduced conscription in 1962.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kas.de/web/ddr-mythos-und-wirklichkeit/nationale-volksarmee-und-grenztruppen|title=Nationale Volksarmee und Grenztruppen - DDR - Mythos und WirklichkeitKonrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V.|website=DDR - Mythos und Wirklichkeit|language=de|access-date=2019-11-04}}</ref> According to the Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security:

{{quote|the NVA was incorporated in the Warsaw Pact and consisted of army, air force/air defense (Luftstreitkräfte/Luftverteidigung), and the People’s Navy (Volksmarine). At its peak in 1987, the three NVA services had about 156,000 men under arms altogether. Between 1956 and 1990, about 2.5 million male GDR citizens performed army duty.<ref>Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security, [http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_gdr/intro2644.html?navinfo=44755 "The GDR in the Warsaw Pact" (28 October 2016)]</ref>}}

Like the ruling communist parties of other Soviet satellites, the East German [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany]] (SED) assured control by appointing loyal party members to top positions<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PZv5Txct7tEC&q=SED+loyal+party+members+to+top+positions&pg=PA82|title=East Germany: A Country Study|last=Keefe|first=Eugene K.|date=1982|publisher=American University, Foreign Area Studies|language=en}}</ref> and by organizing intensive political education for all ranks. The proportion of SED members in the officer corps rose steadily after the early 1960s, eventually reaching almost 95 percent.

The NVA saw itself as the "instrument of power of the working class" (''Machtinstrument der Arbeiterklasse'').<ref>
{{cite book
| last1 = Sabrow
| first1 = Martin
| last2 = von Scheven
| first2 = Werner
| editor1-last = Thoß
| editor1-first = Bruno
| title = Die Geschichte der NVA aus der Sicht des Zeitzeugen und des Historikers
|trans-title=The history of the NVA from the viewpoint of contemporaries and of the historian
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4GyGaM83qS4C
| series = Potsdamer Schriften zur Militärgeschichte
| language = de
| volume = 3
| others = [[Military History Research Office (Germany)|Deutschland Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt]]
| publisher = BoD – Books on Demand
| date = 2007
| page = 21
| isbn = 9783980888240
| access-date = 2016-06-01
| quote = Ihrem Selbstverständnis nach war die NVA das Machtinstrument der Arbeiterklasse ...
}}
</ref> According to its doctrine, the NVA protected peace and secured the achievements of socialism by maintaining a convincing deterrent to imperialist aggression. The NVA's motto, inscribed on its flag, read: "For the Protection of the Workers and Farmers' Power".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.runde-ecke-leipzig.de/sammlung/index.php?inv=13341|title=Dienstflagge der Nationalen Volksarmee|website=runde-ecke-leipzig.de|access-date=8 November 2019}}</ref>

The NVA never took part in full-scale combat, although it participated in a support role in the suppression of the [[Prague Spring]] of 1968,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bpb.de/politik/grundfragen/deutsche-verteidigungspolitik/223787/militaer-der-ddr|title=NVA - Die Nationale Volksarmee der DDR|last=Wenzke|first=Rüdiger|website=bpb.de|language=de|access-date=2019-11-08}}</ref> and NVA officers often served as combat advisers in Africa.<ref>Tsouras, 1994, 250.</ref> Some of the first NVA advisors went to the [[Republic of the Congo]] in 1973. During the 1980s at various times the NVA had advisors in [[Algeria]], [[Angola]], [[Derg|Ethiopia]], [[Guinea]], [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]], [[History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi|Libya]], [[Mozambique]], [[South Yemen]], and [[Syria]].<ref>IISS Military Balance 1981-89, via Tsouras, 1994, 250.</ref> When the [[Soviet Union]] prepared to occupy [[Czechoslovak Socialist Republic|Czechoslovakia]] in 1968, the GDR government committed the [[7th Panzer Division (East Germany)|7th ''Panzer'' Division]] and the [[11th Motorised Infantry Division (East Germany)|11th Motorised Infantry Division]] to support the intervention (assigned to 20th Guards Army and 1st Guards Tank Army respectively), becoming the first deployment of German troops outside Germany for the first time since the [[World War II|Second World War]].<ref>Tsouras, "Changing Orders", ''Facts on File'', 1994, 170.</ref> But the East German participation raised Czech ire, and the two divisions were "kept out of sight in the [[Bohemian Forest|Bohemian forests]]" (Tsouras, 1994, 170) and allowed to travel only at night. In a few days they were withdrawn.

[[File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2580.jpg|thumb|180px|A stamp celebrating 25 years of the NVA. In the background stands a memorial commemorating those who perished in [[Sachsenhausen concentration camp|Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp]].]]
In the early 1970s the [[Group of Soviet Forces in Germany]] (GSFG) high command assigned to the NVA the wartime mission of capturing [[West Berlin]].<ref>David Stone, ''Fighting for the Fatherland: The Story of the German Soldier from 1648 to the Present Day'', Conway, London, 2006, p.385-6, {{ISBN|1-84486-036-1}}, drawing upon Colonel AD Meek, "Operation Centre", British Army Review, No. 107, 1994</ref> The NVA plan for the operation, designated "Operation Centre", called for some 32,000 troops in two divisions, accompanied by the GSFG's Soviet [[6th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade]]. The plan was regularly updated until 1988, when a less ambitious plan that simply aimed at containing Berlin was substituted.

In the autumn of 1981 the NVA stood ready to intervene in [[Poland]] in support of a possible Soviet invasion, but the declaration of [[martial law in Poland]] (13 December 1981) averted the crisis.

The NVA went into a state of heightened combat readiness on several occasions, including the construction of the [[Berlin Wall]] in 1961, the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] in 1962, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, and, for the last time, in late 1989 as protests swept through the GDR.

===Ideology===
The NVA operated as a professional volunteer army until 1962, when conscription was introduced. The GDR's [[National Defense Council of East Germany|National Defense Council]] controlled the armed forces, but the mobile forces came under the [[Warsaw Pact]] Unified Command. Political control of the armed forces took place through close integration with the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany]] (SED), which vetted all officers. Military training (provided by the school system) and the growing militarization of East German society bolstered popular support for the military establishment.{{citation needed|date=June 2016}} From a [[Leninism|Leninist]] perspective, the NVA stood as a symbol of Soviet-East German solidarity and became the model communist institution – ideological, hierarchical, and disciplined.<ref>Emily O. Goldman and Leslie C. Eliason, ''The diffusion of military technology and ideas'' (2003) p 132</ref> The NVA synthesized [[communist]] and [[Prussia]]n symbolism, naming its officers' academy, the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]], after [[Karl Marx]]'s co-author [[Friedrich Engels]], and its highest medal after [[Prussian Army]] General [[Gerhard von Scharnhorst]].<ref>Alan L. Nothnagle, ''Building the East German myth'' (1999) p 176</ref>

During the [[Peaceful Revolution]] that led to the downfall of the GDR's communist government, some NVA forces were placed on alert but were never deployed against protesters. At the same time, the Soviet government ordered its troops in the GDR to remain in barracks. After the forced retirement of SED and state leader [[Erich Honecker]] and other conservatives from the ruling Politburo at the height of the crisis in October 1989, the new SED leadership ruled out using armed force against the protesters.<ref>Dale Roy Herspring, ''Requiem for an army: the Demise of the East German Military'' (1998)</ref>

===Composition===
The manpower of the NVA consisted of some 85,000 soldiers in 1962, climbed to 127,000 by 1967, and remained essentially steady through 1970.<ref>Hancock, M. Donald. ''The Bundeswehr and the National People's Army: A Comparative Study of German Civil-Military Polity''. University of Denver, 1973. p 25.</ref> In 1987, at the peak of its power, the NVA numbered 175,300 troops. Approximately 50% of this number were career soldiers, while the others were short-term conscripts.

According to a 1973 study, NVA leaders from the late 1950s through the 1960s came predominantly from [[working-class]] backgrounds, with few from middle-class or professional families and no representatives of the aristocracy present in the upper echelons. Excepting specialized military or political instruction, most NVA leaders reported primary school as their highest level of formal education.<ref>Hancock, M. Donald. ''The Bundeswehr and the National People's Army: A Comparative Study of German Civil-Military Polity''. University of Denver, 1973. p 12-13</ref>

===Post-unification===
[[File:Lkw-tatra-813.jpg|thumb|An NVA [[Tatra-813]] carrying a [[GAZ-63]]]]
The NVA disbanded with the dissolution of the East German government in October 1990. Its facilities and equipment were handed over to the ''[[Bundeswehr]]''. Most facilities closed, and equipment was either sold or given to other countries. Most of the NVA's 36,000 officers and NCOs were let go, including all officers above the rank of ''[[Oberstleutnant]]''. The ''Bundeswehr'' retained only 3,200 – after a demotion of one rank. In addition, all female soldiers (at this point it was still prohibited for women to become soldiers in the ''Bundeswehr'') and all soldiers over the age of 55 were discharged.

Until 1 March 2005, Germany listed time served in the NVA as time "served in a foreign military". Service in the NVA did not count for points towards federal pensions in the [[Germany|unified Germany]]. Retired NVA soldiers and officers received only minimal pensions after unification: a thirty-year veteran would receive a pension smaller than a graduate-student stipend. After the reform of 2005, service in the NVA became known as "served outside of the ''Bundeswehr''".

Many former NVA officers feel bitter about their treatment after unification. While receiving only minimal pensions, few have been able to find jobs except as laborers or security guards. Former NVA officers are not permitted to append their NVA rank to their name as a professional title; no such prohibition applies to rank attained in the ''Wehrmacht'' or in the ''[[Waffen-SS]]'' during the Nazi era.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bickford | first1 = Andrew | year = 2009 | title = Soldiers, Citizens, and the State: East German Army Officers in Post-Unification Germany | doi = 10.1017/S0010417509000127 | journal = Comparative Studies in Society and History | volume = 51 | issue = 2| pages = 260–287 }}</ref>

One of the few former NVA facilities to remain open was a base in [[Storkow, Brandenburg|Storkow]] near Berlin, which housed the NVA's camouflage and deception center. This became the [[Bundeswehr Unit for Camouflage and Deception|''Bundeswehr'' Unit for Camouflage and Deception]].<ref>"
[http://www.dw.de/east-german-army-unit-finds-skills-still-in-demand-after-reunification/a-5796289 East German army unit finds skills still in demand after reunification]". ''DW (Deutsche Welle) website, 16 August 2010''
</ref>

==Former ''Wehrmacht'' soldiers in the NVA==

The following list includes the NVA generals and admirals who were awarded the [[German Cross]] in the [[Wehrmacht]] during the Second World War with the date of the awards as well as the rank held at the time listed after the name.<ref>[http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5745 Generals & Admirals who were awarded the Knight's Cross] in the ''Axis History Factbook''</ref>

*''Generalmajor'' [[Rudolf Bamler]] (12 March 1942 as ''Oberst'')
*''Generalmajor'' Bernhard Bechler (28 January 1943 as ''Major'')
*''Generalmajor'' Dr. rer. pol. Otto Korfes (11 January 1942 as ''Oberst'')
*''Generalmajor'' [[Arno von Lenski]] (21 January 1943 as ''Generalmajor'')
*''Generalleutnant'' [[Vincenz Müller]] (26 January 1942 as ''Oberst'' i.G.)
*''Generalmajor'' Hans Wulz (25 January 1943 as ''Generalmajor'')

The following list includes the NVA generals and admirals who were awarded the [[Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross]] in the ''[[Wehrmacht]]'' during the Second World War with the date of the awards as well as the rank held at the time listed after the name.<ref>[http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5744 Generals & Admirals who were awarded the German Cross] in the ''Axis History Factbook''</ref>

*''Generalmajor'' [[Wilhelm Adam (politician)|Wilhelm Adam]] (17 December 1942 as ''Oberst'')
*''Generalmajor'' Dr. rer. pol. Otto Korfes (22 January 1943 as ''Generalmajor'')
*''Generalleutnant'' [[Vincenz Müller]] (7 April 1944 as ''Generalleutnant'')

==Utilization of former NVA materiel after 1990==
[[File:Emblem of the Ground Forces of NVA (East Germany).svg|thumb|right|180px|The emblem of the [[East Germany|GDR]]'s armed forces – used for army vehicles]]
[[File:MiG-29 (12196698226).jpg|thumb|180px|[[MiG-29]] in East German service]]
The NVA was, in relation to its equipment and training, one of the strongest armies in the Warsaw Pact. It was equipped with a large number of modern weapons systems, most of Soviet origin, from which a small portion were given back to the Soviet Union in 1990.

The remaining equipment and materiel was still substantial, including large quantities of replacement parts, medical supplies, [[Weapons of mass destruction|atomic, biological and chemical warfare]] equipment, training devices and simulators, etc.

One of the first measures taken after the [[German reunification|reunification]] was a survey and securing of weapons and devices by former members of the NVA. The federally operated ''Materiel Depot Service Gesellschaft'' (MDSG) was charged with taking custody of and warehousing this equipment. The MDSG employed 1,820 people who were primarily taken from the ''[[Bundeswehr]]''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kutz |first=M |date=2006 |title=Deutsche Soldaten – eine Kultur- und Mentalitätsgeschichte |language=de |location=Darmstadt |publisher=Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (WBG) |isbn=9783534200139}}</ref> The MDSG was privatised in 1994. Much of the materiel was given free of charge to beneficiaries in the new federal states or other departments, to museums, or to friendly nations in the context of military suport for [[developing countries]]. The [[German Federal Intelligence Service]] secretly sold NVA equipment to several countries, violating international and German laws as well as international treaties.<ref>{{Cite Magazine | url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13507315.html | title=Panzer und Torpedos | journal=Der Spiegel | issue=47/1991 | date=1991-11-18 | access-date=2020-02-24 | language=de}}</ref>
The rest was destroyed.<ref>{{Cite report |url=http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/12/020/1202026.pdf | title=Verwendung und Weitergabe von Waffen, Geräten, Ausrüstungen, Munition und anderen militärischen Gegenständen der ehemaligen Nationalen Volksarmee (NVA) |publisher=deutscher Bundestag | date=1992-01-31 | access-date=2020-02-24 | language=de }}</ref>

* 767 aircraft (helicopters, fixed wing aircraft), 24 of which were [[MiG-29]]s
* 208 ships
* 2,761 tanks
* 133,900 wheeled vehicles
* 2,199 artillery pieces
* 1,376,650 firearms
* 303,690 tons of ammunition
* 14,335 tons of fuel and cleaning materials<ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/brief3.pdf |title=Coping with Surplus Weapons: A Priority for Conversion Research and Policy |date= June 1995 |pages= 37–67 |vauthors=Bowers M,Laurance EJ, Kopte S, Molas-Gallart J, Nassauer O, Dr Wilke P,Prof Dr Wulf H |language=en |website=www.bicc.de |publisher=BICC |issn=0947-7322 |access-date=2020-02-24}}</ref>

24 modern MIG-29s became part of the [[German Air Force|''Luftwaffe'']]. After 1999, 23 of the 24 aircraft were given to [[Poland]].<ref>{{Cite report |title=Last of MiG-29s offered by Germany arrive in Poland |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-97300722.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150323101020/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-97300722.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=23 March 2015 |work=AP Worldstream |publisher=Associated Press {{Subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}} |access-date=2014-10-24 |date=2004-08-04}}</ref>

==Recruitment and conscientious objection==
{{Main|Construction soldier}}
Before the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, military service in the GDR was voluntary, though the [[Free German Youth]] and public schools mounted intensive recruitment drives, and service in the NVA was often a prerequisite for career advancement. Compulsory military service had been introduced in 1956 in [[West Germany]], one year after the West German military was established, but the GDR held back from this step until 1962. The situation changed when the border was sealed in August 1961, and five months later the government announced a mandatory service term of 18 months for men.

There was, at first, no alternative service for [[Conscientious objection in East Germany|conscientious objectors]]. This changed in 1964 when, under pressure from the [[Evangelical Church in Germany|national Protestant church]], the GDR's National Defence Council authorised the formation of ''Baueinheiten'' (construction units) for men of draft age who "refuse military service with weapons on the grounds of religious viewpoints or for similar reasons".

The [[construction soldier]]s wore uniforms and lived in barracks under military discipline, but were not required to bear arms and received no combat training. In theory, they were to be used only for civilian construction projects. The GDR therefore became the only Warsaw Pact country to provide a non-combat alternative for conscientious objectors. However, fearing that other soldiers would be contaminated by pacifist ideas, the government took care to segregate the construction units from regular conscripts. Moreover, conscripts who chose the alternative service option often faced discrimination later in life, including denial of opportunities for [[Education in East Germany|higher education]].{{citation needed|date=January 2017}}

==Organization==

The NVA had four main branches:<ref>Forester, Thomas M., The East German Army; Second in the Warsaw Pact, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1980</ref>
* The ''[[Landstreitkräfte]]'' (Ground Forces) with an active strength of 108,000 in the following divisions:
**1st Motor Rifle Division (Potsdam-Eiche)
**4th Motor Rifle Division (Erfurt)
**6th Motor Rifle Division (Königswartha)
**7th ''Panzer'' Division (Dresden)
**8th Motor Rifle Division (Schwerin)
**9th ''Panzer'' Division (Eggesin)
**10th Motor Rifle Division (Ronneburg)
**11th Motor Rifle Division (Halle)
**17th Motor Rifle Division (Petersroda)
**19th Motor Rifle Division (Wulkow)
**20th Motor Rifle Division (Bredenfelde)
* The ''[[Volksmarine]]'' (People's Navy) with a strength of 18,300
* The ''[[Air Forces of the National People's Army|Luftstreitkräfte]]''/''Luftverteidigung'' (Air Forces/Air Defence) with a strength of 58,000

In wartime, mobilization of the NVA's reserves would have nearly doubled its strength. GDR authorities also had at their disposal the internal security troops of the [[Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany)#Ministers of the Interior of the GDR, 1949-1990|Ministry of the Interior]] (the ''Kasernierte Volkspolizei'') and the [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security]] (the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]]) along with the 210,000 strong [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|party]] [[Auxiliaries|auxiliary]] "[[Combat Groups of the Working Class]]" (''Kampfgruppen der Arbeiterklasse''), who were available in times of war.

The highest level of leadership for the NVA was the Ministry for National Defense (''Ministerium für Nationale Verteidigung'') headquartered in [[Strausberg]] near [[East Berlin]]. NVA administration was divided into the following commands:
* the ''Kommando Landstreitkräfte (KdoLaSK)'' based in [[Geltow]] near [[Potsdam]]
* the ''Kommando Luftstreitkräfte und Luftverteidigungskräfte (KdoLSK/LV)'' based in [[Strausberg]]
* the ''Kommando Volksmarine (KdoVM)'' based in [[Rostock]]
* the ''Kommando der Grenztruppen (KdoGT)'' based in [[Pätz]] near [[Berlin]]

==Appearance==
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-Z1019-020, Berlin, Militärakademie- Absolventen, Empfang.jpg|thumb|Various uniforms worn by NVA officers]]

===Uniforms===
The first military units of the Central Training Administration (''Hauptverwaltung Ausbildung – HVA'') were dressed in police blue. With the restructuring of the Barracked Police (CIP) in 1952, khaki uniforms similar in shape and colour to those of the [[Soviet Army]] were introduced. The desire for a separate "German" and "socialist" military tradition, and the consequent founding of the NVA in 1956, introduced new uniforms which strongly resembled those of the ''Wehrmacht''. They were of a similar cut and made of a brownish-gray, called [[stone gray]], cloth. The dark high-necked collar was later removed, except on the coats from 1974–79.

Even the NVA's peculiar "gumdrop" [[Stahlhelm#M1956|army helmet]], in spite of its easily noticeable resemblance to well-known Soviet designs, was actually based on a prototype "B / II" helmet that was initially developed for the ''Wehrmacht'' by the Institute for Defence Technical Materials Science in Berlin. The helmet had seen trials since 1943, but was not adopted by the Wehrmacht.<ref>Baer, Ludwig: Die Geschichte des Deutschen Stahlhelmes: von 1915 bis 1945; seine Geschichte in Wort u. Bild . L. Baer (Selbstverlag), Eschborn, 1977.</ref>

With the exceptions of the People's Navy, whose dark-blue uniforms were consistent with the styles of most navies around the world, and the [[Combat Groups of the Working Class]] (''Kampfgruppen der Arbeiterklasse''), who wore their own olive-green fatigue uniforms, all NVA armed services, the Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment, the [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic]], and the ''Kasernierte Volkspolizei'' wore the same basic uniform. Several later modifications were introduced, but the style and cut remain fundamentally the same. There were a variety of uniforms worn according to the setting (work or social) and season (summer or winter). Most uniforms (service, semi-dress, and parade) were stone grey, a brownish-grey colour that was conspicuously different from the grey-green of the [[Volkspolizei|People's Police]]. Officers' uniforms differed from those of enlisted personnel by better quality and texture cloth. The field and service uniforms were normal attire for most day-to-day functions.

===Uniform categories===
Several basic categories of uniforms were worn:
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-85458-0003, Berlin, Mauerbau, Kampfgruppen, NVA, VP.jpg|thumb|left|[[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic|GDR borderguards]] and members of the [[Combat Groups of the Working Class]] at the border of the Berlin sector on 14 August 1961]]
[[File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2581.jpg|thumb|Another GDR stamp celebrating 25 years of the NVA]]

====Parade uniform (''Paradeuniform'')====
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1984-1003-022, Berlin, Beförderungen und Ernennung von Generalen.jpg|thumb|NVA generals wearing parade uniforms in a 1984 promotion and awards ceremony]]
The parade uniform for officers was the semi-dress/walking-out tunic with all authorized orders, awards and decorations attached, [[breeches]] and [[riding boots]], steel helmet, white shirt, dark-gray necktie, and a ceremonial dagger worn on the left side and fastened to a silver-gray parade belt. Officers in guards of honor carried sabers. In winter, a [[greatcoat]], scarf, and gloves were worn.

====Service uniform (''Dienstuniform'')====
The summer service uniform for officers was a bloused [[jackshirt|jacket]], called a Hemdbluse, worn without a shirt, trousers, and a visored service cap. The winter service uniform featured a tunic with four large buttoned-down patch pockets, a black waist belt, the service cap, breeches, shirt, tie, and pants belt; high boots were reserved for officers and NCOs. A long, heavy, belted greatcoat was also part of the winter uniform.

====Semi-dress/walking-out uniform (''Ausgangsuniform'')====
With a few details, the semi-dress uniform was the same for all ranks and was worn for walking-out purposes (i.e. off-duty and off-post). It consisted of a single-breasted tunic without belt, a silver-gray shirt with dark-gray tie, the service cap, long trousers, and black low-quarter shoes. Officers also wore the tunic with a white shirt. During periods of warm weather, there was the option of omitting the tunic, and furthermore omitting the tie. A double-breasted jacket was optional for officers and warrant officers.

====Field service uniform (''Felddienstuniform'')====
[[File:Grenztruppen der DDR auf Patrouille (1979).jpg|thumb|The field uniform as worn by GDR border troops]]
The summer field uniform for both officers and enlisted consisted of a jacket and trousers originally in ''[[Flachtarnenmuster]]'' and then in ''[[Strichtarn]]'', a dark-brown (later a forest green) raindrop camouflage pattern on a stone-gray background; a field cap, service cap, or [[Stahlhelm#M1956|steel helmet]]; high black boots; and a gray webbing belt with y-strap suspenders. In winter, a quilted stone gray padded suit without a camouflage pattern was worn over the service uniform. Later winter uniforms were also of the same camouflage pattern as the summer variant. The winter uniform also included a fur [[Ushanka|pile cap]] or a steel helmet, boots, knitted gray gloves, belt, and suspenders.

====Work uniform (''Arbeitsuniform'')====
Seasonal considerations and weather governed the kind of work uniforms worn. Generally, reconditioned articles of service uniforms (field, semi-dress, and padded winter uniforms) were dyed black and issued for all types of fatigue and maintenance details. [[Coveralls]] are also used by the lower ranks, especially armor and air force personnel. Officers in technical branches supervising fatigue details wore a [[White coat|laboratory-style smock]].

====Other uniforms====
High-ranking officers occasionally wore white uniforms (or white jackets), and staff officers were issued distinctive staff service uniforms. Women wore uniforms consisting of jackets, skirts or slacks, blouses, caps, boots or pumps, and other appropriate items according to season and occasion. Personnel such as paratroopers, motorcyclists, and tank troops wore additional items with their uniforms identifying them as such.
[[File:GDR NPA para-serv-uniform.jpg|left|thumb|An NVA [[Fallschirmjäger#National People.27s Army .28East Germany.29|''Fallschirmjäger'']] uniform.]]

===''Waffenfarben''===
{{Main|Corps colours (NPA)}}
NVA personnel initially wore the [[Waffenfarbe|''Waffenfarben'']] as worn by the ''Wehrmacht'', but later reverted to white except for generals who wore red.

The uniforms of the Border Troops were distinguished from that of the NVA ground force and Air Force/Air Defense Force by a green armband with large silver letters identifying the wearer's affiliation.

Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment uniforms were nearly identical to those of the NVA and were distinguished primarily by the dark red MfS service color of its insignia and by an honorary cuff-band on the left sleeve bearing the regiment's name. Other [[Stasi]] officers wore a similar uniform, but without the cuff-band.

===Rank insignia===
{{main|Ranks of the National People's Army}}
NVA personnel displayed their rank insignia on shoulder boards or shoulder loops on service, semi-dress, and parade uniforms, and subdued sleeve insignia midway between the shoulder and elbow on the left sleeve of the field uniform, coveralls, or other special uniforms. A general officer rank was denoted by five-pointed silver stars mounted on a gold and silver braided shoulder cord set on a bright red base. All other officers and NCOs wore a four-pointed star. Like many of the armies of the other Warsaw Pact countries, NVA rank insignia followed the Soviet pattern in the arrangement of stars.

The ''Volksmarine'' followed similar shoulder insignia for the naval officers (who also used sleeve insignia) and enlisted ratings except that these were blue and white or yellow (in the case of naval ratings).

===Awards and decorations===
{{main|Orders, decorations, and medals of East Germany}}

The GDR had some seventy decorations for persons or groups it wished to recognize, and it bestowed them liberally. Some, such as battle decorations, were specifically set aside for armed forces personnel, many awarded to soldiers and civilians alike, and others, although ordinarily civilian awards, can on occasion be earned by those on military duty. The latter group included decorations for achievement in the arts, literature, production, and work methods. They were awarded to service personnel or specific units that participated in [[Civic action program|civil production projects]] or assisted during harvesting.

The [[Order of Karl Marx]], [[Patriotic Order of Merit]], [[Star of People's Friendship]], [[Banner of Labor]], [[Order of Scharnhorst]], and the [[National Prize of East Germany|National Prize]] were among the more important awards. Some, including the Order of Merit and the Star of People's Friendship, were awarded in three classes. A few were accompanied by substantial monetary premiums. The NVA did not permit military personnel to wear ''[[Wehrmacht]]'' awards and decorations.

==Periodicals==
The two main periodicals of the NVA were the weekly newspaper ''Volksarmee'' and the monthly soldier's magazine ''[[Armeerundschau]]''.

==Relics==
The former Nazi holiday complex at [[Prora]], on the island of [[Rügen]], contains a number of museum displays. One of these is devoted to the NVA, which had used part of the complex as a barracks. Many German military museums host former NVA equipment like tanks and aircraft.

==See also==
{{portal|East Germany|War}}
* [[Conscientious objection in East Germany]]
* [[Combat Groups of the Working Class]]
* [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]]
* [[Distinguished Service Medal of the National People's Army]]
* [[Military history of Germany]]
*''[[Bundeswehr]]''

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

* Hancock, M. Donald. ''The Bundeswehr and the National People's Army: A Comparative Study of German Civil-Military Polity''. University of Denver, 1973.
* [[Peter G. Tsouras|Tsouras, P.G.]] ''Changing Orders: The Evolution of the World's Armies, 1945 to the Present'' Facts On File, Inc, 1994. {{ISBN|0-8160-3122-3}}
* David Stone, 'Fighting for the Fatherland: The Story of the German Soldier from 1648 to the Present Day,' Conway, London, 2006
{{loc}}

==Further reading==
* Bickford Andrew. ''Fallen Elites: The Military Other in Post-Unification Germany'' (Stanford University Press; 2011); 288 pages; An ethnographic study of former East German officers.
*Dale Roy Herspring, ''Requiem for an army: the demise of the East German military,'' Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998, {{ISBN|0-8476-8718-X}}, 9780847687183, 249 pages
*[[Jörg Schönbohm]], Two armies and one fatherland: the end of the Nationale Volksarmee, Berghahn Books, 1996, {{ISBN|1-57181-069-2}}, {{ISBN|978-1-57181-069-4}}
* Zilian, Jr., Frederick. 'From Confrontation to Cooperation: The Takeover of the National People's (East German) Army by the Bundeswehr,' Praeger, Westport, Conn., 1999, {{ISBN|0-275-96546-5}}. Reviewed by Dale R. Herspring in ''The Journal of Military History,'' July 2000, p. 912-914

==External links==
* {{Cite web|url=http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_gdr/intro2644.html?navinfo=44755|title=The GDR in the Warsaw Pact|last=PHP Editors|website=www.php.isn.ethz.ch|access-date=2017-06-30}}
* [http://www.nva-forum.de/ NVA Forum] (in German)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20081004210502/http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=60 Nationale Volksarmee & the GDR Forum]
* [http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5528 AHF - Nationale Volksarmee (NVA)]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090221212745/http://www.osaarchivum.org/db/fa/300-3-1-1.htm RFE/RL East German Subject Files: Armed Forces] Open Society Archives, Budapest
* [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA347385.pdf some formation details on NPA]

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:National People's Army| ]]
[[Category:Armies by country]]
[[Category:Military units and formations established in 1956|National People's Army (East Germany)]]
[[Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1990|National People's Army (East Germany)]]
[[Category:Disbanded armed forces]]
[[Category:1956 establishments in East Germany]]
[[Category:1990 disestablishments in Germany]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact]]

Manfred Döring

2021-03-06T21:54:22Z

Pudeo: wl

{{Infobox person
| name = Manfred Döring
| pseudonym =
| birth_name =
| birth_date = 18 November 1932
| birth_place = [[Limbach-Oberfrohna|Oberfrohna]], [[Saxony]], [[Weimar Germany|Germany]]
| death_date =
| death_place =
| occupation =
*[[Major general]] and
*commander of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]]
* [[Stasi|MfS]]
| parents =
| spouse =
| children =
| subject =
| party = [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|SED]]
| influences =
| influenced =
| signature =
| website =
}}

'''Manfred Döring''' (born 18 November 1932) is a former [[Major general|Major general ''(Generalmajor)'']] with the [[German Democratic Republic|East German]] [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security ''(Stasi)'']].<ref name=ManDoelautWerwarwer/> He also served, between 1987 and 1990, as a commander of the elite motorised rifles regiment, the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment|Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards]].<ref name=ManDoelautWerwarwer>{{cite web|url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=614|title=Döring, Manfred * 18.11.1932: Kommandeur des MfS-Wachregiments|work="Wer war wer in der DDR? Ein Lexikon ostdeutscher Biographien"|author=[[Jens Gieseke]]|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag & Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur|accessdate=6 November 2015}}</ref>

==Life==
Döring was born in [[Limbach-Oberfrohna|Oberfrohna]], a small town, not far away from the west of [[Chemnitz|Chemnitz (known before 1990 as Karl-Marx-Stadt)]] that had grown up as a centre for [[textiles]] based industries. His father was a tailor.<ref name=ManDoelautWerwarwer/>

Manfred Döring passed his [[Abitur|School final exam (''Abitur'')]] and in 1952 moved on to attend the Commando Academy of the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Kasernierte Volkspolizei (KVP / literally ''People's Police in Barracks'')]].<ref name=DoeringlautOpfer>{{cite web|url=http://stasiopfer.npage.de/karrieren-im-mfs.html|title=Döring, Manfred 18.11.1932 Kommandeur des Wachregiments |work=Karrieren im MfS .... Es ist schon erstaunlich, was beim Ministerium für Staatssicherheit möglich war. |publisher=Matthias Katze iA STASI-OPFER (online)|accessdate=6 November 2015}}</ref> Döring's region of Germany was by now part of the [[German Democratic Republic]], a [[Group of Soviet Forces in Germany|Soviet sponsored]] state created in 1949 out of what had previously been known as the [[Soviet occupation zone]] of [[Germany]]. Following [[Aftermath of World War II|military defeat]] in 1945 there had been agreement between the [[Allies of World War II|winning powers]] that there should be no more German armies, and the quasi-military KVP was, for [[East Germany]], the closest thing to a national army permitted by the [[Soviet Union|Soviets]]. In 1953 Döring was accepted as a junior KVP officer.<ref name=ManDoelautWerwarwer/> Between 1953 and 1956, he attended the Officers' Academy of the KVP, emerging as a platoon commander.<ref name=DoeringlautOpfer/> During this period, in 1956, the KVP had itself been re-invented as the [[National People's Army|National People's Army (NVA / ''Nationale Volksarmee'')]].

In 1958 he became an instructor with the Guards Regiment of the [[Berlin]] [[Stasi|MfS ''(Stasi)'']], later becoming a battery commander with the regiment and, in 1959, Chief of Staff in the [[Artillery|Artillery Division]].<ref name=DoeringlautOpfer/> Rapid promotions continued. In 1961 he was appointed Operational Officer of the Regimental Staff. In 1962 Döring took over as Commander of the [[Artillery|Artillery Division]].<ref name=ManDoelautWerwarwer/> Between 1965 and 1968 he attended the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in [[Dresden]] where he obtained a degree in Military Sciences.<ref name=DoeringlautOpfer/>

On 21 August 1968 he became the Commander of the Second Commandos of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment]], a unit so prestigious that none of its members were conscripts.<ref name=BespraechungMD>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfs-insider.de/Erkl/WR.htm|title=»Für ein halbes Jahrhundert Frieden hat es sich gelohnt" Gespräch mit Manfred Döring. Über das Wachregiment "Feliks Dzierzynski« des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit, über Gewißheiten, Zweifel und das Ende der DDR|author1=Robert Allertz (as interviewer)|author2=Manfred Döring (as interviewee)|date=7 November 2009|publisher=Wolfgang Schmidt iA Insiderkomitee zur Förderung der kritischen Aneignung der Geschichte des MfS |work=Junge Welt|accessdate=6 November 2015}}</ref> Despite its military character the Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment operated not as part of the [[National People's Army]], but under the direct control of the [[Stasi|Ministry for State Security]]. Outside times of crisis, it was mandated to protect public buildings and the homes of party leaders. The regiment was a politically reliable [[internal security force]] that could also be deployed to suppress rebellion and unrest.<ref name="ReferenceA">Forester, Thomas M., The East German Army; Second in the Warsaw Pact, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1980</ref> In Summer 1971 Döring was promoted at short notice, becoming principal Deputy to the regimental commander, {{Interlanguage link multi|Heinz Gronau|de}}.<ref name=BespraechungMD/> Gronau himself retired just a year later,<ref name=HeiGrolautWerwarwer>{{cite web|url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=1106|title=Gronau, Heinz * 1.1.1912, † 28.10.1977 Kommandeur des MfS-Wachregiments|work="Wer war wer in der DDR? Ein Lexikon ostdeutscher Biographien"|author=[[Jens Gieseke]]|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag & Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur|accessdate=6 November 2015}}</ref> to be succeeded in the top job by [[Bernhard Elsner]].<ref name=BerElslautWerwarwer>{{cite web|url=http://bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=711|title=Elsner, Bernhard * 30.1.1927 Kommandeur des MfS-Wachregiments|work="Wer war wer in der DDR? Ein Lexikon ostdeutscher Biographien"|author=[[Jens Gieseke]]|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag & Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur|accessdate=6 November 2015}}</ref>

During 1975/76 he spent a year at the [[Parteihochschule Karl Marx|Karl Marx Academy]],<ref name=BespraechungMD/> the leading political training institution in the country, operated by the [[Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands#Central Committee|Central Committee]] of East Germany's [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|ruling Socialist Unity Party (''Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands'' / SED)]]. Eisler's incumbency in command of the [[Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment|Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards]] lasted for fifteen years,<ref name=BerElslautWerwarwer/> but he eventually retired and in 1987 Manfred Döring took over command of the regiment.<ref>Eberhard Rebohle, Rote Spiegel - Wachsoldaten in der DDR, edition ost, 2009</ref> He took over at a time when relations between the ruling parties in [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|East Germany]] and in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet Union]] were becoming strained in ways that many outsiders missed at the time, and there was a corresponding loss of confidence within the East German [[Erich Honecker|political establishment]].<ref name=BespraechungMD/> The regiment itself had grown steadily through the 1960s and 1970s, however, and Döring was in charge of a force of more than 10,000 full-time [[Stasi]] employees with responsibilities that included security services for leading state institutions and officers and provision of body guards. He also had responsibility for the policing of demonstrations and large-scale public gatherings, whether permitted or illegal. [[Die Wende|The breach]] by demonstrators of the [[Berlin Wall]] in November 1989 came towards the end of a year of unprecedented civil unrest, and there was no fraternal support from [[Moscow]] for the violent state intervention<ref name=BespraechungMD/> that had put an end to the country's [[Uprising of 1953 in East Germany|last major uprising]], back in 1953. Instead November 1989 triggered a succession of events which would lead, formally in October 1990, to [[German reunification]]. Bemused by the strategic folly of [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Moscow's]] evident willingness to see an end to the political [[Iron curtain|division of Europe]], and in particular [[Inner German border|of Germany]],<ref name=BespraechungMD/> in March 1990 Manfred Döring, like many of the regime's political and military leaders, was dismissed from his post.<ref name=DoeringlautOpfer/>

==References==
{{reflist|35em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Doring, Manfred}}
[[Category:Stasi generals]]
[[Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany members]]
[[Category:1932 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

Hans Süß (general)

2021-03-06T21:53:15Z

Pudeo: link Friedrich Engels Military Academy using Find link

{{Short description|East german general}}
{{more citations needed|date=June 2020}}

{{Infobox officeholder
| name = Hans Suss
| birth_name = Hans Suss
| rank = [[Lieutenant general]]
| branch = [[File:Flag of NVA (East Germany).svg|25px]] [[National People's Army]]
| allegiance = {{flagicon|GDR}} [[East Germany]]
| serviceyears = 1953-1990
| death_place = [[Dresden]], [[Germany]]
| death_date = {{Death date and age|2009|11|17|1935|4|20| df=yes}}
| birth_date = 20 April 1935
| birth_place = Buchholz, [[Nazi Germany]]
| term_end1 = 1990
| native_name = Hans Süß
| term_start1 = 1988
| office1 = Inspector of the [[National People's Army]]
| successor = [[Gerhard Kolitsch]]
| predecessor = [[Manfred Gehmert]]
| termend = 30 September 1990
| termstart = 1 March 1990
| office = Chief of the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]]
| image_size = 180px
| image =
| party = [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|SED]]
}}

'''Hans Suss''' ([[German language|German]]: Hans Süß; 20 April 1935 – 17 November 2009) was a German general of the [[National People's Army]] of [[East Germany]]. He was also a university professor and commanding officer of the Officers' College of the Air Force and Air Defense. He served as the Inspector of the National People's Army from 1988 to 1990 and Chief of the [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]] in 1990.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ehlert|first=Hans|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VSzQCyeFLIAC&pg=PA387&lpg=PA387&dq=General+Hans+S%C3%BC%C3%9F&source=bl&ots=23GsBIcXpg&sig=ACfU3U04QSSjl1a-YtkxPlOBsRU94LsHKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjewqng3KTqAhWzkHIEHUbfDXoQ6AEwFnoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=General%20Hans%20S%C3%BC%C3%9F&f=false|title=Genosse General!: die Militärelite der DDR in biografischen Skizzen|last2=Ehlert|first2=Hans Gotthard|last3=Wagner|first3=Armin|date=2003|publisher=Ch. Links Verlag|isbn=978-3-86153-312-2|language=de}}</ref>

== Early life and education ==
Hans Suss was born on April 20, 1935 in Buchholz and grew up in a working-class family. He attended school in Buchholz and passed his [[Abitur]].

== Career ==
Suss voluntarily joined the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei]] (KVP) on July 27, 1953 and completed an officer course at the KVP Officers' School in [[Dresden]]. He also became a member of the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party]] in 1955.

He was transferred to the [[National People's Army]] at the beginning of 1956 and was appointed the first officer rank. He was then commanded to study a military academy in the [[Soviet Union]]. There, he trained in radar technology and graduated as a graduate engineer in 1960.

Upon his return from the Soviet Union, Suss served as the First Deputy of the Commander and then the Deputy of the Commander and Chief of Staff of the 4th Radio Regiment.

In 1962, he was transferred to the [[Kommando LSK/LV]] in [[Strausberg]]. There, he worked as the Deputy to the Chief of the Radio Troops from 1962 to 1965 and then the Chief of Radio Troops from 1965 to 1974.

From 1974 to 1976, he completed a general staff training at the [[Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia]] (then known as the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union) in [[Moscow]].

Suss was then transferred to the 1st Air Defense Division and worked there for two years.

On November 1, 1978, Suss became the successor to the position of Commander of the Officers' College of Air Force and Air Defense.<ref>[[National-Zeitung (Berlin)|National-Zeitung]] vom 20. August 1985.</ref> On October 7, 1979, he was promoted to the rank of [[Major general]]. On October 7, 1988, he was promoted to the rank of [[Lieutenant general]].

During the [[Peaceful Revolution]], Hans Suss was recognized as Head of the Military Reform Commission and at the same time was the Secretary of the Government Commission on Military Reform in the German Democratic Republic. Military reform was designed under his leadership. He then briefly served as the Chief of the Friedrich Engels Military Academy from March 1, 1990 to September 30, 1990.<ref>Siehe Hans Süß: ''Neues Denken und Militärreform.'' In: (Hrsg.) Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V.: ''Philosophisches Denken über Krieg und Frieden. Umwälzende Einsichten an der Militärakademie und ihr Fortwirken in der Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V.,'' DSS-Arbeitspapiere, Heft 76, Dresden 2005, S. 36–44. {{URN|nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa2-339867}}</ref>

Suss was honorably discharged from the National People's Army before the dissolution of the National People's Army and the [[German reunification|reunification of Germany]].

After German reunification, Suss became a founding member of the Dresden Study Group on Security Policy and was a board member until 1991 and a member of association until 1994.

== Death ==
Hans Suss passed away on November 17, 2009 in Dresden. He was buried at the Kamenz cemetery.

== Awards ==
{{Flagicon|GDR}} [[Patriotic Order of Merit]] (Bronze, 1970)

{{Flagicon|GDR}} [[Scharnhorst Order]]

{{Flagicon|GDR}} [[Battle medal "For services to the people and fatherland"]] (Gold)

{{Flagicon|GDR}} [[Distinguished Service Medal of the National People's Army]] (Gold)

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Suss, Hans}}
[[Category:1935 births]]
[[Category:2009 deaths]]
[[Category:German generals]]

Friedrich Engels Military Academy

2021-03-06T21:50:12Z

Pudeo: date fixes, authority control, categories

{{Infobox university
| name = Friedrich Engels Military Academy
| native_name = Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“
| image = File:Luftgaukommando dresden1.jpg
| caption = The former campus in 2008
| established = January 5, 1959
| closed = December 31, 1990
| affiliation = [[Ministry of National Defense (East Germany)|Ministry of National Defense]]
| chairman = Commander/Chief of the Academy
| students = Graduates: 6290 officers including 181 from foreign nations
| city = [[Dresden]], [[East Germany]]
}}

The '''Friedrich Engels Military Academy''' ([[German language|German]]: Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“) was the first military institution founded in [[East Germany]] and the highest leveled military teaching and research institution. Located in [[Dresden]], the academy was the center of [[military science]] of East Germany.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Friedrich Engels Military Academy|url=https://clever-geek.github.io/articles/7447133/index.html|access-date=2020-06-26|website=clever-geek.github.io}}</ref>

The academy was formed on January 5, 1959, to provide training and military-related studies to officers of all branches of the newly-formed [[National People's Army]] (NVA), [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic]], and other security organs as well as armed forces from other nations. The academy's training was comparable to military academies in the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Simon|first=Jeffrey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n02fDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=Friedrich+Engels+military+academy&source=bl&ots=KKsHYE3Rxc&sig=ACfU3U08MKBukHJvLdxAElyPutinuLyPxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc4cnMxJ_qAhXPhHIEHZ7PAjUQ6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Friedrich%20Engels%20military%20academy&f=false|title=Security Implications Of Nationalism In Eastern Europe|last2=Gilberg|first2=Trond|date=2019-06-26|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-000-31110-5|language=en}}</ref> In addition to training and research for the implementation of the defense policy of East Germany, the Friedrich Engels Military Academy also focused on the maintenance of the military-scientific heritage and the development to the center of military-scientific work.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ulbricht|first=Walter|title=On the opening of the first socialist military academy in the history of Germany. Opening lecture at the military academy of the National People's Army "Friedrich Engels"|publisher=|year=1959|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>

== History ==

=== Before foundation ===
Foundations for what would become the Friedrich Engels Military Academy were set in February 1949 by the ''University of the German Administration of the Interior'', which was relocated from [[Berlin]] to the village of Kochstedt in [[Saxony-Anhalt]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Burkhardt|first=Anke|title=Military and police universities in the GDR|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>

On November 15, 1949, the teaching company opened and was renamed to the ''Kochstedt Officers' School of Central Administration Training of the Ministry of the Interior'', under the leadership of Chief Inspector of the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Barracked People's Police]] [[Walter Freytag]].

From September of 1952, the academy was renamed the ''Higher Officer School of the Ministry of the Interior''. The location also moved from Kochstedt to [[Dresden]] and continued to be led by Lieutenant General Walter Freytag.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Demmer|first=Prof Dr Wolfgang|last2=Haueis|first2=Dr Eberhard|date=2018-11-09|title=Militärakademie 'Friedrich Engels' der Nationalen Volksarmee der DDR|url=https://slub.qucosa.de/landing-page/?tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=https://slub.qucosa.de/api/qucosa%253A32155/mets|language=de}}</ref>

Soon after in 1953 it was renamed to the ''College of the Barracked People's Police'' (KVP). Colonel [[Wilhelm Adam|Wilheim Adam]], former adjutant to the commander-in-chief of the 6th Army of the [[Wehrmacht]], post-1945 Minister of Finance of the State of [[Saxony]], and member of the [[Volkskammer]], took over the post of commander of the university.
[[File:Hochschule_der_KVP,_Dresden-Urkundenübergabe_ca._1955.jpg|thumb|College of the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Barracked People's Police (KVP)]] certificate presentation, circa 1955. ]]
The former [[Generalfeldmarschall]] [[Friedrich Paulus]] used to give lectures at the university after his return from captivity, and by 1954, he led a small working group called the ''War History Research Center in Dresden''. His small working group eventually became the foundations for the Institute for German Military History, which was later renamed the [[Military History Institute of the German Democratic Republic]] in 1972.<ref>{{cite book |author=Jürgen Angelow |editor1= Thomas Kühne |editor2=Benjamin Zimmermann |chapter=Was ist Militärgeschichte? Reihe Krieg in der Geschichte (KRiG)|title=Forschung in ungelüfteten Räumen: Anmerkungen zur Militärgeschichtsschreibung der ehemaligen DDR |volume=6 |location=Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich |page=77 |isbn=3-506-74475-5 |date=2000|language=de}}</ref>

When the [[National People's Army]] (NVA) was formed by the [[Volkskammer]] on January 18, 1956, which effectively replaced the Barracked People's Police, allowed for the ''College for Officers of the NVA'' in Dresden to emerge as the highest military teaching facility in [[East Germany]]. Colonel Wilheim Adam became the first commander; followed by Major General [[Heinrich Dollwetzel]] from April 1, 1958. This also effectively allowed the NVA to take over the politically reliable and technically competent officers of the Barracked People's Police.

The university was commissioned to raise the scientific level of training in all subject areas in order to create the conditions for a military academy. When it was founded, the chairs of social science training, infantry training, artillery training and tank training were created. In addition to the two-year courses, in which officers who were already experienced in the troop service were trained as regimental commanders , their deputies and chiefs of staff for motor gunner , tank and artillery units, heads of special troops and services, the university carried out one-year qualification courses for senior officers.

After the West German [[Bundeswehr]] joined [[NATO]] in 1955, the National People's Army joined the rivaling [[Warsaw Pact]] on May 24, 1958. A formal military academy had to be established to train the National People's Army up to Warsaw Pact standards and requirements.<ref name=":1">Siehe Rolf Lehmann: ''Die Militärakademie der DDR in Dresden – Struktur und Auftrag.'' In: Dresdner Geschichtsverein e. V. (Hrsg.), ''Dresdner Hefte'', Heft 53, Dresden 1998, Januar, S. 65–69.</ref>

Ministerial order 52/58 began in May of 1958, which called for the conversion of the college for officers into a military academy. According to the decision of the Council of Ministers of November 28, 1958, it was to become the first military institution to be granted the right to confer the academic degree of "diploma military scientist" and "diploma engineer" and to set up scientific aspirations.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |publisher=Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V. |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe)|page=14 |language=de}}</ref>

=== Foundation ===
[[File:Logo_Militärakademie_der_Nationalen_Volksarmee_Friedrich_Engels.jpg|thumb|Medal of the Friedrich Engels Military Academy]]
The founding of the new military academy was not an instant decision, but more of a reaction to the [[arms race]] during the Cold War and the establishment of the [[Bundeswehr Command and Staff College]]. The military academy's leadership had a particularly close relationship with the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party]] leadership, whose political leadership claim was secured by Article 1 of the [[Constitution of East Germany]]. This can be evidenced by the awarding of the honorary name "[[Friedrich Engels]]" to the academy. The Friedrich Engels Military Academy was officially founded on January 5, 1959.<ref>{{Cite web|title=NVA Academy Badges|url=https://www.onvauc.org/nva-academy-badges|access-date=2020-06-26|website=onvauc|language=en}}</ref><ref>Siehe Walter Ulbricht: ''Zur Eröffnung der ersten sozialistischen Militärakademie in der Geschichte Deutschlands. Eröffnungsvorlesung an der Militärakademie der Nationalen Volksarmee „Friedrich Engels“ am 5. Januar 1959 .'' In: Zeitschrift ''Militärwesen,'' Sonderheft, Berlin 1959. URL: https://www.vtnvagt.de/images/MAK-OHS/mw_1959.pdf</ref><gallery>
File:Fahnenübergabe an die Militärakademie, MfNV GenO Willy Stoph, 5. Jan. 1959, Dresden.jpg|Handover of flags to the Military Academy by [[Willi Stoph]], January 5, 1959
File:Anheften der Fahnnenschleife „Kampforden in Gold“ für die Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“ 1969.jpg|Flag loop for "Battle Order in Gold", awarded by [[Heinz Kessler]] on January 10, 1969.
File:Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1969, Enthüllung des Denkmals für Friedrich Engels im Innenhof vor Eingang F.jpg|[[Friedrich Engels]] statue in the courtyard of the front enterance of the Military Academy, commemorating 20 years of the German Democratic Republic on October 10, 1969
</gallery>A permanent political-ideological education and social science qualification arose from East Germany's political environment. A clear commitment to the Socialist Unity Party's policy was expected from the teaching staff and the officer hearers. It was not until the mid-1980s that their influence eroded and finally led to the dissolution of the Socialist Unity Party party organizations in the [[National People's Army]] and the [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic]], including the Friedrich Engels Military Academy in December 1989.

=== Status ===
The military academy had the legal status of a university in East Germany and thus had the right to award graduates and aspirants with academic degrees, such as Graduate Military Scientist, Graduate Engineer, Graduate Social Scientist, Graduate Teacher, and so forth.

The military academy belonged to the second sector of the East German university system, to the so-called universities with special status. However, due to its integration with the National People's Army, there were a few significant differences from civilian universities.

* The responsibilities of the [[Ministry of Higher and Technical Education (East Germany)|Ministry of Higher and Technical Education]] were essentially transferred to the [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|Ministry of National Defense]], who, in consultation with the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education, issued regulations for the enforcement of statutory university regulations.
* Unlike other universities in East Germany, the rector, the protectors (deputy of the boss), the section directors, and the deans could not be elected. The military academy executives were generals and officers and were assigned to their positions by order/rank.
* The students (officer hearers, around 30 years of age) and course participants were officers and generals who had already completed a technical or university degree and had gained professional experience.
* Military teaching and research subjects were largely subject to military secrecy.
* Although the Friedrich Engels Military Academy was based on the image of Soviet military academies, the merging of all branches of the armed forces, the military-technical and the social-scientific disciplines under one academic roof was a novelty among [[Warsaw Pact]] states.
* Until 1990, a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] general with the service title ''Military Specialist'' was a representative of the Warsaw Pact United Armed Forces at the academy

The term ''special status'' also extends to the fact that the military academy, together with the others universities of the National People's Army, Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic, the other protection and security organs as well as the social organizations in the state official representations (statistics, yearbooks, [[UNESCO]] reports) about the university landscape were left out.<ref>{{cite book |author=Anke Burkhardt |editor=HoF Wittenberg |title=Militär- und Polizeihochschulen in der DDR: Wissenschaftliche Dokumentation |volume=Arbeitsberichte 2´00 |location=Wittenberg|at=pp. 7 ff.|date=2000|language=de}}</ref>

=== Leadership Structure ===
'''Head'''

The military academy was subordinate to the Minister of National Defense of East Germany, who entrusted the duty supervision to one of his deputies. The academy was headed by a commander from 1959 to 1970 and then a chief from 1970 to 1990.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |series=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe) |location=Dresden |pages=36 ff. |date=2008|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Jahn |author2=Roland Jäntsch |author3=Siegfried Heinze  |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“: Historischer Abriss |edition=1 |publisher=Militärverlag der DDR (VEB) |location=Berlin |date=1988 |language=de}}</ref><ref>Klaus Froh, Rüdiger Wenzke: ''Die Generale und Admirale der NVA. Ein biographisches Handbuch.'' 4. Auflage. Ch. Links, Berlin 2000 ISBN 3-86153-209-3. p. 288.</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe) |location=Dresden|pages=22 ff. |date=2008 |language=de}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
!{{Abbr|No.|Number}}
!Picture
! width="150" |Name
{{small|(Birth–Death)}}
! width="150" |Took office
! width="150" |Left office
!'''Rank'''
|-
! colspan="5" align="center" |List of Commanders/Chiefs of the Friedrich Engels Military Academy
!
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |1
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Heinrich Dollwetzel]]'''

(1912–1966)
|1 October 1958
|30 September 1959
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |2
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Fritz Johne]]'''
(1911–1989)
|1 October 1959
|31 May 1963
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |3
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Heinrich Heitsch]]'''
(1916–1986)
|1 June 1963
|30 April 1964
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |4
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Hans Weisner]]'''
(1925–2013)
|1 May 1964
|10 December 1986
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |5
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Manfred Gehmert]]'''
(1931–2020)
|11 December 1986
|28 February 1990
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |6
|
|'''[[Hans Suss (general)|Hans Suss]]'''

(1935–2009)
|1 March 1990
|30 September 1990
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |7
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Gerhard Kolitsch]]'''
(?–?)
|1 October 1990
|31 December 1990
|[[Colonel]]
|}

=== University Structure ===
The Friedrich Engels Military Academy was unique among Warsaw Pact nations due to its internal structure. All branches of the National People's Army and their sub-branches were under one academic roof. The sections and chairs of the military and military-technical scientific areas were primarily structured according to armed forces, branches of service and military services.

The university structure was subject to multiple changes. In 1990, there were 73 professors or chairs at the military academy. The amount of chairs fluctuated depending on the amount of students. At its lowest point, there were 44 chairs.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wolfgang Demmer |editor-surname1= Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V. |title=Der Lehrstuhl als Zentrum für Lehre, Forschung und wissenschaftliche Qualifizierung |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 |location=Dresden |pages=48–55 |issn=1436-6010 |date=2009 |language=de}}</ref>

The academy was divided into faculties (called ''sections'' after 1970), which in turn were divided were divided into chairs. Their leaders were under the command of the military academy; they were the direct superiors of the officers' hearers themselves. Initially, only the officer's office of the disciplines (or uses, later: profiles) were assigned to four faculties:

* General leadership
* Artillery
* Tank engineer service
* Back services
From 1960, the chairs and officer listeners were classified into the following faculties:<ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Jahn |author2=Roland Jäntsch |author3=Siegfried Heinze |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“: Historischer Abriss |location=Berlin |pages=29 ff. |date=1988 |language=de}}</ref>

* Land Forces Faculty
* Tank Engineer Service Faculty
* Air Forces/ Air Defense Faculty
* Social Sciences Faculty
* Naval Forces Faculty

The Social Sciences Faculty was entrusted with the academic training of all political officers in the armed forces in accordance with the three-year program of the [[Parteihochschule Karl Marx]] and the [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] basic courses for the officers.

== References ==
<references />

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:National People's Army]]
[[Category:1959 establishments in East Germany]]
[[Category:1990 disestablishments in Germany]]
[[Category:Staff colleges]]
[[Category:Military_academies_of_Germany]]

Draft:Friedrich Engels Military Academy

2021-03-06T21:43:09Z

Pudeo: Pudeo moved page Draft:Friedrich Engels Military Academy to Friedrich Engels Military Academy: Decent enough to be in mainspace, having been a draft for more than 6 months. Any editor may publish a draft.

#REDIRECT [[Friedrich Engels Military Academy]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}

Friedrich Engels Military Academy

2021-03-06T21:43:08Z

{{AFC comment|1=use only one of dmy dates and mdy dates. —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 08:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)}}
{{use dmy dates|date=January 2021}}
{{Infobox university
| name = Friedrich Engels Military Academy
| native_name = Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“
| image = File:Luftgaukommando dresden1.jpg
| caption = The former campus in 2008
| established = 5 January 1959
| closed = 31 December 1990
| affiliation = [[Ministry of National Defense (East Germany)|Ministry of National Defense]]
| chairman = Commander/Chief of the Academy
| students = Graduates: 6290 officers including 181 from foreign nations
| city = [[Dresden]], [[East Germany]]
}}

The '''Friedrich Engels Military Academy''' ([[German language|German]]: Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“) was the first military institution founded in [[East Germany]] and the highest leveled military teaching and research institution. Located in [[Dresden]], the academy was the center of [[military science]] of East Germany.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Friedrich Engels Military Academy|url=https://clever-geek.github.io/articles/7447133/index.html|access-date=2020-06-26|website=clever-geek.github.io}}</ref>

The academy was formed on January 5, 1959, to provide training and military-related studies to officers of all branches of the newly-formed [[National People's Army]] (NVA), [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic]], and other security organs as well as armed forces from other nations. The academy's training was comparable to military academies in the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Simon|first=Jeffrey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n02fDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=Friedrich+Engels+military+academy&source=bl&ots=KKsHYE3Rxc&sig=ACfU3U08MKBukHJvLdxAElyPutinuLyPxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc4cnMxJ_qAhXPhHIEHZ7PAjUQ6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Friedrich%20Engels%20military%20academy&f=false|title=Security Implications Of Nationalism In Eastern Europe|last2=Gilberg|first2=Trond|date=2019-06-26|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-000-31110-5|language=en}}</ref> In addition to training and research for the implementation of the defense policy of East Germany, the Friedrich Engels Military Academy also focused on the maintenance of the military-scientific heritage and the development to the center of military-scientific work.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ulbricht|first=Walter|title=On the opening of the first socialist military academy in the history of Germany. Opening lecture at the military academy of the National People's Army "Friedrich Engels"|publisher=|year=1959|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>

== History ==

=== Before foundation ===
Foundations for what would become the Friedrich Engels Military Academy were set in February 1949 by the ''University of the German Administration of the Interior'', which was relocated from [[Berlin]] to the village of Kochstedt in [[Saxony-Anhalt]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Burkhardt|first=Anke|title=Military and police universities in the GDR|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>

On November 15, 1949, the teaching company opened and was renamed to the ''Kochstedt Officers' School of Central Administration Training of the Ministry of the Interior'', under the leadership of Chief Inspector of the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Barracked People's Police]] [[Walter Freytag]].

From September of 1952, the academy was renamed the ''Higher Officer School of the Ministry of the Interior''. The location also moved from Kochstedt to [[Dresden]] and continued to be led by Lieutenant General Walter Freytag.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Demmer|first=Prof Dr Wolfgang|last2=Haueis|first2=Dr Eberhard|date=2018-11-09|title=Militärakademie 'Friedrich Engels' der Nationalen Volksarmee der DDR|url=https://slub.qucosa.de/landing-page/?tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=https://slub.qucosa.de/api/qucosa%253A32155/mets|language=de}}</ref>

Soon after in 1953 it was renamed to the ''College of the Barracked People's Police'' (KVP). Colonel [[Wilhelm Adam|Wilheim Adam]], former adjutant to the commander-in-chief of the 6th Army of the [[Wehrmacht]], post-1945 Minister of Finance of the State of [[Saxony]], and member of the [[Volkskammer]], took over the post of commander of the university.
[[File:Hochschule_der_KVP,_Dresden-Urkundenübergabe_ca._1955.jpg|thumb|College of the [[Kasernierte Volkspolizei|Barracked People's Police (KVP)]] certificate presentation, circa 1955. ]]
The former [[Generalfeldmarschall]] [[Friedrich Paulus]] used to give lectures at the university after his return from captivity, and by 1954, he led a small working group called the ''War History Research Center in Dresden''. His small working group eventually became the foundations for the Institute for German Military History, which was later renamed the [[Military History Institute of the German Democratic Republic]] in 1972.<ref>{{cite book |author=Jürgen Angelow |editor1= Thomas Kühne |editor2=Benjamin Zimmermann |chapter=Was ist Militärgeschichte? Reihe Krieg in der Geschichte (KRiG)|title=Forschung in ungelüfteten Räumen: Anmerkungen zur Militärgeschichtsschreibung der ehemaligen DDR |volume=6 |location=Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich |page=77 |isbn=3-506-74475-5 |date=2000|language=de}}</ref>

When the [[National People's Army]] (NVA) was formed by the [[Volkskammer]] on January 18, 1956, which effectively replaced the Barracked People's Police, allowed for the ''College for Officers of the NVA'' in Dresden to emerge as the highest military teaching facility in [[East Germany]]. Colonel Wilheim Adam became the first commander; followed by Major General [[Heinrich Dollwetzel]] from April 1, 1958. This also effectively allowed the NVA to take over the politically reliable and technically competent officers of the Barracked People's Police.

The university was commissioned to raise the scientific level of training in all subject areas in order to create the conditions for a military academy. When it was founded, the chairs of social science training, infantry training, artillery training and tank training were created. In addition to the two-year courses, in which officers who were already experienced in the troop service were trained as regimental commanders , their deputies and chiefs of staff for motor gunner , tank and artillery units, heads of special troops and services, the university carried out one-year qualification courses for senior officers.

After the West German [[Bundeswehr]] joined [[NATO]] in 1955, the National People's Army joined the rivaling [[Warsaw Pact]] on May 24, 1958. A formal military academy had to be established to train the National People's Army up to Warsaw Pact standards and requirements.<ref name=":1">Siehe Rolf Lehmann: ''Die Militärakademie der DDR in Dresden – Struktur und Auftrag.'' In: Dresdner Geschichtsverein e. V. (Hrsg.), ''Dresdner Hefte'', Heft 53, Dresden 1998, Januar, S. 65–69.</ref>

Ministerial order 52/58 began in May of 1958, which called for the conversion of the college for officers into a military academy. According to the decision of the Council of Ministers of November 28, 1958, it was to become the first military institution to be granted the right to confer the academic degree of "diploma military scientist" and "diploma engineer" and to set up scientific aspirations.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |publisher=Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V. |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe)|page=14 |language=de}}</ref>

=== Foundation ===
[[File:Logo_Militärakademie_der_Nationalen_Volksarmee_Friedrich_Engels.jpg|thumb|Medal of the Friedrich Engels Military Academy]]
The founding of the new military academy was not an instant decision, but more of a reaction to the [[arms race]] during the Cold War and the establishment of the [[Bundeswehr Command and Staff College]]. The military academy's leadership had a particularly close relationship with the [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany|Socialist Unity Party]] leadership, whose political leadership claim was secured by Article 1 of the [[Constitution of East Germany]]. This can be evidenced by the awarding of the honorary name "[[Friedrich Engels]]" to the academy. The Friedrich Engels Military Academy was officially founded on January 5, 1959.<ref>{{Cite web|title=NVA Academy Badges|url=https://www.onvauc.org/nva-academy-badges|access-date=2020-06-26|website=onvauc|language=en}}</ref><ref>Siehe Walter Ulbricht: ''Zur Eröffnung der ersten sozialistischen Militärakademie in der Geschichte Deutschlands. Eröffnungsvorlesung an der Militärakademie der Nationalen Volksarmee „Friedrich Engels“ am 5. Januar 1959 .'' In: Zeitschrift ''Militärwesen,'' Sonderheft, Berlin 1959. URL: https://www.vtnvagt.de/images/MAK-OHS/mw_1959.pdf</ref><gallery>
File:Fahnenübergabe an die Militärakademie, MfNV GenO Willy Stoph, 5. Jan. 1959, Dresden.jpg|Handover of flags to the Military Academy by [[Willi Stoph]], January 5, 1959
File:Anheften der Fahnnenschleife „Kampforden in Gold“ für die Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“ 1969.jpg|Flag loop for "Battle Order in Gold", awarded by [[Heinz Kessler]] on January 10, 1969.
File:Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1969, Enthüllung des Denkmals für Friedrich Engels im Innenhof vor Eingang F.jpg|[[Friedrich Engels]] statue in the courtyard of the front enterance of the Military Academy, commemorating 20 years of the German Democratic Republic on October 10, 1969
</gallery>A permanent political-ideological education and social science qualification arose from East Germany's political environment. A clear commitment to the Socialist Unity Party's policy was expected from the teaching staff and the officer hearers. It was not until the mid-1980s that their influence eroded and finally led to the dissolution of the Socialist Unity Party party organizations in the [[National People's Army]] and the [[Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic]], including the Friedrich Engels Military Academy in December 1989.

=== Status ===
The military academy had the legal status of a university in East Germany and thus had the right to award graduates and aspirants with academic degrees, such as Graduate Military Scientist, Graduate Engineer, Graduate Social Scientist, Graduate Teacher, and so forth.

The military academy belonged to the second sector of the East German university system, to the so-called universities with special status. However, due to its integration with the National People's Army, there were a few significant differences from civilian universities.

* The responsibilities of the [[Ministry of Higher and Technical Education (East Germany)|Ministry of Higher and Technical Education]] were essentially transferred to the [[Ministry of National Defence (East Germany)|Ministry of National Defense]], who, in consultation with the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education, issued regulations for the enforcement of statutory university regulations.
* Unlike other universities in East Germany, the rector, the protectors (deputy of the boss), the section directors, and the deans could not be elected. The military academy executives were generals and officers and were assigned to their positions by order/rank.
* The students (officer hearers, around 30 years of age) and course participants were officers and generals who had already completed a technical or university degree and had gained professional experience.
* Military teaching and research subjects were largely subject to military secrecy.
* Although the Friedrich Engels Military Academy was based on the image of Soviet military academies, the merging of all branches of the armed forces, the military-technical and the social-scientific disciplines under one academic roof was a novelty among [[Warsaw Pact]] states.
* Until 1990, a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] general with the service title ''Military Specialist'' was a representative of the Warsaw Pact United Armed Forces at the academy

The term ''special status'' also extends to the fact that the military academy, together with the others universities of the National People's Army, Border Troops of the German Democratic Republic, the other protection and security organs as well as the social organizations in the state official representations (statistics, yearbooks, [[UNESCO]] reports) about the university landscape were left out.<ref>{{cite book |author=Anke Burkhardt |editor=HoF Wittenberg |title=Militär- und Polizeihochschulen in der DDR: Wissenschaftliche Dokumentation |volume=Arbeitsberichte 2´00 |location=Wittenberg|at=pp. 7 ff.|date=2000|language=de}}</ref>

=== Leadership Structure ===
'''Head'''

The military academy was subordinate to the Minister of National Defense of East Germany, who entrusted the duty supervision to one of his deputies. The academy was headed by a commander from 1959 to 1970 and then a chief from 1970 to 1990.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |series=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe) |location=Dresden |pages=36 ff. |date=2008|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Jahn |author2=Roland Jäntsch |author3=Siegfried Heinze  |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“: Historischer Abriss |edition=1 |publisher=Militärverlag der DDR (VEB) |location=Berlin |date=1988 |language=de}}</ref><ref>Klaus Froh, Rüdiger Wenzke: ''Die Generale und Admirale der NVA. Ein biographisches Handbuch.'' 4. Auflage. Ch. Links, Berlin 2000, [[Spezial:ISBN-Suche/3861532093|ISBN 3-86153-209-3]]. S. 288.</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Demmer |author2=Eberhard Haueis |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“, 1959–1990: Eine Dokumentation |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 (Sonderausgabe) |location=Dresden|pages=22 ff. |date=2008 |language=de}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
!{{Abbr|No.|Number}}
!Picture
! width="150" |Name
{{small|(Birth–Death)}}
! width="150" |Took office
! width="150" |Left office
!'''Rank'''
|-
! colspan="5" align="center" |List of Commanders/Chiefs of the Friedrich Engels Military Academy
!
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |1
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Heinrich Dollwetzel]]'''

(1912–1966)
|1 October 1958
|30 September 1959
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |2
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Fritz Johne]]'''
(1911–1989)
|1 October 1959
|31 May 1963
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |3
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Heinrich Heitsch]]'''
(1916–1986)
|1 June 1963
|30 April 1964
|[[Major general]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |4
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Hans Weisner]]'''
(1925–2013)
|1 May 1964
|10 December 1986
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |5
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Manfred Gehmert]]'''
(1931–2020)
|11 December 1986
|28 February 1990
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |6
|
|'''[[Hans Suss (general)|Hans Suss]]'''

(1935–2009)
|1 March 1990
|30 September 1990
|[[Lieutenant general|Lieutenant General]]
|-
! style="background:{{Workers' Party of Korea/meta/color}}; color:white;" |7
|[[File:Coat_of_arms_of_NVA_(East_Germany).svg|95x95px]]
|'''[[Gerhard Kolitsch]]'''
(?–?)
|1 October 1990
|31 December 1990
|[[Colonel]]
|}

=== University Structure ===
The Friedrich Engels Military Academy was unique among Warsaw Pact nations due to its internal structure. All branches of the National People's Army and their sub-branches were under one academic roof. The sections and chairs of the military and military-technical scientific areas were primarily structured according to armed forces, branches of service and military services.

The university structure was subject to multiple changes. In 1990, there were 73 professors or chairs at the military academy. The amount of chairs fluctuated depending on the amount of students. At its lowest point, there were 44 chairs.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wolfgang Demmer |editor-surname1= Dresdener Studiengemeinschaft Sicherheitspolitik e. V. |title=Der Lehrstuhl als Zentrum für Lehre, Forschung und wissenschaftliche Qualifizierung |volume=DSS-Arbeitspapiere |issue=95 |location=Dresden |pages=48–55 |issn=1436-6010 |date=2009 |language=de}}</ref>

The academy was divided into faculties (called ''sections'' after 1970), which in turn were divided were divided into chairs. Their leaders were under the command of the military academy; they were the direct superiors of the officers' hearers themselves. Initially, only the officer's office of the disciplines (or uses, later: profiles) were assigned to four faculties:

* General leadership
* Artillery
* Tank engineer service
* Back services
From 1960, the chairs and officer listeners were classified into the following faculties:<ref>{{cite book |author1=Wolfgang Jahn |author2=Roland Jäntsch |author3=Siegfried Heinze |title=Militärakademie „Friedrich Engels“: Historischer Abriss |location=Berlin |pages=29 ff. |date=1988 |language=de}}</ref>

* Land Forces Faculty
* Tank Engineer Service Faculty
* Air Forces/ Air Defense Faculty
* Social Sciences Faculty
* Naval Forces Faculty

The Social Sciences Faculty was entrusted with the academic training of all political officers in the armed forces in accordance with the three-year program of the [[Parteihochschule Karl Marx]] and the [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] basic courses for the officers.

== References ==
<references />

{{Drafts moved from mainspace|date=June 2020}}

User talk:2A02:8108:8A80:3930:E804:DEC9:3062:D2F7

2021-03-06T20:33:09Z

Pudeo: General note: Introducing factual errors on :Continuation War.

== March 2021 ==

[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]]. Your recent edit(s) to the page [[:Continuation War]] appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cite a reliable source]] or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:Pudeo|my talk page]]. Thank you.  [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''

Continuation War

2021-03-06T20:32:34Z

Pudeo: Reverted 2 edits by 2A02:8108:8A80:3930:E804:DEC9:3062:D2F7 (talk): Misinformed changes.

{{short description|1941–1944 Finnish war against USSR}}
{{good article}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2018}}
{{Use British English|date=April 2018}}
{{Use shortened footnotes|date=January 2018}}
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict = Continuation War
| partof = the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front]] of [[World War II]]
| image = Finnish soldiers 1944.jpg
| image_size = 300
| caption = Finnish soldiers at the defensive [[VT-line]] during the Soviet [[Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive]] in June 1944
| date = 25 June 1941 – 19 September 1944 ({{Age in years, months, weeks and days|month1=06|day1=25|year1=1941|month2=09|day2=19|year2=1944}})
| place = [[Finland]], [[Karelia]], and [[Murmansk]] area
| territory = * [[Pechengsky District|Petsamo]] ceded to the USSR
* [[Porkkalanniemi|Porkkala Peninsula]] leased for 10 years
| result = Soviet victory<ref name="Mouritzen">{{cite book|last1=Mouritzen|first1=Hans|year=1997|title=External Danger and Democracy: Old Nordic Lessons and New European Challenges|location=Dartmouth |page=35|isbn=1855218852|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O7COAAAAMAAJ&q=soviet+victory|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222225812/https://books.google.ch/books?id=O7COAAAAMAAJ&dq=External+Danger+and+Democracy%3A+Old+Nordic+Lessons+and+New+European+Challenges&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=soviet+victory|archive-date=22 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}.</ref><ref name="Nordstrom">{{cite book|last1=Nordstrom|first1=Byron J.|year=2000|title=Scandinavia Since 1500|location=Minneapolis|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/scandinaviasince0000nord/page/316 316]|isbn=978-0816620982|url=https://archive.org/details/scandinaviasince0000nord/page/316|df=dmy-all}}.</ref><ref name="MorganCohen2005">{{cite book|first1=Kevin|last1=Morgan|first2=Gidon|last2=Cohen|first3=Andrew|last3=Flinn|title=Agents of the Revolution: New Biographical Approaches to the History of International Communism in the Age of Lenin and Stalin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=96X7piasCDkC&q=continuation+war+soviet+victory&pg=PA246|year=2005|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-3-03910-075-0|page=246|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180302150336/https://books.google.com/books?id=96X7piasCDkC&pg=PA246&dq=continuation+war+soviet+victory|archive-date=2 March 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>
* [[Moscow Armistice]]
| combatant1 = '''{{flag|Finland}}''' '''{{flagcountry|Nazi Germany}}'''<hr>{{flagcountry|Kingdom of Italy}}{{refn|Italian participation was limited to the four motor torpedo boats of the [[XII Squadriglia MAS]] serving in the international [[Naval Detachment K]] on [[Lake Ladoga]] during the summer and autumn of 1942.<ref name="MAS"/>|group="Note"}}
| combatant2 = '''{{flagcountry|Soviet Union|1936}}'''<hr />{{nowrap|{{flagcountry|United Kingdom}}{{refn|The United Kingdom formally declared war on Finland on 6 December 1941 along with four Commonwealth states largely for appearances' sake.{{sfn|Clements|2012|p=210}} Before that, the British conducted a [[Raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo|carrier raid at Petsamo]] on 31 July 1941<ref name="sturtivant"/> and commenced [[Operation Benedict]] to support air raids in the Murmansk area and train Soviet crews for roughly a month from September to October in 1941.<ref name="Benedict"/>|group="Note"}}}}
| commander1 = {{plainlist|
* {{Flagicon|Finland}} '''[[C.G.E. Mannerheim]]'''
* {{Flagicon|Finland}} [[Aksel Airo]]
* {{Flagicon|Finland}} [[Erik Heinrichs]]
* {{Flagicon|Finland}} [[Lennart Oesch]]
* {{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} [[Nikolaus von Falkenhorst|N. von Falkenhorst]]
* {{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} [[Eduard Dietl]]
* {{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} [[Lothar Rendulic]]
}}
| commander2 = {{plainlist|
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Markian Popov]]
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Filipp Gorelenko]]
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Leonid Govorov]]
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Mikhail Hozin]]
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Valerian A. Frolov|Valerian Frolov]]
* {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Kirill Meretskov]]
}}
| strength1 = '''Average:''' 450,000 Finns{{sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=173}} '''Peak:''' 700,000 Finns{{sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=173}} '''1941:''' 67,000 Germans{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|pp=9, 391–393}} {{nowrap|'''1944:''' 214,000 Germans{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|pp=9, 391–393}}}} 2,000 [[Finnish Infantry Regiment 200|Estonian volunteers]] 1,000 [[Swedish Volunteer Battalion|Swedish volunteers]] 99 [[XII Squadriglia MAS|Italian navy personnel]]
| strength2 = {{nowrap|'''Total:''' 900,000–1,500,000<ref name="Manninen">Manninen, Ohto, ''Molotovin cocktail- Hitlerin sateenvarjo'', 1994, Painatuskeskus, {{ISBN|951-37-1495-0}}</ref>}} '''June 1941:''' 450,000<ref name="Krivosheev"/> '''June 1944:''' 650,000{{sfn|Manninen|1994|p=277–282}}
| casualties1 = {{plainlist|

* '''Finnish'''
* 63,200 dead or missing{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}}
* 158,000 wounded{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}
* 2,370–3,500 [[Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union|captured]]<ref name="pikkujattilainen-malmi">{{cite book|last=Malmi| first=Timo|editor1-first=Jari|editor1-last=Leskinen|editor2-first=Antti|editor2-last=Juutilainen| title=Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen|edition=1st|publisher=Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö|year=2005| pages=1022–1032|chapter=Jatkosodan suomalaiset sotavangit|language=fi|isbn=9510286907}}</ref>
* ''225,000 total casualties''
* Not including civilian casualties
}}
{{plainlist|
* '''German'''
* 23,200 dead or missing
* 60,400 wounded
* ''84,000 total casualties''{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}}
* Not including civilian casualties
}}
| casualties2 = {{plainlist|

* '''Soviet'''
* 250,000–305,000 dead or missing<ref name="Krivosheev"/>{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}}
* 575,000 medical casualties (including 385,000 wounded and 190,000 sick)<ref name="Krivosheev"/>{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}
* 64,000 [[Soviet prisoners of war in Finland|captured]]{{sfn|Leskinen|Juutilainen|2005|p=1036}}
* ''890,000–944,000 total casualties''
* Not including civilian casualties, such as [[Siege of Leningrad]]}}
| notes =
| campaignbox = {{WWIITheatre}}{{Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War}}{{Campaignbox Scandinavia in World War II}}{{Campaignbox Finland 1941-1944}}{{Campaignbox Continuation War}}
}}

The '''Continuation War''' was a conflict fought by [[Finland]] and [[Nazi Germany]], against the [[Soviet Union]] (USSR) from 1941 to 1944, as a part of [[World War II]].{{refn|{{lang-fi|jatkosota}}; {{lang-sv|fortsättningskriget}}; {{lang-de|Fortsetzungskrieg}}. According to Finnish historian Olli Vehviläinen, the term 'Continuation War' was created at the start of the conflict by the Finnish government, to justify the invasion to the population as a continuation of the defensive [[Winter War]] and separate from the German war effort. He titled the chapter addressing the issue in his book as "Finland's War of Retaliation". Vehviläinen asserted that the reality of this claim changed when the Finnish forces crossed the 1939 frontier and started annexation operations.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=91}} The US Library of Congress catalogue also lists the variants '''War of Retribution''' and '''War of Continuation''' (see authority control).|group="Note"}} In Soviet historiography, the war was called the '''Finnish Front of the Great Patriotic War'''.{{refn|{{lang-ru|Советско-финский фронт Великой Отечественной войны}}. Alternatively the '''Soviet–Finnish War 1941–1944''' ({{lang-ru|Советско–финская война 1941–1944|links=no}}).<ref name="SovEncyclo">{{Cite book|title=Great Soviet Encyclopedia|publisher=MacMillan Publishing Company|year=1974|isbn=0028800109|chapter=Finland}}</ref>|group="Note"}} Germany regarded its operations in the region as part of its overall war efforts on the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Eastern Front]] and provided Finland with critical material support and military assistance, including economic aid.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-08-15|title=RG 84: Finland|url=https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-finland.html|access-date=2020-08-02|website=National Archives|language=en}}</ref>


The Continuation War began 15 months after the end of the [[Winter War]], also fought between Finland and the USSR. There have been numerous reasons proposed for the Finnish decision to invade, with regaining territory lost during the Winter War being regarded as the most common. Other justifications for the conflict included [[Risto Ryti|President Ryti]]'s vision of a [[Greater Finland]] and Commander-in-Chief [[Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim|Mannerheim]]'s desire to annex [[East Karelia]]. Plans for the attack were developed jointly between the ''[[Wehrmacht]]'' and a faction of Finnish political and military leaders with the rest of the government remaining ignorant. Despite the co-operation in this conflict, Finland never formally signed the [[Tripartite Pact]], though they did sign the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]]. Finland's leadership justified their alliance with Germany as self-defence.

In June 1941, with the start of the German [[Operation Barbarossa|invasion of the Soviet Union]], the Finnish Defence Forces launched their offensive following Soviet airstrikes. By September 1941, Finland had regained its post–Winter War concessions to the Soviet Union: the [[Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941)|Karelian Isthmus]] and [[Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia (1941)|Ladoga Karelia]]. However, the Finnish Army continued the offensive past the pre-1939 border with the [[Finnish invasion of East Karelia (1941)|conquest of East Karelia]], including [[Petrozavodsk]], as well as halting only around {{Convert|30-32|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the centre of [[Leningrad]], where they participated in [[Siege of Leningrad|besieging the city]] by cutting its northern supply routes and digging in until 1944.{{refn|See the relevant section and the following sources:<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p3FAAAAAIAAJ |title=The Siege of Leningrad: Epic of Survival|last=Wykes|first=Alan|publisher=Ballantine Books |year=1968 |isbn=9780356029580|pages=9–21|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite book |title=The World War II Desk Reference |last=Brinkley |first=Douglas |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2004 |isbn=9780060526511 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/worldwariideskre00brin/page/210 210] |url=https://archive.org/details/worldwariideskre00brin/page/210 }}</ref>{{Sfn|Baryshnikov|2002|p=}}{{sfn|Salisbury|2003|p=246|ps=: "This line was only twenty miles from the Leningrad city limits."}}<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/battleforleningr00glan/page/416|title=The Battle for Leningrad: 1941–1944|last=Glantz|first=David M.|date=2002|publisher=University Press of Kansas|isbn=9780700612086|pages=[https://archive.org/details/battleforleningr00glan/page/416 416]|language=en|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_oHRAwAAQBAJ|title=Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front: The German Infantry's War, 1941–1944 |last=Rutherford|first=Jeff|date=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107055711|pages=190|language=en|quote=The ensnaring of Leningrad between the German and Finnish armies did not end the combat in the region as the Soviets launched repeated and desperate attempts to regain contact with the city.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180227153427/https://books.google.ch/books?id=_oHRAwAAQBAJ |archive-date=27 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8iQuDwAAQBAJ|title=Leningrad 1941–42: Morality in a City under Siege |last=Yarov |first=Sergey|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|others=Foreword by John Barber|year=2017|isbn=9781509508020|pages=7|language=en|quote=While the exact number who died during the siege by the German and Finnish armies from 8 September 1941 to 27 January 1944 will never be known, available data point to 900,000 civilian deaths, over half a million of whom died in the winter of 1941–2 alone.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180227153547/https://books.google.ch/books?id=8iQuDwAAQBAJ|archive-date=27 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|group="Note"}} In [[Lapland (Finland)|Lapland]], joint German–Finnish forces [[Operation Silver Fox|failed to capture]] [[Murmansk]] or cut the Kirov (Murmansk) Railway, a transit route for [[Lend-Lease|lend-lease]] equipment to the USSR. The conflict stabilised with only minor skirmishes until the tide of the war turned against the Germans and the Soviet Union's strategic [[Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive]] in June 1944. The attack drove the Finns from most of the territories they had gained during the war, but the Finnish Army halted the offensive in August 1944.

Hostilities between Finland and the USSR ended with a ceasefire, which was called on 5 September 1944, formalised by the signing of the [[Moscow Armistice]] on 19 September 1944. One of the conditions of this agreement was the expulsion, or disarming, of any German troops in Finnish territory, which led to the [[Lapland War]] between Finland and Germany. World War II was concluded formally for Finland and the minor Axis powers with the signing of the [[Paris Peace Treaties, 1947|Paris Peace Treaties]] in 1947. The treaties resulted in the restoration of borders per the 1940 [[Moscow Peace Treaty]], the ceding of the municipality of [[Pechengsky District|Petsamo]] ({{Lang-ru|Пе́ченгский райо́н}}, ''Pechengsky raion'') and the leasing of [[Porkkalanniemi|Porkkala Peninsula]] to the USSR. Furthermore, Finland was required to pay [[United States dollar|$]]300 million in [[Finnish war reparations to the Soviet Union|war reparations to the USSR]], accept partial responsibility for the war, and acknowledge that they had been a German ally.<ref name="Paris" /><ref name="Tallgren1">{{cite journal |last1=Tallgren |first1=Immi |title=Martyrs and Scapegoats of the Nation? The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial, 1945–1946 |journal=Historical Origins of International Criminal Law |date=2014 |volume=2 |issue=21 |page=512 |url=https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/50a462/pdf/ |access-date=25 October 2020}}</ref>

Casualties were 63,200 Finns and 23,200 Germans dead or missing during the war, in addition to 158,000 and 60,400 wounded, respectively. Estimates of dead or missing Soviets range from 250,000 to 305,000 while 575,000 have been estimated to have been wounded or fallen sick.

{{TOC limit|3}}

==Background==

===Winter War===
{{Main|Winter War|Interim Peace}}
On 23 August 1939, the Soviet Union (USSR) and Germany signed the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]], in which the two parties agreed to divide the independent countries of Finland, [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]], [[Polish Second Republic|Poland]], and [[Kingdom of Romania|Romania]] into [[spheres of interest]], with Finland falling within the Soviet sphere.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=30}} One week later, Germany [[Invasion of Poland|invaded Poland]], leading to the United Kingdom and [[French Third Republic|France]] declaring war on Germany. The Soviet Union [[Soviet invasion of Poland|invaded eastern Poland]] on 17 September.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=31}} Moscow turned its attention to the [[Baltic states]], demanding that they allow Soviet military bases to be established and troops stationed on their soil. The Baltic governments [[Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states|acquiesced to these demands]] and signed agreements in September and October.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=33}}

[[File:Finnish flag at half-mast interim peace Helsinki 1940.jpg|thumb|left|Finnish flags at [[half-mast]] in Helsinki on 13 March 1940 after the Moscow Peace Treaty became public]]

In October 1939, the Soviet Union attempted to negotiate with Finland to cede Finnish territory on the [[Karelian Isthmus]] and the islands of the [[Gulf of Finland]], and to establish a Soviet military base near the Finnish capital of [[Helsinki]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=39}} The Finnish government refused, and the [[Red Army]] invaded Finland on 30 November 1939.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=44}} The USSR was expelled from the [[League of Nations]] and was condemned by the international community for the illegal attack.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=49}} [[Foreign support in the Winter War|Foreign support for Finland]] was promised, but very little actual help materialised, except from Sweden.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=65}} The [[Moscow Peace Treaty (1940)|Moscow Peace Treaty]] concluded the 105-day Winter War on 13 March 1940 and started the [[Interim Peace]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=69}} By the terms of the treaty, Finland ceded 11 percent of its national territory and 13 percent of its economic capacity to the Soviet Union.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=215}} Some 420,000 evacuees were resettled from the ceded territories.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=75}} Finland avoided total conquest of the country by the Soviet Union and retained its sovereignty.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=70}}

Prior to the war, Finnish foreign policy had been based on [[multilateralism|multilateral]] guarantees of support from the League of Nations and [[Nordic countries]], but this policy was considered a failure.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=74}} After the war, Finnish public opinion favored the reconquest of [[Finnish Karelia]]. The government declared national defence to be its first priority, and military expenditure rose to nearly half of public spending. Finland purchased and received donations of war materiel during and immediately after the Winter War.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=75}} Likewise, Finnish leadership wanted to preserve the [[Spirit of the Winter War|spirit of unanimity]] that was felt throughout the country during the Winter War. The divisive [[White Guard (Finland)|White Guard]] tradition of the [[Finnish Civil War]]'s 16 May victory-day celebration was therefore discontinued.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=76}}

The Soviet Union had received the [[Hanko Naval Base]], on Finland's southern coast near the capital Helsinki, where it deployed over 30,000 Soviet military personnel.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=75}} Relations between Finland and the Soviet Union remained strained after the signing of the one-sided peace treaty, and there were disputes regarding the implementation of the treaty. Finland sought security against further territorial depredations by the USSR and proposed [[Mutual Defense Treaty|mutual defence agreements]] with [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], but these initiatives were quashed by Moscow.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=77}}{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=216}}

===German and Soviet expansion in Europe===
{{see also|Germany–Soviet Union relations before 1941}}
[[File:Spb 06-2017 img02 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpg|thumb|[[Vasilyevsky Island|Vasilievsky Island]] of St. Petersburg, pictured in 2017. During the Winter and Continuation Wars, Leningrad, as it was then known, was of strategic importance to both sides.]]
After the Winter War, Germany was viewed with distrust by the Finnish, as it was considered an ally of the Soviet Union.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}} Nonetheless, the [[Finnish Government|Finnish government]] sought to restore diplomatic relations with Germany, but also continued its Western-orientated policy and negotiated a war trade agreement with the United Kingdom.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=77}} The agreement was renounced after the [[Operation Weserübung|German invasion of Denmark and Norway]] on 9 April 1940 resulted in the UK cutting all trade and traffic communications with the Nordic countries. With the [[Battle of France|fall of France]], a Western orientation was no longer considered a viable option in Finnish foreign policy.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=78}} On 15 and 16 June, the Soviet Union [[Occupation of the Baltic states|occupied the Baltic states]] without resistance and Soviet [[Puppet state|puppet regimes]] were installed. Within two months Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were incorporated into the USSR as Soviet republics and by mid-1940, the two remaining northern democracies, Finland and Sweden, were encircled by the hostile states of Germany and the Soviet Union.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=79}}

On 23 June, shortly after the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states began, Soviet Foreign Minister [[Vyacheslav Molotov]] contacted the Finnish government demanding that a mining licence be issued to the USSR for the nickel mines in the municipality of [[Pechengsky District|Petsamo]] ({{lang-ru|Pechengsky raion}}) or, alternatively, permit the establishment of a joint Soviet-Finnish company to operate there. A licence to mine the deposit had already been granted to a British-Canadian company, and the demand was rejected by Finland. The following month, the Soviets demanded that Finland destroy the fortifications on the [[Åland islands]] and grant the USSR the right to use Finnish railways to transport Soviet troops to the newly acquired Soviet base at Hanko. The Finns very reluctantly agreed to these demands.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=80}} On 24 July, Molotov accused the Finnish government of persecuting the [[Finland – Soviet Union Peace and Friendship Society]], a pro-communist group, and soon afterwards publicly declared support for the group. The society organised demonstrations in Finland, some of which turned into riots.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=81}}{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=218}}

Russian sources, such as the book ''[[Stalin's Missed Chance]]'', maintain that Soviet policies leading up to the Continuation War were best explained as defensive measures by offensive means. The Soviet division of occupied Poland with Germany, the Soviet [[Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic|occupations of Lithuania]], [[Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940|Latvia]] and [[Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic|Estonia]], and the Soviet invasion of Finland in the Winter War are described as elements in the Soviet construction of a security zone, or buffer region, against the perceived threat from the [[capitalism|capitalist]] powers of Western Europe. The Russian sources see the post-World War II establishment of Soviet [[satellite state]]s in the [[Warsaw Pact]] countries and the [[Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948]] as the culmination of the Soviet defence plan.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Baryshnikov|first=Vladimir N.|date=2002|title=Проблема обеспечения безопасности Ленинграда с севера в свете осуществления советского военного планирования 1932–1941 гг|trans-title=The problem of ensuring the security of Leningrad from the north in the light of the implementation of the Soviet military planning of 1932–1941|url=http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/baryshnikov/pvp1932.php|journal=St. Petersburg and the Countries of Northern Europe|language=ru|publisher=Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy|location=St. Petersburg|quote=The actual war with Finland began first of all due to unresolved issues in Leningrad's security from the north and Moscow's concerns for the perspective of Finland's politics. At the same time, a desire to claim better strategic positions in case of a war with Germany had surfaced within the Soviet leadership.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071209184336/http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/baryshnikov/pvp1932.php|archive-date=9 December 2007|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/kozlov/part_01.php|title=Финская война. Взгляд "с той стороны"|last=Kozlov|first=Alexander I.|year=1997|language=ru|trans-title=The Finnish War: A look from the "other side"|quote=After the rise of National Socialism to power in Germany, the geopolitical importance of the former 'buffer states' had drastically changed. Both the Soviet Union and Germany vied for the inclusion of these states into their spheres of influence. Soviet politicians and military considered it likely, that in case of an aggression against the USSR, German Armed Forces will use the territory of the Baltic states and Finland as staging areas for invasion—by either conquering or coercing these countries. None of the states of the Baltic region, excluding Poland, had sufficient military power to resist a German invasion.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071209182941/http://www.aroundspb.ru/finnish/kozlov/part_01.php|archive-date=9 December 2007|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html|title=Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939–1941|last=Meltyukhov|first=Mikhail I.|publisher=Вече|year=2000|isbn=5-7838-0590-4|language=ru|trans-title=Stalin's Missed Chance – The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Europe: 1939–1941|quote=The English–French influence in the Baltics, characteristic for the '20s and early '30s, was increasingly limited by the growth of German influence. Due to the strategic importance of the region, the Soviet leadership also aimed to increase its influence there, using both diplomatic means as well as active social propaganda. By the end of the '30s, the main contenders for influence in the Baltics were Germany and the Soviet Union. Being a buffer zone between Germany and the USSR, the Baltic states were bound to them by a system of economic and non-aggression treaties of 1926, 1932 and 1939.|author-link=Mikhail Meltyukhov|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090728195213/http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html|archive-date=28 July 2009|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Western historians, such as [[Norman Davies]] and [[John Lukacs]], dispute this view and describe pre-war Soviet policy as an attempt to stay out of the war and regain land lost after the fall of the [[Russian Empire]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KzNrLAcGTW0C&q=Norman+Davies+soviet+russian+empire+%22no+simple+victory%22|title=Europe at War: 1939–1945 : No Simple Victory|last=Davies|first=Norman|date=2006|publisher=Macmillan|isbn=9780333692851|pages=137, 147|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221095946/https://books.google.ch/books?id=KzNrLAcGTW0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Norman+Davies+soviet+russian+empire+%22no+simple+victory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ_76azLXZAhWF_KQKHVtfAd8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Norman%20Davies%20soviet%20russian%20empire%20%22no%20simple%20victory%22&f=false|archive-date=21 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sVaE8ADw8-YC&q=John+Lukacs+russian+empire&pg=PA57|title=June 1941: Hitler and Stalin|last=Lukacs|first=John|date=2006|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=0300114370|pages=57|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221100731/https://books.google.ch/books?id=sVaE8ADw8-YC&pg=PA57&dq=John+Lukacs+russian+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiayq3MyLXZAhVD-aQKHbpFBbYQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=John%20Lukacs%20russian%20empire&f=false|archive-date=21 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

===Relations between Finland, Germany and the USSR===
{{Main|Operation Barbarossa}}
[[File:Europe before Operation Barbarossa, 1941 (in German).png|thumb|left|upright=1.2|The geopolitical status in Europe in May 1941:{{legend|seagreen|The United Kingdom and occupied areas}}{{legend|dimgray|Germany, its allies and occupied areas}}{{legend|brown|The Soviet Union and occupied areas}}]]

On 31 July 1940, German Chancellor [[Adolf Hitler]] gave the order to plan an assault on the Soviet Union, meaning Germany had to reassess its position regarding both Finland and [[Kingdom of Romania|Romania]]. Until then, Germany had rejected Finnish appeals to purchase arms, but with the prospect of an invasion of Russia, this policy was reversed, and in August the secret sale of weapons to Finland was permitted.{{sfn|Reiter|2009|p=132|pp=}} Military authorities signed an agreement on 12 September, and an official exchange of diplomatic notes was sent on 22 September. At the same time, German troops were [[Transit of German troops through Scandinavia (World War II)|allowed to transit]] through Sweden and Finland.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=220}} This change in policy meant Germany had effectively redrawn the border of the German and Soviet spheres of influence, violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=83}}

In response to this new situation, Molotov visited Berlin on 12–13 November 1940.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=219}} He requested that Germany withdraw its troops from Finland<ref>{{cite web|access-date=2020-06-22|title=The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II|url=https://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/vladimir-putin-real-lessons-75th-anniversary-world-war-ii-162982|quote=And on November 25 the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others.|author=Vladimir Putin|date=2020-06-18}}</ref> and stop enabling Finnish anti-Soviet sentiments. He also reminded the Germans of the 1939 Soviet–German non-aggression pact. Hitler inquired how the USSR planned to settle the "Finnish question", to which Molotov responded that it would mirror the events in [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina|Bessarabia]] and the Baltic states. Hitler rejected this course of action.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=84}} In December, the Soviet Union, Germany and the UK all voiced opinions concerning suitable Finnish presidential candidates. Risto Ryti was the sole candidate not objected to by any of the three powers and was elected on 19 December.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=85}}

[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1984-1206-523, Berlin, Verabschiedung Molotows.jpg|thumb|[[Joachim von Ribbentrop]] (right) bidding farewell to [[Vyacheslav Molotov]] in Berlin on 14 November 1940 after discussing Finland's coming fate]]

In January 1941, Moscow demanded Finland relinquish control of the Petsamo mining area to the Soviets, but Finland, emboldened by a rebuilt defence force and German support, rejected the proposition.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=85}} On 18 December 1940, Hitler officially approved Operation Barbarossa, paving the way for the German invasion of the Soviet Union,{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=221}} in which he expected both Finland and Romania to participate.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=86}} During this period, Finnish Major General [[Paavo Talvela]] met with German {{Lang|de|Generaloberst}} [[Franz Halder]] and {{Lang|de|Reichsmarschall}} [[Hermann Göring]] in Berlin. This was the first time the Germans had advised the Finnish government, in carefully couched diplomatic terms, that they were preparing for war with the Soviet Union. Outlines of the actual plan were revealed in January 1941 and regular contact between Finnish and German military leaders began in February.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=86}}

In the late spring of 1941, the USSR made a number of goodwill gestures to prevent Finland from completely falling under German influence. Ambassador [[Ivan Zotov]] was replaced with the more flexible [[Pavel Orlov (diplomat)|Pavel Orlov]]. Furthermore, the Soviet government announced that it no longer opposed a rapprochement between Finland and Sweden. These conciliatory measures, however, did not have any effect on Finnish policy.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=87}} Finland wished to re-enter World War II mainly because of the Soviet invasion of Finland during the Winter War, which had taken place after Finnish intentions of relying on the League of Nations and Nordic neutrality to avoid conflicts had failed from lack of outside support.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|p=9}} Finland primarily aimed to reverse its territorial losses from the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and, depending on the success of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, to possibly expand its borders, especially into [[East Karelia]]. Some right-wing groups, such as the [[Academic Karelia Society]], supported a [[Greater Finland]] ideology.{{sfn|Jokipii|1999|pp=145–146}}

===German and Finnish war plans===
The matter of when and why Finland prepared for war is still somewhat opaque. Historian [[William R. Trotter]] stated that "it has so far proven impossible to pinpoint the exact date on which Finland was taken into confidence about Operation Barbarossa" and that "neither the Finns nor the Germans were entirely candid with one another as to their national aims and methods. In any case, the step from contingency planning to actual operations, when it came, was little more than a formality."<ref name=":6">{{cite book|title=A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939–1940|url=https://archive.org/details/frozenhellrussof00trot|url-access=limited|last=Trotter|first=Willian R.|publisher=Algonquin Books|year=1991|isbn=978-1565122499|page=[https://archive.org/details/frozenhellrussof00trot/page/n226 226]}}</ref>

The inner circle of Finnish leadership, led by Ryti and Mannerheim, actively planned joint operations with Germany under a veil of ambiguous neutrality and without formal agreements, after an alliance with Sweden proved fruitless—according to a meta-analysis by Finnish historian [[Olli Vehviläinen]]. He likewise refuted the so-called "driftwood theory" that Finland was merely a piece of driftwood swept uncontrollably in the rapids of great-power politics. Even then, most historians conclude that Finland did not have any realistic alternatives to cooperating with Germany at the time.{{Sfn|Zeiler|DuBois|2012|pp=208–221}} On 20 May, the Germans invited a number of Finnish officers to discuss the coordination of Operation Barbarossa. The participants met on 25–28 May in [[Salzburg]] and Berlin, and continued their meeting in Helsinki from 3 to 6 June. They agreed upon the arrival of German troops, Finnish mobilization, and a general division of operations.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=87}} They also agreed that the Finnish Army would start [[mobilization]] on 15 June, but the Germans did not reveal the actual date of the assault. The Finnish decisions were made by the inner circle of political and military leaders, without the knowledge of the rest of the government, who were not informed until 9 June that mobilization of [[reservist]]s, due to tensions between Germany and the Soviet Union, would be required.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=221}}{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}}

===Finland's relationship with Germany===
Finland never signed the [[Tripartite Pact]], though they did sign the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]], a less formal alliance which the German leadership saw as a "litmus test of loyalty".<ref name="Goda1">{{cite journal |last1=Goda |first1=Norman J. W. |title=The diplomacy of the Axis, 1940–1945. |journal=The Cambridge History of the Second World War |date=2015 |pages=276–300 |doi=10.1017/CHO9781139524377.015 |isbn=9781139524377 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-second-world-war/diplomacy-of-the-axis-19401945/393C46700DD97A5A369609202C1A7572 |access-date=25 October 2020}}</ref> The Finnish leadership stated they would fight against the Soviets only to the extent necessary to redress the balance of the 1940 treaty, though some historians consider that they had wider territorial goals under the slogan "shorter borders, longer peace". During the war, the Finnish leadership generally referred to the Germans as "brothers-in-arms" whilst also denying that they were allies of Germany - instead claiming to be "co-belligerents".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stahel |first1=David |title=Joining Hitler's Crusade |date=2018 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1316510346 |page=8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VMk-DwAAQBAJ&q=Ryti |access-date=22 October 2020}}</ref> For Hitler, the distinction was irrelevant, as he saw Finland as an ally.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=102}} The 1947 Paris Peace Treaty signed by Finland described Finland as having been "an ally of Hitlerite Germany" during the Continuation War.<ref name ="Paris">{{cite web |title=Treaty of Peace With Finland |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435066406612&view=1up&seq=229&q1=Finland |access-date=23 October 2020 |page=229 |date=1947}}</ref><ref name="Tallgren1" /> In a 2008 poll of 28 Finnish historians carried out by ''[[Helsingin Sanomat]]'', 16 said that Finland had been an ally of Nazi Germany, six said it had not been, and six did not take a position.<ref name="Mäkinen1">{{cite news |last1=Mäkinen |first1=Esa |title=Historian professorit hautaavat pitkät kiistat |url=https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000004606365.html |access-date=7 February 2021 |work=Helsingin Sanomat |date=19 October 2008}}</ref>

==Order of battle and operational planning==

===Soviet===
{{Main|Red Army}}
[[File:Continuation War July 1941 English.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Finnish, German and Soviet military formations at the start of the Continuation War in June and July 1941]]

The [[Northern Front (Soviet Union)|Northern Front]] ({{lang-ru|Северный фронт|links=no}}) of the [[Leningrad Military District]] was commanded by Lieutenant General [[Markian Popov]] and numbered around 450,000 soldiers in 18 divisions and 40 independent battalions in the Finnish region.<ref name="Krivosheev" /> During the Interim Peace, the Soviet Military had relaid operational plans to conquer Finland,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EYA4AAAAQBAJ&q=finnish+leningrad+start&pg=PT133|title=The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II|last=Suvorov|first=Viktor|publisher=Naval Institute Press|year=2013|isbn=9781612512686|pages=133|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222225732/https://books.google.ch/books?id=EYA4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=finnish+leningrad+start&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioqsWPnbnZAhXFhrQKHVEUB6EQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=finnish%20leningrad%20start&f=false|archive-date=22 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref> but with Operation Barbarossa, the USSR required its best units and latest materiel to be deployed against the Germans, and thus abandoned plans for a renewed offensive against Finland.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=91}}{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|pp=153–154}} The [[23rd Army (Soviet Union)|23rd Army]] was deployed in the Karelian Isthmus, the [[7th Army (Soviet Union)|7th Army]] to Ladoga Karelia and the [[14th Army (Soviet Union)|14th Army]] to the [[Murmansk]]–[[Salla]] area of Lapland. The Northern Front also commanded eight [[Aviation Division|aviation divisions]].{{sfn|Kirchubel|2013|pp=114–115}} As the initial German strike against the [[Soviet Air Forces]] had not affected air units located near Finland, it could deploy around 700 aircraft supported by a number of [[Soviet Navy]] wings.{{sfn|Jokipii|1999|p=301}} The [[Baltic Fleet|Red Banner Baltic Fleet]] comprised 2 battleships, 2 light cruisers, 47 destroyers or large torpedo boats, 75 submarines, over 200 smaller craft as well as hundreds of aircraft—and outnumbered the ''[[Kriegsmarine]]''.{{sfn|Kirchubel|2013|p=151}}

===Finnish and German===
{{Main||Finnish Army|German Army (1935–1945)}}
The Finnish Army ({{Lang-fi|Maavoimat}}) mobilised between 475,000 and 500,000 soldiers in 14 divisions and 3 brigades for the invasion, commanded by Field Marshal ({{Lang|fi|sotamarsalkka}}) Mannerheim. The army was organised as follows:{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|pp=153–154}}{{sfn|Kirchubel|2013|pp=120–121}}{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|p=9}}
* II Corps ({{Lang|fi|II Armeijakunta}}, {{Lang|fi|II AK}}) and IV Corps: deployed to the Karelian Isthmus and comprised seven infantry divisions and one brigade.
* [[Army of Karelia]]: deployed north of Lake Ladoga and commanded by General [[Erik Heinrichs]]. It comprised VI Corps, VII Corps and Group Oinonen; a total of seven divisions, including the German 163rd Infantry Division, and three brigades.
* 14th Division: deployed in the [[Kainuu]] region, commanded directly by [[Defence Command (Finland)|Finnish Headquarters]] ({{Lang|fi|Päämaja}}).

Although initially deployed for a static defence, the Finnish Army was to later launch an attack to the south, on both sides of Lake Ladoga, putting pressure on Leningrad and thus supporting the advance of the German [[Army Group North]].{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|p=9}} Finnish intelligence had overestimated the strength of the Red Army, when in fact it was numerically inferior to Finnish forces at various points along the border.{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|pp=153-154}} The army, especially its artillery, was stronger than it had been during the Winter War but included only one armoured battalion and had a general lack of motorised transportation.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=90}} The [[Finnish Air Force]] ({{Lang|fi|Ilmavoimat}}) had 235 aircraft in July 1941 and 384 by September 1944, despite losses. Even with the increase in aircraft, the air force was constantly outnumbered by the Soviets.{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=168}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=339}}

The [[Army of Norway (Wehrmacht)|Army of Norway]], or {{Lang|de|AOK Norwegen}}, comprising four divisions totaling 67,000 German soldiers, held the arctic front, which stretched approximately {{convert|500|km|mi|abbr=on}} through Finnish Lapland. This army would also be tasked with striking Murmansk and the [[Kirov Railway|Kirov (Murmansk) Railway]] during [[Operation Silver Fox]]. The Army of Norway was under the direct command of the ''[[Oberkommando des Heeres]]'' ({{lang|de|OKH}}) and was organised into [[Mountain Corps Norway]] and [[XXXVI Mountain Corps (Wehrmacht)|XXXVI Mountain Corps]] with the Finnish [[Finnish III Corps (Continuation War)|Finnish III Corps]] and 14th Division attached to it.{{sfn|Kirchubel|2013|p=120-121}}{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|p=9}}{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=90}} The ''[[Oberkommando der Luftwaffe]]'' ({{lang|de|OKL}}) assigned 60 aircraft from ''[[Luftflotte 5]]'' (Air Fleet 5) to provide air support to the Army of Norway and the Finnish Army, in addition to its main responsibility of defending Norwegian air space.{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|p=10}}{{sfn|Ziemke|2015|pp=149-151}} In contrast to the front in Finland, a total of 149 divisions and 3,050,000 soldiers were deployed for the rest of Operation Barbarossa.{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|pp=7, 9}}

==Finnish offensive phase in 1941==
===Initial operations===
[[File:JR45 crossing Murmansk railway.jpg|thumb|270px|Finnish soldiers crossing the [[Kirov Railway|Murmansk railway]] in 1941]]
In the evening of 21 June 1941, German mine-layers hiding in the [[Archipelago Sea]] deployed two large minefields across the Gulf of Finland. Later that night, German bombers flew along the gulf to Leningrad, mining the harbour and the river [[Neva]], making a refueling stop at [[Utti]], Finland, on the return leg. In the early hours of 22 June, Finnish forces launched [[Operation Kilpapurjehdus]] ("Regatta"), deploying troops in the demilitarised [[Åland Islands]]. Although the 1921 [[Åland convention]] had clauses allowing Finland to defend the islands in the event of an attack, the coordination of this operation with the German invasion and the arrest of the Soviet consulate staff stationed on the islands, meant that the deployment was a deliberate violation of the treaty, according to Finnish historian [[Mauno Jokipii]].{{sfn|Jokipii|1999|p=282}}

On the morning of 22 June [[Adolf Hitler]]'s proclamation read: "Together with their Finnish comrades in arms the heroes from Narvik stand at the edge of the Arctic Ocean. German troops under command of the conqueror of Norway, and the Finnish freedom fighters under their Marshal's command, are protecting Finnish territory."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1jScDQAAQBAJ|title=Hitler's Arctic War: The German Campaigns in Norway, Finland and the USSR 1940-1945|last1=Mann|first1=Chris|last2=Jrgensen|first2=Christer|date=2016-11-30|publisher=Pen and Sword|isbn=9781473884595|language=en}}</ref>

Following the launch of [[Operation Barbarossa]] at around 3:15 a.m. on 22 June 1941, the Soviet Union sent seven bombers on a retaliatory airstrike into Finland, hitting targets at 6:06 a.m. Helsinki time as reported by the [[Finnish coastal defence ship Väinämöinen|Finnish coastal defence ship ''Väinämöinen'']].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=3615109|title=Scan from the coastal defence ship Väinämöinen's log book|date=1941-06-22|website=Digital Archive of the National Archives of Finland|access-date=2018-02-21}}</ref> On the morning of 25 June, the Soviet Union launched another air offensive, with 460 fighters and bombers targeting 19 airfields in Finland, however inaccurate intelligence and poor bombing accuracy resulted in several raids hitting Finnish cities, or municipalities, causing considerable damage. 23 Soviet bombers were lost in this strike while the Finnish forces lost no aircraft.<ref>{{cite book|title=Kohtalokkaat lennot 1939–1944|last1=Hyvönen|first1=Jaakko|publisher=Apali Oy|year=2001|isbn=9525026213|language=fi|trans-title=Fateful Flights 1939–1944}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=http://militera.lib.ru/h/hazanov_db2/07.html|title=1941. Горькие уроки: Война в воздухе|last=Khazanov|first=Dmitriy B.|publisher=Yauea|year=2006|isbn=5699178465|language=ru|trans-title=1941: The War in the Air - The Bitter Lessons|chapter=Первая воздушная операция советских ВВС в Великой Отечественной войне|trans-chapter=The first air operation of the Soviet Air Force in the Great Patriotic War|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127153212/http://militera.lib.ru/h/hazanov_db2/07.html|archive-date=27 November 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}} Although the USSR claimed that the airstrikes were directed against German targets, particularly airfields, in Finland,<ref name="Platonov">{{cite book|title=Битва за Ленинград|publisher=Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR|year=1964|editor-last=Platonov|editor-first=Semen P.|location=Moscow|trans-title=The Battle for Leningrad}}</ref> the [[Parliament of Finland|Finnish government]] used the attacks as justification for the approval of a "defensive war".{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=88}} According to historian David Kirby, the message was intended more for public opinion in Finland than abroad, where the country was viewed as an ally of the Axis powers.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=222}}{{Sfn|Zeiler|DuBois|2012|pp=208–221}}

===Finnish advance in Karelia===
{{Main|Finnish invasion of Ladoga Karelia|Finnish invasion of the Karelian Isthmus|Finnish invasion of East Karelia (1941){{!}}Finnish invasion of East Karelia}}
[[File:Map of Finnish operations in Karelia in 1941.png|upright=1.5|thumb|Subphases of the Finnish invasion of Karelia during the 1941 general offensive. The old 1939 border is marked in grey.]]

The Finnish plans for the offensive in Ladoga Karelia were finalised on 28 June 1941,{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=154–159}} and the first stages of the operation began on 10 July.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=154–159}}<ref name="unc">{{cite book|url=http://militera.lib.ru/h/leningrad/index.html|title=Непокоренный Ленинград. раткий очерк истории города в период Великой Отечественной войны|last1=Dzeniskevich|first1=A.R.|last2=Kovalchuk|first2=V.M.|last3=Sobolev|first3=G.L.|last4=Tsamutali|first4=A.N.|last5=Shishkin|first5=V.A.|publisher=The Academy of Sciences of the USSR|year=1970|page=19|language=ru|trans-title=Unconquered Leningrad. A short outline of the history of the city during the Great Patriotic War|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111107003012/http://militera.lib.ru/h/leningrad/index.html|archive-date=7 November 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}} By 16 July, [[VI Corps (Continuation War)|VI Corps]] had reached the northern shore of [[Lake Ladoga]], dividing the Soviet 7th Army, which had been tasked with defending the area.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=154–159}} The USSR struggled to contain the German assault, and soon the Soviet high command, ''[[Stavka]]'', pulled all available units stationed along the Finnish border into the beleaguered front line.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=154–159}} Additional reinforcements were drawn from the [[237th Rifle Division]] and the Soviet [[10th Mechanized Corps (Soviet Union)|10th Mechanised Corps]], excluding the [[198th Motorised Division]], both of which were stationed in Ladoga Karelia, but this stripped much of the reserve strength of the Soviet units defending that area.{{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2007|pp=34, 62}}

The Finnish [[II Corps (Continuation War)|II Corps]] started its offensive in the north of the Karelian Isthmus on 31 July.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=167–172}} Other Finnish forces reached the shores of Lake Ladoga on 9 August, encircling most of the three defending Soviet divisions on the northwestern coast of the lake in a [[Pocket (military)|pocket]] (''[[Pocket (military)#Motti|motti]]'' in Finnish); these divisions were later evacuated across the lake. On 22 August, the Finnish [[IV Corps (Continuation War)|IV Corps]] began its offensive south of II Corps and advanced towards [[Vyborg]] ({{Lang-fi|Viipuri|links=no}}).{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=167–172}} By 23 August, II Corps had reached the [[Vuoksi River]] to the east and encircled the Soviet forces defending Vyborg.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|pp=167–172}}

[[File:Paraati viipurissa.jpg|thumb|left|A Finnish military parade next to the [[Round Tower (Vyborg)|Round Tower]] in Viipuri (now Vyborg, Russia) on 31 August 1941, celebrating its recapture]]

The Soviet order to withdraw came too late, resulting in significant losses in materiel, although most of the troops were later evacuated via the [[Beryozovye Islands|Koivisto Islands]]. After suffering severe losses, the Soviet 23rd Army was unable to halt the offensive, and by 2 September the Finnish Army had reached the old [[Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Finnish)|1939 border]]. The advance by Finnish and German forces split the Soviet Northern Front into the [[Leningrad Front]] and the [[Karelian Front]]. On 31 August, Finnish Headquarters ordered II and IV Corps, which had advanced the furthest, to halt their advance along a line that ran from the Gulf of Finland via [[Beloostrov]]– [[Sestra River (Leningrad Oblast)|Sestra River–]] [[Okhta River (Neva basin)|Okhta River]]–[[Lembolovo]] to Ladoga. The line ran past the former 1939 border, and approximately {{Convert|30-32|km|mi|abbr=on}} from Leningrad. There, they were ordered to take up a defensive position.{{refn|See the following sources: {{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2007|pp=151–155}}<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9Yo-H4cMZCUC&q=finnish+leningrad+miles&pg=PT142|title=Leningrad: State of Siege|last=Jones|first=Michael|publisher=Hodder & Stoughton|year=2009|isbn=9781848541214|pages=142|language=en|quote=Nikolai Baryshnikov, in [''Finland and the Siege of Leningrad 1941–1944''], has suggested that the country tacitly supported Hitler's starvation policy. Finland advanced to within twenty miles of Leningrad's outskirts, cutting the city's northern supply routes, but its troops then halted at its 1939 border, and did not undertake further action.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222225706/https://books.google.ch/books?id=9Yo-H4cMZCUC&pg=PT142&dq=finnish+leningrad+start&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioqsWPnbnZAhXFhrQKHVEUB6EQ6AEIWzAJ#v=onepage&q=finnish%20leningrad%20miles&f=false|archive-date=22 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Salisbury|2003|pp=210–211}}<ref name=":1" /><ref name="Jatkosota-2">{{cite book|title=Jatkosodan historia. 2: Hyökkäys Itä-Karjalaan ja Karjalan kannakselle|publisher=WSOY|author=[[National Defence University (Finland)]]|year=1989|isbn=9510153281|series=Sotatieteen laitoksen julkaisuja|location=Porvoo|page=261|language=fi|trans-title=History of the Continuation War, 2: The Offensive in Eastern Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus}}</ref>|group="Note"}} On 1 September, the IV Corps engaged and defeated the Soviet 23rd Army near the town of [[Battle of Porlampi|Porlampi]]. Sporadic fighting continued around Beloostrov until the Soviets evicted the Finns on 20 September. The front on the Isthmus stabilised and the [[Siege of Leningrad]] began.{{refn|See the following sources:<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />{{sfn|Luknitsky|1988|p=72}}{{sfn|Salisbury|2003|p=246|ps=: "This line was only twenty miles from the Leningrad city limits."}}{{sfn|Werth|1999|pp=360–361}}<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":9" />|group="Note"}}

The Finnish Army of Karelia started its attack in East Karelia towards [[Petrozavodsk]], [[Lake Onega]] and the [[Svir River]] on 9 September. German Army Group North advanced from the south of Leningrad towards the Svir River and captured [[Tikhvin]] but were forced to retreat to the [[Volkhov River]] by Soviet counterattacks. Soviet forces repeatedly attempted to expel the Finns from their [[bridgehead]] south of the Svir during October and December but were repulsed; Soviet units attacked the German [[163rd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)|163rd Infantry Division]] in October 1941, which was operating under Finnish command across the Svir, but failed to dislodge it.{{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2008|pp=10–11}} Despite these failed attacks, the Finnish attack in East Karelia had been blunted and their advance had halted by 6 December. During the five-month campaign, the Finns suffered 75,000 casualties, of whom 26,355 had died, while the Soviets had 230,000 casualties, of whom 50,000 became prisoners of war.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=96}}

===Operation Silver Fox in Lapland and Lend-Lease to Murmansk===
{{See also|Operation Silver Fox|Lend-Lease}}
[[File:Warriors of Lapland.jpg|thumb|left|A Finnish soldier with a [[reindeer]] in Lapland. Reindeer were used in many capacities, such as pulling supply sleighs in snowy conditions.]]

The German objective in Finnish Lapland was to take Murmansk and cut the Kirov (Murmansk) Railway running from Murmansk to Leningrad by capturing Salla and [[Kandalaksha]]. Murmansk was the only year-round [[Port#Warm-water port|ice-free port]] in the north and a threat to the [[nickel]] mine at Petsamo. The joint Finnish–German Operation Silver Fox ({{lang-de|Unternehmen Silberfuchs}}; {{lang-fi|operaatio Hopeakettu|links=no}}) was started on 29 June 1941 by the German Army of Norway, which had the [[Finnish 3rd Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 3rd]] and [[Finnish 6th Division (Continuation War)|6th Divisions]] under its command, against the defending Soviet 14th Army and [[54th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|54th Rifle Division]]. By November, the operation had stalled {{convert|30|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the Kirov Railway due to unacclimatised German troops, heavy Soviet resistance, poor terrain, arctic weather and diplomatic pressure by the United States on the Finns regarding the lend-lease deliveries to Murmansk. The offensive and its three sub-operations failed to achieve their objectives. Both sides dug in and the arctic theatre remained stable, excluding minor skirmishes, until the Soviet [[Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive]] in October 1944.<ref>{{harvnb|Mann|Jörgensen|2002|pp=81–97, 199–200}}</ref>{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=95}}

The crucial [[Arctic convoys of World War II|arctic lend-lease convoys]] from the US and the UK via Murmansk and Kirov Railway to the bulk of the Soviet forces continued throughout World War II. The US supplied almost [[United States dollar|$]]11 billion in materials: 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, which could equip some 20 US armoured divisions); 11,400 aircraft; and {{convert|1.75|e6ST|e6t|abbr=unit|order=flip}} of food.{{sfn|Weeks|2004|p=9}}{{sfn|Stewart|2010|p=158}} As a similar example, British shipments of Matilda, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks accounted for only 6 percent of total Soviet tank production, but over 25 percent of medium and heavy tanks produced for the Red Army.{{sfn|Suprun|1997|p=35}}

===Aspirations, war effort and international relations===
{{see also|Greater Finland#The Continuation War{{!}}Greater Finland|Finnlands Lebensraum}}
[[File:Continuation War 1941.jpg|thumb|Finnish soldiers crossing the 1940-agreed border ([[Moscow Peace Treaty]]) at [[Tohmajärvi]] on 12 July 1941, two days after the invasion started]]

The ''Wehrmacht'' rapidly advanced deep into Soviet territory early in the Operation Barbarossa campaign, leading the Finnish government to believe that Germany would defeat the Soviet Union quickly.{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}} President Ryti envisioned a Greater Finland, where Finland and other [[Baltic Finns|Finnic people]] would live inside a "natural defence borderline" by incorporating the [[Kola Peninsula]], East Karelia and perhaps even northern [[Ingria]]. In public, the proposed frontier was introduced with the slogan "short border, long peace".{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=92}}{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}}{{Sfn|Zeiler|DuBois|2012|pp=208–221}} Some members of the Finnish Parliament, such as members of the [[Social Democratic Party of Finland|Social Democratic Party]] and the [[Swedish People's Party of Finland|Swedish People's Party]], opposed the idea, arguing that maintaining the 1939 frontier would be enough.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=92}} Finnish Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim, often called the war an anti-Communist crusade, hoping to defeat "Bolshevism once and for all".{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}} On 10 July, Mannerheim drafted his order of the day, the [[Sword Scabbard Declaration]], in which he pledged to liberate Karelia; in December 1941 in private letters, he made known his doubts of the need to push beyond the previous borders.{{sfn|Clements|2012|p=210}} The Finnish government assured the United States that it was unaware of the order.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=224}}

According to Vehviläinen, most Finns thought that the scope of the new offensive was only to regain what had been taken in the Winter War. He further stated that the term 'Continuation War' was created at the start of the conflict by the Finnish government to justify the invasion to the population as a continuation of the defensive Winter War. The government also wished to emphasise that it was not an official ally of Germany, but a 'co-belligerent' fighting against a common enemy and with purely Finnish aims. Vehviläinen wrote that the authenticity of the government's claim changed when the Finnish Army crossed the old frontier of 1939 and began to annex Soviet territory.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|pp=89–91}} British author [[Jonathan Clements]] asserted that by December 1941, Finnish soldiers had started questioning whether they were fighting a war of national defence or foreign conquest.{{sfn|Clements|2012|pp=210–211}}

By the autumn of 1941, the Finnish military leadership started to doubt Germany's capability to finish the war quickly. The Finnish Defence Forces suffered relatively severe losses during their advance, and, overall, German victory became uncertain as German troops were [[Battle of Moscow|halted near Moscow]]. German troops in northern Finland faced circumstances they were unprepared for and failed to reach their targets. As the front lines stabilised, Finland attempted to start peace negotiations with the USSR.{{sfn|Jutikkala|Pirinen|1988|p=248}} Mannerheim refused to assault Leningrad and inextricably tie Finland to Germany, regarding his objectives for the war to be achieved, a decision which angered the Germans.{{sfn|Clements|2012|p=210}}

[[File:Soviet POW and a puppy.jpg|thumb|left|Soviet prisoners of war and a puppy pictured in August 1941 at Lupasalmi ({{Lang-ru|Лубосалма|links=no}}) in Karelia]]

Due to the war effort, the Finnish economy suffered from a lack of labour, as well as food shortages and increased prices. To combat this, the Finnish government demobilised part of the army to prevent industrial and agricultural production from collapsing.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=96}} In October, Finland informed Germany that it would need {{convert|159000|t|ST|lk=on|abbr=on}} of grain to manage until next year's harvest. The German authorities would have rejected the request, but Hitler himself agreed. Annual grain deliveries of {{convert|180000|t|ST|abbr=on}} equaled almost half of the Finnish domestic crop. In November, Finland joined the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=101}}

Finland maintained good relations with a number of other Western powers. Foreign volunteers from Sweden and Estonia were among the foreigners who joined Finnish ranks; [[Finnish Infantry Regiment 200|Infantry Regiment 200]], called {{Lang|et|soomepoisid}} ("Finnish boys"), mostly comprised Estonians, while the Swedes mustered the [[Swedish Volunteer Battalion]].{{sfn|Jowett|Snodgrass|2012|pp=29–31}} The Finnish government stressed that Finland was fighting as a [[co-belligerent]] with Germany against the USSR only to protect itself and that it was still the same democratic country as it had been in the Winter War.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=96}} For example, Finland maintained diplomatic relations with the exiled Norwegian government and more than once criticised German occupation policy in Norway.{{snf|Ziemke|2015|p=379}} Relations between Finland and the United States were more complex; the US public was sympathetic to the "brave little democracy" and had anti-communist sentiments. At first, the United States sympathised with the Finnish cause, but the situation became problematic after the Finnish Army crossed the 1939 border.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=98}} Finnish and German troops were a threat to the Kirov Railway and the northern supply line between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=98}} On 25 October 1941, the US demanded that Finland cease all hostilities against the USSR and withdraw behind the 1939 border. In public, President Ryti rejected the demands, but in private, he wrote to Mannerheim on 5 November asking him to halt the offensive. Mannerheim agreed and secretly instructed General [[Hjalmar Siilasvuo]] and his III Corps to end the assault on the Kirov Railway.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=99}}

===British declaration of war and action in the Arctic Ocean===
{{See also|Arctic convoys of World War II}}
On 12 July 1941, the United Kingdom signed an agreement of joint action with the Soviet Union. Under German pressure, Finland closed the British [[legation]] in Helsinki, cutting diplomatic relations with Britain on 1 August.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=97}} The most sizeable British action on Finnish soil was the [[Raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo]], an aircraft-carrier strike on German and Finnish ships on 31 July 1941. The attack accomplished little, except the loss of one Norwegian ship and three British aircraft, but it was intended to demonstrate British support for its Soviet ally.<ref name="sturtivant">{{cite book|title=British Naval Aviation: The Fleet Air Arm 1917–1990|last=Sturtivant|first=Ray|publisher=Arms & Armour Press Ltd|year=1990|isbn=0-85368-938-5|location=London|page=86}}</ref> From September to October in 1941, a total of 39 [[Hawker Hurricane]]s of [[No. 151 Wing RAF]], based at Murmansk, reinforced and provided pilot-training to the Soviet Air Forces during [[Operation Benedict]] to protect arctic convoys.<ref name="Benedict">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I1DbnQEACAAJ|title=Force Benedict|last1=Carter|first1=Eric|last2=Loveless|first2=Anthony|date=2014|publisher=Hodder & Stoughton|isbn=9781444785135|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221161523/https://books.google.ch/books?id=I1DbnQEACAAJ|archive-date=21 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref> On 28 November, the British government presented Finland with an ultimatum demanding that the Finns cease military operations by 3 December.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=99}} Unofficially, Finland informed the Allies that Finnish troops would halt their advance in the next few days. The reply did not satisfy London, which declared war on Finland on 6 December.{{sfn|Reiter|2009|pp=135–136, 138}}{{refn|Secondary sources contradict each other and state either 5 or 6 December as the day war was declared. According to a news piece on 8 December 1941 by ''[[The Examiner (Tasmania)|The Examiner]]'', an Australian newspaper, Britain notified the Finnish Government on 6 December "that she considered herself at war with [Finland] as from 1 a.m. (G.M.T.) to-morrow."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article52476193|title=War declared on Finland, Rumania, Hungary|date=1941-12-08|work=The Examiner|access-date=2018-02-24|issue=232|location=Launceston|volume=C|via=National Library of Australia}}</ref>|group="Note"}} The [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] nations of [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[British Raj|India]] and [[New Zealand]] soon followed suit.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=100}} In private, British Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] had sent a letter to Mannerheim on 29 November, in which he was "deeply grieved" that the UK would have to declare war on Finland because of the UK's alliance with the USSR. Mannerheim repatriated British volunteers under his command to the United Kingdom via Sweden. According to Clements, the war was mostly for appearances' sake.{{sfn|Clements|2012|pp=208–210}}

==Trench warfare phase during 1942–44==

===Unconventional warfare and military operations===
{{Main|Soviet partisans in Finland}}
[[File:Continuation War 1942 and Soviet assaults English.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|The Soviets conducted four attacks in the first half of 1942, all of which were repelled by Finnish–German defenders]]

Unconventional warfare was fought in both the Finnish and Soviet wildernesses. Finnish [[long-range reconnaissance patrol]]s, organised both by the [[Intelligence Division (Finland)|Intelligence Division]]'s [[Erillinen Pataljoona 4|Detached Battalion 4]] and by local units, patrolled behind Soviet lines. [[Soviet partisans]], both resistance fighters and regular long-range patrol detachments, conducted a number of operations in Finland and in [[Eastern Karelia]] from 1941 to 1944. In summer 1942, the USSR formed the 1st Partisan Brigade. The unit was 'partisan' in name only, as it was essentially 600 men and women on long-range patrol intended to disrupt Finnish operations. The 1st Partisan Brigade was able to infiltrate beyond Finnish patrol lines, but was intercepted, and rendered ineffective, in August 1942 at [[Lake Segozero]].<ref name="tikkanen">{{cite book |last1=Tikkanen |first1=Pentti, H. |title=Sissiprikaatin tuho |trans-title=Destruction of the Partisan Brigade |language=fi |year=1973 |publisher=Arvi A. Karisto Osakeyhtiö |isbn=9512307545}}</ref> Irregular partisans distributed propaganda newspapers, such as Finnish translations of the official [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]] paper ''[[Pravda]]'' ({{Lang-ru|Правда|links=no}}). Notable Soviet politician, [[Yuri Andropov]], took part in these partisan guerrilla actions.<ref>{{cite book|title=Генсек с Лубянки: политическая биография Ю.В. Андропова|last1=Medvedev|first1=Roy A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iGBpAAAAMAAJ|year=1993|isbn=9785868970023|language=ru|trans-title=The Secretary General from Lubyanka: Political Biography of Y.V. Andropov}}</ref> Finnish sources state that, although Soviet partisan activity in East Karelia disrupted Finnish military supply and communication assets, almost two thirds of the attacks targeted civilians, killing 200 and injuring 50, including children and elderly.<ref name="Viheriävaara">{{cite book|first=Eino|last=Viheriävaara|title=Partisaanien jäljet 1941–1944|publisher=Oulun Kirjateollisuus Oy|year=1982|isbn=9519939660|language=fi}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite book|last=Erkkilä|first=Veikko|title=Vaiettu sota: Neuvostoliiton partisaanien iskut suomalaisiin kyliin|trans-title=The Silenced War: Soviet partisan strikes on Finnish villages|publisher=Arator Oy|isbn=9529619189|language=fi|year=1999|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uLSsOQAACAAJ}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Lauri|last=Hannikainen|year=1992|title=Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland|publisher=Martinuss Nijoff Publishers|location=Dordrecht|isbn=0792316118}}.</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite book|first=Tyyne|last=Martikainen|year=2002|title=Partisaanisodan siviiliuhrit|trans-title=Civilian Casualties of the Partisan War|publisher=PS-Paino Värisuora Oy|isbn=9529143273}}.</ref>

Between 1942 and 1943, military operations were limited, although the front did see some action. In January 1942, the Soviet Karelian Front attempted to retake [[Medvezhyegorsk]] ({{Lang-fi|Karhumäki|links=no}}), which had been lost to the Finns in late 1941. With the arrival of spring in April, Soviet forces went on the offensive on the Svir River front, in the [[Kestenga]] ({{Lang|fi|Kiestinki}}) region further north in Lapland as well as in the far north at Petsamo with the [[14th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|14th Rifle Division]]'s amphibious landings supported by the [[Northern Fleet]]. All Soviet offensives started promisingly, but due either to the Soviets overextending their lines or stubborn defensive resistance, the offensives were repulsed. After Finnish and German counterattacks in Kestenga, the front lines were generally stalemated. In September 1942, the USSR attacked again at Medvezhyegorsk, but despite five days of fighting, the Soviets only managed to push the Finnish lines back {{convert|500|m|yd|abbr=on}} on a roughly {{convert|1|km|mi|abbr=on}}-long stretch of the front. Later that month, a Soviet landing with two battalions in Petsamo was defeated by a German counterattack.{{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2008|pp=76–81}}<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Valtanen|first=Jaakko|date=1958|title=Jäämeren rannikon sotatoimet toisen maailmansodan aikana|url=https://journal.fi/ta/article/view/47389|journal=Tiede Ja Ase|language=fi-FI|pages=101–103|issn=0358-8882|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180302150337/https://journal.fi/ta/article/view/47389|archive-date=2 March 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref> In November 1941, Hitler decided to separate the German forces fighting in Lapland from the Army of Norway and create the Army of Lapland, commanded by {{lang|de|Generaloberst}} [[Eduard Dietl]] through {{lang|de|AOK Lappland}}. In June 1942, the Army of Lapland was redesignated the [[20th Mountain Army (Wehrmacht)|20th Mountain Army]].{{sfn|Ziemke|2015|pp=189, 238}}

===Siege of Leningrad and naval warfare===
{{Main|Siege of Leningrad|Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–45)|Arctic naval operations of World War II}}


In the early stages of the war, the Finnish Army overran the former 1939 border, but ceased their advance {{Convert|30-32|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the center of Leningrad. Multiple authors have stated that Finland participated in the Siege of Leningrad ({{Lang-ru|Блокада Ленинграда|links=no}}), but the full extent and nature of their participation is debated and a clear consensus has yet to emerge.{{refn|See the following sources: {{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2007|pp=151–155}}<ref name=":0" />{{sfn|Salisbury|2003|pp=210–211}}<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name="Jatkosota-2" />|group="Note"}} American historian [[David Glantz]], writes that the Finnish Army generally maintained their lines and contributed little to the siege from 1941 to 1944,{{sfn|Glantz|2001|p=179}} whereas Russian historian [[Nikolai Baryshnikov]] stated in 2002 that Finland tacitly supported Hitler's starvation policy for the city.{{Sfn|Baryshnikov|2002|p=}} However, in 2009 British historian [[Michael Jones (historian)|Michael Jones]] refuted Baryshnikov's claim and asserted that the Finnish Army cut off the city's northern supply routes but did not take further military action.<ref name=":0" /> In 2006, American author [[Lisa Kirchenbaum|Lisa A. Kirchenbaum]] wrote that the siege started "when German and Finnish troops severed all land routes in and out of Leningrad."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jt8QVm8dPaQC|title=The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941–1995: Myth, Memories, and Monuments|last=Kirschenbaum|first=Lisa A.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2006|isbn=9781139460651|pages=44|language=en|quote=The blockade began two days later when German and Finnish troops severed all land routes in and out of Leningrad.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180225210446/https://books.google.ch/books?id=jt8QVm8dPaQC|archive-date=25 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

[[File:Hitler Mannerheim Ryti.jpg|thumb|left|[[Wilhelm Keitel|Keitel]] (left), Hitler, Mannerheim and Ryti meeting at [[Immola Airfield]] on 4 June 1942. Hitler made a [[Hitler and Mannerheim recording|surprise visit in honour of Mannerheim's 75th birthday]] and to discuss plans.{{sfn|Clements|2012|pp=211–213}}]]

According to Clements, Mannerheim personally refused Hitler's request of assaulting Leningrad during [[Hitler and Mannerheim recording|their meeting on 4 June 1942]]. Mannerheim explained to Hitler that "Finland had every reason to wish to stay out of any further provocation of the Soviet Union."{{sfn|Clements|2012|p=213}} In 2014, author [[Jeff Rutherford]] described the city as being "ensnared" between the German and Finnish armies.<ref name=":8" /> British historian [[John Barber (historian)|John Barber]] described it as a "siege by the German and Finnish armies from 8 September 1941 to 27 January 1944 [...]" in his foreword in 2017.<ref name=":9" /> Likewise, in 2017, [[Alexis Peri]] wrote that the city was "completely cut off, save a heavily patrolled water passage over Lake Ladoga" by "Hitler's Army Group North and his Finnish allies."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WSl5DQAAQBAJ|title=The War Within|last=Peri|first=Alexis|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2017|isbn=9780674971554|pages=4|language=en|quote=In August 1941, Hitler's Army Group North and his Finnish allies began to encircle Leningrad. They rapidly extended their territorial holdings first in the west and south and eventually in the north. By 29 August 1941, they had severed the last railway line that connected Leningrad to the rest of the USSR. By early September, Leningrad was surrounded, save a heavily patrolled water passage over Lake Ladoga.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180225210502/https://books.google.ch/books?id=WSl5DQAAQBAJ|archive-date=25 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

The 150 speedboats, 2 minelayers and 4 steamships of the [[Finnish Ladoga Naval Detachment]], as well as numerous shore batteries, had been stationed on Lake Ladoga since August 1941. Finnish Lieutenant General Paavo Talvela proposed on 17 May 1942 to create a joint Finnish–German–Italian unit on the lake to disrupt Soviet supply convoys to Leningrad. The unit was named [[Naval Detachment K]] and comprised four Italian [[MAS (motorboat)|MAS torpedo motorboats]] of the [[XII Squadriglia MAS]], four German KM-type minelayers and the Finnish [[Sisu-class motor torpedo boat|torpedo-motorboat ''Sisu'']]. The detachment began operations in August 1942 and sank numerous smaller Soviet watercraft and flatboats and assaulted enemy bases and beach fronts until it was dissolved in the winter of 1942–43.<ref name="MAS">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xXkpDwAAQBAJ&q=naval+detachment+k+italy&pg=PT123|title=Decima Flottiglia MAS: The Best Commandos of the Second World War|last=Zapotoczny Jr.|first=Walter S.|publisher=Fonthill Media|year=2017|isbn=9781625451132|pages=123|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221161614/https://books.google.ch/books?id=xXkpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT123&dq=naval+detachment+k+italy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2zqLL0bbZAhXD_KQKHeHoCr0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=naval%20detachment%20k%20italy&f=false|archive-date=21 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Twenty-three [[Siebel ferry|Siebel ferries]] and nine infantry transports of the German ''[[Einsatzstab Fähre Ost]]'' were also deployed to Lake Ladoga and unsuccessfully assaulted the island of Sukho, which protected the main supply route to Leningrad, in October 1942.{{sfn|Kiljanen|1968|page=}}

Despite the siege of the city, the Soviet Baltic Fleet was still able to operate from Leningrad. The Finnish Navy's flagship {{Ship|Finnish coastal defence ship|Ilmarinen|4=2}} had been sunk in September 1941 in the gulf by mines during the failed diversionary [[Operation Nordwind (1941)]].{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|pp=136–138}} In early 1942, Soviet forces recaptured the island of [[Gogland]], but lost it and the [[Bolshoy Tyuters]] islands to Finnish forces later in spring 1942. During the winter between 1941 and 1942, the Soviet Baltic Fleet decided to use their large submarine fleet in offensive operations. Though initial submarine operations in the summer of 1942 were successful, the {{Lang|de|Kriegsmarine}} and [[Finnish Navy]] soon intensified their anti-submarine efforts, making Soviet submarine operations later in 1942 costly. The underwater offensive carried out by the Soviets convinced the Germans to lay [[anti-submarine net]]s as well as supporting minefields between Porkkala Peninsula and [[Naissaar]], which proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for Soviet submarines.{{sfn|Kiljanen|1968|page=123}} On the [[Arctic Ocean]], [[Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency|Finnish radio intelligence]] intercepted Allied messages on supply convoys to Murmansk, such as [[Convoy PQ 17|PQ 17]] and [[Convoy PQ 18|PQ 18]], and relayed the information to the ''[[Abwehr]]'', German intelligence.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ahtokari|first1=Reijo|last2=Pale|first2=Erkki|title=Suomen radiotiedustelu 1927–1944|year=1998|trans-title=Finnish radio intelligence 1927–1944|location=Helsinki|publisher=Hakapaino Oy|pages=191–198|isbn=952909437X}}</ref>

===Finnish military administration and concentration camps===
{{Main|Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia|East Karelian concentration camps}}
[[File:Soviet women having breakfast at a Finnish concentration camp.jpg|thumb|Soviet women having breakfast next to burning trash at a Finnish concentration camp in Petrozavodsk]]

On 19 July 1941, the Finns created a military administration in occupied East Karelia with the goal of preparing the region for eventual incorporation into Finland. The Finns aimed to [[ethnic cleansing|expel]] the Russian portion of the local population (constituting to about a half), who were deemed "non-national",{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=225}} from the area once the war was over,{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=105}} and replace them with the local Finnic peoples, such as [[Karelians]], [[Finns]], [[Estonians]], [[Ingrian Finns|Ingrians]] and [[Vepsians]]. Most of the East Karelian population had already been evacuated before the Finnish forces arrived, but about 85,000 people — mostly elderly, women and children — were left behind, less than half of whom were Karelians. A significant number of civilians, almost 30 percent of the remaining Russians, were interned in concentration camps.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=225}}

[[File:Finland Administrative map 1942 1944.png|thumb|Administrative map of Finland and occupied territories 1942–1944]]

The winter between 1941 and 1942 was particularly harsh for the Finnish urban population due to poor harvests and a shortage of agricultural labourers.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=225}} However, conditions were much worse for Russians in Finnish concentration camps. More than 3,500 people died, mostly from [[starvation]], amounting to 13.8 per cent of those detained, while the corresponding figure for the free population of the occupied territories was 2.6 per cent, and 1.4 per cent for Finland.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=107}} Conditions gradually improved, ethnic discrimination in wage levels and food rations was terminated, and new schools were established for the Russian-speaking population the following year, after Commander-in-Chief Mannerheim called for the [[International Committee of the Red Cross]] from Geneva to inspect the camps.{{sfn|Kirby|2006|p=226}}<ref>{{harvnb|Haavikko|1999|pp=115–116}}</ref> By the end of the occupation, mortality rates had dropped to the same levels as in Finland.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=107}}

===Jews in Finland===
{{Main|Jews in Finland}}
[[File:Field-synagoga-Finland.jpg|thumb|Finnish soldiers in front of a field synogauge]]

Finland had a small [[Jewish]] population of approximately 2,300 people, of whom 300 were refugees. They had full civil rights and fought with other Finns in the ranks of the Finnish Army. The field synagogue in East Karelia was one of the very few functioning synagogues on the Axis side during the war. There were several cases of Jewish officers of the Finnish Army being awarded the German [[Iron Cross]], which they declined. German soldiers were treated by Jewish medical officers—who sometimes saved the soldiers' lives.<ref name="Rautkallio">{{cite book|last=Rautkallio|first=Hannu|title=Suomen juutalaisten aseveljeys|trans-title=Brotherhood-in-Arms of the Finnish Jews|publisher=Tammi|year=1989}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|first=Tuulikki|last=Vuonokari|year=2003|title=Jews in Finland During the Second World War|journal=Finnish Institutions Research Paper|publisher=University of Tampere| url=http://www.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/HIST/tv-jews.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214226/http://www15.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/HIST/tv-jews.html|archive-date=2016-03-03|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000005407665.html|title=Lauantaiessee: Miten on mahdollista, että natsi-Saksa palkitsi suomenjuutalaisia rautaristillä jatkosodassa?|last=Petäjä|first=Jukka|date=2017-10-14|work=Helsingin Sanomat|access-date=2018-11-01|language=fi-FI|trans-title=Saturday Essay: How is it possible that Nazi Germany awarded Finnish Jews with an Iron Cross during the Continuation War?}}</ref> German command mentioned Finnish Jews at the [[Wannsee Conference]] in January 1942, wishing to transport them to the [[Majdanek]] concentration camp in [[General Government|occupied Poland]]. [[Schutzstaffel|''SS'']] leader [[Heinrich Himmler]] also raised the topic of Finnish Jews during his visit in Finland in the summer of 1942; Finnish Prime Minister [[Johan Wilhelm Rangell|Jukka Rangell]] replied that Finland did not have a [[Jewish question]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=102}} In November 1942, the Minister of the Interior [[Toivo Horelli]] and the head of [[State Police (Finland)|State Police]] [[Arno Anthoni]] secretly deported eight Jewish refugees to the ''[[Gestapo]]'', raising protests among Finnish Social Democrat Party ministers. Only one of the deportees survived. After the incident, the Finnish government refused to transfer any more Jews to German detainment.<ref name="yadvashem">{{Cite web|url=http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205852.pdf|title=Finland|date=2006-05-09|publisher=[[Yad Vashem]] International School for Holocaust Studies|access-date=2018-02-23|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160418040625/http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205852.pdf|archive-date=18 April 2016|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=103}}

== Soviet offensive phase in 1944 ==

===Air raids and the Leningrad–Novgorod Offensive===
[[File:Continuation War September 1944 English.jpg|upright=1.5|thumb|The front lines on 4 September 1944 when the ceasefire came into effect and two weeks before the war concluded]]

Finland began to seek an exit from the war after the German defeat at the [[Battle of Stalingrad]] in February 1943. Prime Minister [[Edwin Linkomies]] formed a new cabinet in March 1943 with peace as the top priority. Similarly, the Finns were distressed by the Allied Invasion of Sicily in July and the German defeat in the [[Battle of Kursk]] in August. Negotiations were conducted intermittently during 1943–1944 between Finland, the Western Allies and the USSR, but no agreement was reached.{{sfn|Reiter|2009|p=|pp=134–137}} Stalin decided to force Finland to surrender with a [[Bombing of Helsinki in World War II|bombing campaign on Helsinki]], starting in February 1944. It included three major air attacks totaling over 6,000 [[sortie]]s. Finnish [[Anti-aircraft warfare|anti-aircraft defence]] repelled the raids and only five per cent of the dropped [[Aerial bomb|bombs]] hit their planned targets. In Helsinki, decoy searchlights and fires were placed outside the city to deceive Soviet bombers into dropping their payloads on unpopulated areas. Major air attacks also hit [[Oulu]] and [[Kotka]], but pre-emptive radio intelligence and effective defence kept the number of casualties low.<ref name="Mäkelä_67">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NGsJAQAAIAAJ|title=Helsinki liekeissä: suurpommitukset helmikuussa 1944|last1=Mäkelä|first1=Jukka|publisher=W. Söderström Oy|year=1967|location=Helsinki|page=20|language=fi|trans-title=Helsinki Burning: Great Raids in February 1944}}</ref>
[[File:Pommitustuhoja Helsingissä JSdia270.jpg|thumb|Bombing destruction in Helsinki, the night of February 6–7, 1944.]]

The Soviet [[Leningrad–Novgorod Offensive]] finally lifted the Siege of Leningrad on 26–27 January 1944<ref name=":9" /> and pushed Army Group North to [[Ida-Viru County]] on the Estonian border. Stiff [[Battle of Narva (1944)|German and Estonian defence in Narva]] from February to August prevented the use of occupied Estonia as a favourable base for Soviet amphibious and air assaults against Helsinki and other Finnish coastal cities in support of a land offensive.<ref name="paulman">{{cite book|title=Ot Narvy do Syrve|last=Paulman|first=F. I.|publisher=Eesti Raamat|year=1980|location=Tallinn|pages=7–119|language=ru|trans-title=From Narva to Sõrve|chapter=Nachalo osvobozhdeniya Sovetskoy Estoniy}}</ref><ref name="laar2">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0YohAQAAIAAJ|title=Estonia in World War II|last=Laar|first=Mart|publisher=Grenader|year=2005|location=Tallinn|pages=32–59|author-link=Mart Laar|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://books.google.ch/books?id=0YohAQAAIAAJ|archive-date=24 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="baltic">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J_VmAAAAMAAJ|title=Battle of the Baltic: The Wars 1918–1945|last=Jackson|first=Robert|publisher=Pen & Sword Maritime|year=2007|isbn=978-1844154227|location=Barnsley}}</ref> Field Marshal Mannerheim had reminded the German command on numerous occasions that should German troops withdraw from Estonia, Finland would be forced to make peace, even on extremely unfavourable terms.{{sfn|Grier|2007|p=121}} Finland would abandon peace negotiations in April 1944 due to the unfavourable terms the USSR demanded.{{sfn|Gebhardt|1990|p=1}}{{sfn|Moisala|Alanen|1988}}

===Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive and breakthrough===
{{Main|Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive}}

On 9 June 1944, the Soviet Leningrad Front launched an offensive against Finnish positions on the Karelian Isthmus and in the area of Lake Ladoga, timed to coincide with [[Operation Overlord]] in Normandy as agreed during the [[Tehran Conference]].{{sfn|Jutikkala|Pirinen|1988|p=248}} The main objective of the offensive was to force Finland out of the war. Along the {{convert|21.7|km|mi|abbr=on}}-wide breakthrough, the Red Army concentrated 3,000 guns and mortars. In some places, the concentration of artillery pieces exceeded 200 guns for every kilometre of front or one for every {{convert|5|m|yd|abbr=on}}. Soviet artillery fired over 80,000 rounds along the front on the Karelian Isthmus. On the second day of the offensive, the artillery barrages and superior number of Soviet forces crushed the main Finnish defence line. The Red Army penetrated the second line of defence, the [[VT-line|Vammelsuu–Taipale line]] (VT line), by the sixth day and recaptured Viipuri with insignificant resistance on 20 June. The Soviet breakthrough on the Karelian Isthmus forced the Finns to reinforce the area, thus allowing the concurrent Soviet offensive in East Karelia to meet less resistance and to recapture Petrozavodsk by 28 June 1944.{{sfn|Erickson|1993|p=197}}{{sfn|Gebhardt|1990|p=2}}{{sfn|Glantz|House|1998|p=202}}

[[File:Tali-Ihantala.jpg|thumb|left|Finnish soldiers carrying {{Lang|de|Panzerfäuste}} on their shoulders pass by the remains of a destroyed Soviet [[T-34]] tank at the [[Battle of Tali-Ihantala]]]]

On 25 June, the Red Army reached the third line of defence, the [[VKT-line|Viipuri–Kuparsaari–Taipale line]] (VKT line), and the decisive [[Battle of Tali-Ihantala]] began, which has been described as the largest battle in Nordic military history.{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=21}} By this point, the Finnish Army had retreated around {{Convert|100|km|mi|abbr=on}} to approximately the same line of defence they had held at the end of the Winter War. Finland especially lacked modern anti-tank weaponry that could stop Soviet heavy armour, such as the [[Kliment Voroshilov tank|KV-1]] or [[IS tank family|IS-2]]. Thus, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop offered German hand-held ''[[Panzerfaust]]'' and ''[[Panzerschreck]]'' antitank weapons in exchange for a guarantee that Finland would not seek a separate peace with the USSR. On 26 June, President Risto Ryti gave the [[Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement|guarantee as a personal undertaking]], which he, Field Marshal Mannerheim and Prime Minister Edwin Linkomies intended to legally last only for the remainder of Ryti's presidency. In addition to delivering thousands of anti-tank weapons, Hitler sent the [[122nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)|122nd Infantry Division]] and the half-strength 303rd Assault Gun Brigade armed with [[Sturmgeschütz III]] tank destroyers as well as the Luftwaffe's [[Detachment Kuhlmey]] to provide temporary support in the most vulnerable sectors.<ref>{{harvnb|Virkkunen|1985|pp=297–300}}</ref> With the new supplies and assistance from Germany, the Finnish Army halted the numerically and materially superior Soviet advance at Tali-Ihantala on 9 July 1944 and stabilised the front.<ref name="books.google.com">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Bg8drRyDGhEC&pg=PA184|title=500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944–1945|first=Sean M.|last=Mcateer|year=2009|publisher=Dorrance Publishing|isbn=9781434961594|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151229173003/https://books.google.com/books?id=Bg8drRyDGhEC&pg=PA184|archive-date=29 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Jowett|Snodgrass|2012|p=14}}<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC&pg=PA467|title=Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F–O|first=Tony|last=Jaques|year=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780313335389|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151229173003/https://books.google.com/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC&pg=PA467|archive-date=29 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

More battles were fought toward the end of the war, the last of which was the [[Battle of Ilomantsi]], fought between 26 July and 13 August 1944 and resulting in a Finnish victory with the destruction of two Soviet divisions.{{sfn|Moisala|Alanen|1988}}{{sfn|Lunde|2011|p=299}}{{sfn|Raunio|Kilin|2008|pp=287–291}} Resisting the Soviet offensive had exhausted Finnish resources. Despite German support under the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement, it was asserted that the country was unable to blunt another major offensive.{{sfn|Grier|2007|p=31}} Soviet victories against German [[Army Group Centre|Army Groups Center]] and North during [[Operation Bagration]] made the situation even more dire for Finland.{{sfn|Grier|2007|p=31}} With no imminent further Soviet offensives, Finland sought to leave the war.{{sfn|Grier|2007|p=31}}{{sfn|Erickson|1993|pp=329–330}}{{sfn|Glantz|House|1998|p=229}} On 1 August, President Ryti resigned and on 4 August, Field Marshal Mannerheim was sworn in as the new president. He annulled the agreement between Ryti and Ribbentrop on 17 August, thus allowing Finland to again sue for peace with the USSR; peace terms from Moscow arrived on 29 August.{{sfn|Gebhardt|1990|p=2}}{{sfn|Erickson|1993|pp=329–330}}{{sfn|Glantz|House|1998|pp=201–203}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|pp=529–531}}

===Ceasefire and peace===
{{Main|Moscow Armistice}}
[[File:Officers comparing watches.jpg|thumb|A Soviet (left) and a Finnish officer comparing their watches on 4 September 1944 at Vyborg]]

Finland was required to return to the borders agreed to in the 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty, demobilise its armed forces, fulfill war reparations and cede the municipality of Petsamo. The Finns were also required to immediately end any diplomatic relations with Germany and expel the {{lang|de|Wehrmacht}} from Finnish territory by 15 September 1944; any troops remaining were to be disarmed, arrested and turned over to the Allies. The Parliament of Finland accepted the terms in a secret meeting on 2 September and requested that official negotiations for an armistice begin. The Finnish Army implemented a ceasefire at 8:00 a.m. Helsinki time on 4 September; the Red Army followed suit a day later. On 14 September, a delegation led by Finnish Prime Minister [[Antti Hackzell]] and Foreign Minister [[Carl Enckell]] began negotiating, with the USSR and the United Kingdom, the final terms of the Moscow Armistice, which eventually included additional stipulations from the Soviets. They were presented by Molotov on 18 September and accepted by the Finnish Parliament a day later.{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|pp=147–149}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|pp=529–531}}

The motivations for the Soviet peace agreement with Finland are debated. Several Western historians stated that the original Soviet designs for Finland were no different from their designs for the Baltic countries. American political scientist [[Dan Reiter]] asserted that for Moscow, the control of Finland was necessary. Reiter and British historian [[Victor Rothwell]] both quoted Molotov telling his Lithuanian counterpart in 1940, when the [[Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)|USSR effectively annexed Lithuania]], that minor states such as Finland, "will be included within the honourable family of Soviet peoples."{{sfn|Reiter|2009|p=131}}<ref name="Rothwell2006">{{cite book|title=War Aims in the Second World War: The War Aims of the Key Belligerents 1939–1945|last=Rothwell|first=Victor|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0748615032|pages=143, 145}}</ref> Reiter stated that concern over severe losses pushed Stalin into accepting a limited outcome in the war rather than pursuing annexation, although some Soviet documents called for military occupation of Finland. He also wrote that Stalin had described territorial concessions, reparations and military bases as his objective with Finland to representatives from the UK, in December 1941, and the US, in March 1943, as well as the Tehran Conference. He believed that in the end "Stalin's desire to crush Hitler quickly and decisively without distraction from the Finnish sideshow" concluded the war.{{sfn|Reiter|2009|p=|pp=134–136, 138}}

Russian historian Nikolai Baryshnikov disputed the view that the Soviet Union sought to deprive Finland of its independence. He argued that there is no documentary evidence for such claims and that the Soviet government was always open for negotiations. Baryshnikov cited, for example, the then-public-information chief of Finnish Headquarters, Major [[Kalle Lehmus]], to show that Finnish leadership had learned of the limited Soviet plans for Finland by at least July 1944 after intelligence revealed that some Soviet divisions were to be transferred to reserve in Leningrad.{{Sfn|Baryshnikov|2002|pp=222–223 (section heading "Стремительный прорыв", paragraph 48 after cit. 409 et seq.)}} Finnish historian [[Heikki Ylikangas]] stated similar findings in 2009. According to him, the USSR refocused its efforts in the summer of 1944, from the Finnish front to defeating Germany and that Mannerheim received intelligence from Colonel [[Aladár Paasonen]] in June 1944 that the Soviet Union was aiming for peace, not occupation.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Yhden miehen jatkosota|last=Ylikangas|first=Heikki|publisher=Otava|year=2009|isbn=978-951-1-24054-9|pages=40–61|language=fi|trans-title=One Man's Continuation War}}</ref>

==Aftermath and casualties==
{{see also|Aftermath of World War II|Cold War}}

===Finland and Germany===
{{See also|Finlandization|Paasikivi–Kekkonen doctrine|Karelian question|History of Germany (1945–90)}}
[[File:Finnish areas ceded in 1944.png|thumb|Areas ceded by Finland to the Soviet Union following the [[Moscow Armistice]] displayed in red]]
[[File:DeadFinnishcivilians1942.jpg|thumb|Finnish children killed by Soviet partisans at [[Seitajärvi]] in Finnish Lapland 1944.]]

According to Finnish historians, the casualties of the Finnish Defence Forces amounted to 63,204 dead or missing and around 158,000 wounded.{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}}{{refn|A detailed list of Finnish dead is as follows:<ref name="pikkujattilainen-kurenmaalentila">{{cite book|title=Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen|last1=Kurenmaa|first1=Pekka|last2=Lentilä|first2=Riitta|publisher=WSOY|year=2005|isbn=9510286907|editor1-last=Leskinen|editor1-first=Jari|pages=1150–1162|language=fi|chapter=Sodan tappiot|editor2-last=Juutilainen|editor2-first=Antti}}</ref>
* Dead, buried 33,565;
* Wounded, died of wounds 12,820;
* Dead, not buried, declared as dead 4,251;
* Missing, declared as dead 3,552;
* Died as prisoners of war 473;
* Other reasons (diseases, accidents, suicides) 7,932;
* Unknown 611.|group="Note"}} Officially, the Soviets captured 2,377 [[Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union|Finnish POWs]], although Finnish researchers estimated the number to be around 3,500 prisoners.<ref name="pikkujattilainen-malmi"/> A total of 939 Finnish civilians died in air raids and 190 civilians were killed by Soviet partisans.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name="pikkujattilainen-kurenmaalentila"/>{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}} Germany suffered approximately 84,000 casualties in the Finnish front: 16,400 killed, 60,400 wounded and 6,800 missing.{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}} In addition to the original peace terms of restoring the 1940 border, Finland was required to [[Finnish war reparations to the Soviet Union|pay war reparations to the USSR]], conduct [[War-responsibility trials in Finland|domestic war-responsibility trials]], lease [[Porkkalanniemi|Porkkala Peninsula]] to the Soviets as well as ban [[fascist]] elements and allow left-wing groups, such as the [[Communist Party of Finland]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|pp=147–149}} A Soviet-led [[Allied Control Commission]] was installed to enforce and monitor the peace agreement in Finland.<ref name="Mouritzen"/> The requirement to disarm or expel any German troops left on Finnish soil by 15 September 1944 eventually escalated into the [[Lapland War]] between Finland and Germany and the evacuation of the 200,000-strong 20th Mountain Army to Norway.{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|pp=279–280, 320–321}}

[[File:Памятник Здесь был остановлен враг.jpg|thumb|left|A memorial close to the Svir River in Russia with "The enemy was stopped here" ({{lang-ru|"Здесь был остановлен враг"|links=no}}) written on it]]

The Soviet demand for $600 million in war indemnities was reduced to $300 million (equivalent to ${{#expr:({{Inflation|US|300|1938|r=-2}}/1000)}} billion in {{Inflation-year|US}}), most likely due to pressure from the US and the UK. After the ceasefire, the USSR insisted that the payments should be based on 1938 prices, which doubled the de facto amount.{{sfn|Ziemke|2002|p=390}}{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|pp=147–149}} The temporary Moscow Armistice was finalised without changes later in the [[Paris Peace Treaties, 1947]].{{sfn|Vehviläinen|2002|p=162}} Henrik Lunde noted that Finland survived World War II without losing its independence—unlike many of Germany's allies.{{sfn|Lunde|2011|p=379}} Likewise, Helsinki, along with Moscow, was the only capital of a World War II combatant nation that was not occupied in continental Europe.{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}} In the longer term, Peter Provis analysed that by following self-censorship and limited appeasement policies as well as by fulfilling the USSR's demands, Finland avoided the fate of other nations that were annexed by the Soviets.<ref name="Provis1999">{{cite journal|url=http://diemperdidi.info/nordicnotes/vol03/articles/provis.html|last=Provis|first=Peter|title=Finnish achievement in the Continuation War and after|issn=1442-5165|year=1999|publisher=Flinders University|journal=Nordic Notes|volume=3|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103202028/http://diemperdidi.info/nordicnotes/vol03/articles/provis.html|archive-date=2013-11-03}}</ref>

Many civilians who had been displaced after the Winter War had moved back into Karelia during the Continuation War and now had to be [[Evacuation of Finnish Karelia|evacuated from Karelia again]]. Of the 260,000 civilians who had returned Karelia, only 19 chose to remain and become Soviet citizens.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hietanen |first=Silvo |title=Kansakunta sodassa – 3. osa Kuilun yli |chapter=Evakkovuosi 1944 – jälleen matkassa |trans-chapter=Evacuation 1944 – On the Road Again |language=fi |year=1992 |publisher=Valtion Painatuskeskus |location=Helsinki |pages=130–139 |isbn=9518613850}}</ref> Most of the Ingrian Finns, together with [[Votes]] and [[Izhorians]] living in German-occupied Ingria, had been evacuated to Finland in 1943–1944. After the armistice, Finland was forced to return the evacuees.{{Sfn|Taagepera|2013|p=144}} Soviet authorities did not allow the 55,733 returnees to resettle in Ingria and instead [[Deportations of the Ingrian Finns|deported the Ingrian Finns]] to central regions of the USSR.{{Sfn|Taagepera|2013|p=144}}{{Sfn|Scott|Liikanen|2013|pp=59–60}}

=== Soviet Union ===
{{See also|History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)|}}

The war is considered a Soviet victory.<ref name="Mouritzen"/><ref name="Nordstrom"/><ref name="MorganCohen2005"/> According to Finnish historians, Soviet casualties in the Continuation War were not accurately recorded and various approximations have arisen.{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}}{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}} Russian historian [[Grigori F. Krivosheev|Grigori Krivosheev]] estimated in 1997 that around 250,000 were killed or missing in action while 575,000 were medical casualties (385,000 wounded and 190,000 sick).<ref name="Krivosheev">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CTTfAAAAMAAJ|title=Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century|last=Krivosheev|first=Grigori F.|date=1997|publisher=Greenhill Books|isbn=9781853672804|pages=79, 269–271|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222043729/https://books.google.ch/books?id=CTTfAAAAMAAJ|archive-date=22 February 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{Sfn|Kinnunen|Kivimäki|2011|p=172}} Finnish author Nenye and others stated in 2016 that at least 305,000 were confirmed dead, or missing, according to the latest research and the number of wounded certainly exceeded 500,000.{{Sfn|Nenye|Munter|Wirtanen|Birks|2016|p=320}} The number of [[Soviet prisoners of war in Finland]] was estimated by Finnish historians to be around 64,000, 56,000 of whom were captured in 1941.{{sfn|Leskinen|Juutilainen|2005|p=1036}} Around 2,600 to 2,800 Soviet prisoners of war were rendered to Germany in exchange for roughly 2,200 [[Baltic Finns|Finnic]] prisoners of war.<ref>{{cite news|first=Max|last=Jakobson|author-link=Max Jakobson|newspaper=Helsingin Sanomat| url=http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20031118IE7|title=Wartime refugees made pawns in cruel diplomatic game|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123825/http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20031118IE7|archive-date=2011-06-04|date=2003-11-08|language=fi}}</ref> Of the Soviet prisoners, at least 18,318 were documented to have died in Finnish [[prisoner of war camp]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ylikangas|first=Heikki|date=2004|title=Heikki Ylikankaan selvitys valtioneuvoston kanslialle|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qUL6tgAACAAJ|journal=Valtioneuvoston Kanslian Julkaisusarja|isbn=952-5354-47-4|issn=0782-6028|language=fi}}</ref> The extent of Finland's participation in the Siege of Leningrad, and whether Soviet civilian casualties during the siege should be attributed to the Continuation War, is debated and lacks a consensus (estimates of civilian deaths during the siege range from 632,253<ref>{{cite book| script-title=ru:Сведения городской комиссии по установлению и расследованию злодеяний немецко-фашистских захватчиков и их сообщников о числе погибшего в Ленинграде населения|publisher=Central State Archives of St. Petersburg| pages=46–47|chapter=фонд 8357, опись 6, дело 1108|language=ru|trans-title=Information of the City Commission on the establishment and investigation of the atrocities of the German fascist invaders and their accomplices about the number of people killed in Leningrad|trans-chapter=Fund 8357, Inventory 6, File 1108}}</ref> to 1,042,000).{{sfn|Glantz|2001|p=179}}<ref name=":9" /> Of material losses, authors Jowett and Snodgrass state that 697 Soviet tanks were destroyed.{{sfn|Jowett|Snodgrass|2012|p=14}} Captured 842 field artillery pieces{{sfn|Paulaharju|Sinerma|Koskimaa|1994|p=537}}{{#tag:ref| This number includes only those field artillery pieces which were captured in full condition or were later repaired to full condition and used by Finnish artillery. It doesn’t include anti tank guns, anti aircraft guns or coastal guns captured. Armies do not usually leave undestroyed guns behind and we can assume that Soviet army was no exception. So the number of guns left behind and lost by Soviet army is something much higher. |group="Note"}} and airplanes destroyed by Finnish fighter planes 1600, 1030 by AA and 75 by Navy.{{sfn|Nikunen|Talvitie|Keskinen|2011|p=349}}

==In popular culture==
Several literary and cinematic arrangements have been made on the basis of the Continuation War. The best-known story about the Continuation War is [[Väinö Linna]]'s novel ''[[The Unknown Soldier (novel)|The Unknown Soldier]]'', which was the basis for three films in [[The Unknown Soldier (1955 film)|1955]], [[The Unknown Soldier (1985 film)|1985]], and [[The Unknown Soldier (2017 film)|2017]]. There is also a 1999 film ''[[Ambush (1999 film)|Ambush]]'', based on a novel by [[Antti Tuuri]] on the events in [[Muyezerski District|Rukajärvi]], [[Republic of Karelia|Karelia]], and a 2007 film ''[[1944: The Final Defence]]'', based on the [[Battle of Tali-Ihantala]].

==See also==
{{Portal|Finland|Germany|Soviet Union|World War II|History}}{{div col|colwidth=}}
* [[Brezhnev Doctrine]]
* [[Cold-weather warfare]]
* ''[[Einsatzkommando Finnland]]''
* [[Lotta Svärd]]
* [[List of wars involving Finland]]
* [[Finland–Russia relations]]
* [[Finnish war children]]
* [[Salpa Line]]
* [[Stalin Line]]
* [[Operation Silver Fox]]
* [[The Unknown Soldier (novel)|''The Unknown Soldier'' (novel)]]
* [[Volkhov Front]]
* [[Hitler and Mannerheim recording]]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|group="Note"}}

==References==
===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
====English====
{{Refbegin}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kVcrDwAAQBAJ&q=leningrad+siege+mannerheim&pg=PT213|title=Mannerheim: President, Soldier, Spy|last=Clements|first=Jonathan|publisher=Haus Publishing|year=2012|isbn=9781908323187|pages=213|language=en}}
* {{cite book|last1=Erickson|first1=John|title=The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War with Germany|year=1993|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven|isbn=0300078137|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6UaU6ZLqK4UC}}
* {{cite journal|journal=Leavenworth Papers|issue=17|title=The Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation: Soviet Breakthrough and Pursuit in the Arctic, October 1944|last1=Gebhardt|first1=James|year=1990|publisher=Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College|location=Fort Leavenworth|issn=0195-3451|url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a322750.pdf}}
* {{cite book|last1=Glantz|first1=David|last2=House|first2=Jonathan|title=When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler|year=1998|publisher=University Press of Kansas|location=Lawrence|isbn=978-0700608997|url=https://archive.org/details/whentitansclashe00glan_0}}
* {{cite book|last=Glantz| first=David| title=The Siege of Leningrad 1941–1944: 900 Days of Terror|publisher=Zenith Press|year=2001|isbn=0760309418}}
* {{cite book|last1=Grier|first1=Howard|title=Hitler, Dönitz, and the Baltic Sea: the Third Reich's last hope, 1944–1945|year=2007|publisher=US Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis|isbn=978-1591143451|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u4IbqxEQeBMC}}
* {{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iaSjCwAAQBAJ|title=Finland at War 1939–45|first1=Philip|last1=Jowett|first2=Brent|last2=Snodgrass|year=2012|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=9781782001560}}
* {{cite book|last1=Jutikkala|first1=Eino|last2=Pirinen|first2=Kauko|year=1988|title= A History of Finland|publisher=Dorset Press|isbn=0880292601}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C68xN5lTN6EC&q=continuation+war+soviet+strength&pg=PA173|title=Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations|last1=Kinnunen|first1=Tiina|last2=Kivimäki|first2=Ville|year=2011|publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-9004208940|language=en}}
* {{cite book|last=Kirby|first=David|title=A concise history of Finland|url=https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00davi_0|url-access=registration|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|year=2006|isbn=978-0521539890}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=moeHCwAAQBAJ&q=finnish+army+barbarossa&pg=PT121|title=Operation Barbarossa: The German Invasion of Soviet Russia|last=Kirchubel|first=Robert|year=2013|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=9781472804716|language=en}}
* {{cite book|last=Krosby|first=H. Peter|title=Finland, Germany, and the Soviet Union, 1940–1941: The Petsamo Dispute|url=https://archive.org/details/finlandgermanyth00kros|url-access=registration|publisher=University of Wisconsin Press|year=1968|isbn=9780299051402}}
* {{cite book |title=Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Alliance in World War II|last=Lunde|first=Henrik O.|year=2011|publisher=Casemate Publishers|location=Newbury|isbn=978-1612000374}}
* {{cite book |last1=Mann |first1=Chris M. |last2=Jörgensen |first2=Christer |title=Hitler's Arctic War |publisher=Ian Allan |year=2002 |isbn=0-7110-2899-0 |location=Hersham, UK }}
* {{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zb6gCwAAQBAJ|title=Finland at War: The Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941–45|last1=Nenye|first1=Vesa|last2=Munter|first2=Peter|last3=Wirtanen|first3=Toni|last4=Birks|first4=Chris|publisher=Osprey Publishing|year=2016|isbn=978-1472815262}}
* {{cite book|title=How Wars End|last=Reiter|first=Dan|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2009|isbn=9781400831036}}
* {{cite book|last=Salisbury|first=Harrison E.|title=The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad|year=2003|edition=2|publisher=Da Capo Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0306812989 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8AgJc6NP7XEC}}
* {{Cite book|last1=Scott|first1=James Wesley|last2=Liikanen|first2=Ilkka|title=European Neighbourhood Through Civil Society Networks?: Policies, Practices and Perceptions|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1317983453}}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Stewart|editor-first=Richard W.|edition=2nd|year=2010|isbn=9780160841842|title=American Military History Volume II: The United States Army in a Global Era, 1917–2008}}
* {{Cite book|last1=Taagepera|first1=Rein|title=The Finno-Ugric Republics and the Russian State|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1136678080}}
* {{cite book|last=Vehviläinen|first=Olli|year=2002|title=Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia|publisher=Palgrave|location=New York|isbn=0333801490}}
* {{cite book|last=Weeks|first=Albert L.|title=Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II|publisher=Lexington Books|year=2004|isbn=978-0-7391-0736-2}}.
* {{cite book|last=Werth|first=Alexander|title=Russia at War, 1941–1945|year=1999|edition=2|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0786707225}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Zeiler |editor1-first=Thomas W. |editor2-last=DuBois |editor2-first=Daniel M. |title=A Companion to World War II|series=Wiley Blackwell Companions to World History|chapter=Scandinavian Campaigns |volume=11 | year=2012 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|isbn=978-1-4051-9681-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q7ovUxI8_5YC&q=driftwood}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-5-1/CMH_Pub_30-5-1.pdf|title=Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East.|last=Ziemke|first=Earl F.|publisher=Center of Military History, United States Army|year=2002|isbn=1780392877}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YiNwCwAAQBAJ&q=army+of+norway+barbarossa&pg=PT150|title=German Northern Theater of Operations 1940–1945 [Illustrated Edition]|last=Ziemke|first=Earl|year=2015|publisher=Pickle Partners Publishing|isbn=9781782899778|language=en}}

{{Refend}}

====Finnish and Russian====
{{Refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last=Baryshnikov |first=Nikolai I. |script-title=ru:Блокада Ленинграда и Финляндия 1941–1944 |trans-title=Finland and the Siege of Leningrad 1941–1944 |year=2002 |publisher=Johan Beckman Institute |location=St. Petersburg |isbn=9525412105 |language=ru |url=http://v-n-baryshnikov.narod.ru/blokada.html}}
* {{cite web|last=Baryshnikov|first=Nikolai I.|script-title=ru:Феномен фальши: 'Победа в противостоянии'|trans-title=The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation'|year=2006|work=St. Petersburg and the Countries of Northern Europe|publisher=Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy|location=St. Petersburg|language=ru|url=http://www.rhga.ru/science/conferences/spbse/2006/barishnikov2.htm|ref=Baryshnikov2}}
* {{cite book|last=Haavikko|first=Paavo |title= Päämaja – Suomen hovi |year= 1999 |publisher= Art House |isbn=951-884-265-5|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|script-title=ru:Финляндия на пути к войне: Исследование о военном сотрудничестве Германии и Финляндии в 1940–1941 гг|trans-title=Birth of the Continuation War: Research of German–Finnish Military Collaboration 1940–1941|last=Jokipii|first=Mauno|year=1999|publisher=Karelia|location=Petrozavodsk|isbn=5754507356|language=ru}}
* {{cite book|title=Ilomantsi – lopultakin voitto|last=Juutilainen|first=Antti|year=1994|publisher=Kirjapaino Oy West Point |location=Rauma|isbn=9519521852|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|last=Kiljanen|first=Kalervo|title= Suomen Laivasto 1918–1968, II|trans-title=Finnish Navy 1918–1968, II|language=fi|year=1968|publisher =Meriupseeriyhdistys/Otava|location=Helsinki}}
* {{cite book|last=Koskimaa |first=Matti |title= Veitsen terällä : vetäytyminen Länsi-Kannakselta ja Talin-Ihantalan suurtaistelu kesällä 1944 |year=1993 |isbn=9510188115 |publisher=WSOY |location=Porvoo |language=fi}}
* {{cite book |last=Manninen | first=Ohto| title=Molotovin cocktail – Hitlerin sateenvarjo |language=fi |trans-title=Molotov's cocktail – Hitler's umbrella |publisher=Painatuskeskus |location=Helsinki| year=1994 |isbn=9513714950 }}
* {{cite book|title=Kun hyökkääjän tie pysäytettiin|last1=Moisala|first1=U. E.|last2=Alanen|first2=Pertti|year=1988|publisher=Otava |location=Keuruu|isbn=9511103865|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Leskinen|editor1-first=Jari|editor2-last=Juutilainen|editor2-first=Antti|year=2005|title= Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen|edition=1st|language=fi|publisher=WSOY|isbn=9510286907}}
* {{cite book|last=Luknitsky|first=Pavel|script-title=ru:Сквозь всю блокаду|trans-title=Through the Siege|year=1988|publisher=Lenizdat|location=Leningrad|language=ru}}
* {{cite book|last=Suprun|first=Mikhail|year=1997|script-title=ru:Ленд-лиз и северные конвои: 1941-1945 гг|trans-title=Lend-Lease and Northern Convoys: 1941–1945|publisher=Андреевский флаг|isbn=5-85608-081-5}}
* {{cite book|title=Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941|last1=Raunio|first1=Ari|last2=Kilin|first2=Juri|trans-title=Offensive Battles of the Continuation War 1941|publisher=Otavan Kirjapaino Oy|year=2007|isbn=978-9515930699|language=fi|location=Keuruu}}
* {{cite book |title=Jatkosodan torjuntataisteluja 1942–44 |trans-title=Defensive Battles of the Continuation War 1942–44|language=fi| last1=Raunio |first1=Ari |last2=Kilin |first2=Juri |year=2008 |publisher=Otavan Kirjapaino Oy |location=Keuruu |isbn=978-9515930705 }}
* {{cite book |title=Suomen ilmasodan pikkujättiläinen |language=fi| last1=Nikunen |first1=Heikki |last2=Talvitie |first2=Jyrki K. |last3=Keskinen |first3=Kalevi |year=2011 |publisher=WSOY |location=Helsinki |isbn=978-9510368718 }}
* {{cite book |title=Suomen kenttätykistön historia II Osa |language=fi| last1=Paulaharju |first1=Jyri |last2=Sinerma |first2=Matti |last3=Koskimaa |first3=Matti |year=1994 |publisher=Suomen Kenttätykistön säätiö |location=Helsinki |isbn=952-9055110 }}
* {{cite book|last=Virkkunen|first=Sakari|title=Myrskyajan presidentti Ryti|publisher=Otava|year=1985|isbn=951-1-08557-3|language=fi}}

{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|last=Jokipii|first=Mauno|title=Jatkosodan synty: tutkimuksia Saksan ja Suomen sotilaallisesta yhteistyöstä 1940–1941|trans-title=Birth of the Continuation War: Research of German–Finnish Military Collaboration 1940–1941|year=1987|publisher=Otava|location=Helsinki|isbn=951-1087991|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|last=Krosby|first=Hans Peter|year=1966|title=Nikkelidiplomatiaa Petsamossa 1940–1941|publisher=Kirjayhtyma|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|last=Krosby|first=Hans Peter|year=1967|title=Suomen valinta 1941|publisher=Kirjayhtyma|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Raunio|editor1-first=Ari|author=[[National Defence University (Finland)]]|year=1994|title=Jatkosodan historia 1–6|trans-title=History of the Continuation War 1–6|language=fi|publisher=WSOY}}
* {{cite book|last=Polvinen|first=Tuomo I.|year=1979–1981|title=Suomi kansainvälisessä politiikassa 1941–1947, osa 1–3|publisher=WSOY|language=fi}}
* {{cite book|last=Sana|first=Elina|year=1994|title=Luovutetut: Suomen ihmisluovutukset Gestapolle|trans-title=The Extradited: Finland's Extraditions to Gestapo |publisher=WSOY|isbn=9510279757 |language=fi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NCifAAAAMAAJ}}
* {{cite book|last=Schwartz|first=Andrew J.|year=1960|title=America and the Russo–Finnish War|publisher =Public Affairs Press|isbn=0837179645}}
* {{cite book|last=Seppinen|first=Ilkka|year=1983|title=Suomen ulkomaankaupan ehdot 1939–1944|trans-title=Finnish Foreign Trade Conditions, 1939–44|publisher=Suomen Historiallinen Seura|isbn=9789519254494|language=fi}}
* {{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/05/finland-in-world-war-ii/100519/ |title=Finland in World War II|last=Taylor|first=Alan|date=2013-05-23|work=The Atlantic}}
* {{cite book|editor-last=Wuorinen|editor-first=John H.|year=1948|title=Finland and World War II 1939–1944| publisher=The Ronald Press Company|isbn=0313241333}}

==External links==
{{Commons category}}{{Wiktionary|motti}}
* [http://waralbum.ru/category/war/east/winter_war/ Военный альбом] (photographs of World War II and the Great Patriotic War 1939–1945)
* [https://finna.fi/?lng=en-gb Finna] (search service for information from Finnish archives, libraries and museums)
* [http://sa-kuva.fi/ Finnish Wartime Photograph Archive] (under [[CC BY 4.0]])
* [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ National Archives of the United Kingdom]

{{World War II}}{{Finland topics}}{{Finnish Defence Forces}}{{Russian Conflicts}}{{Joseph Stalin}}{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Continuation War| ]]
[[Category:Eastern European theatre of World War II]]
[[Category:Finland in World War II]]
[[Category:Finland–Soviet Union relations]]
[[Category:Soviet Union–United Kingdom relations]]
[[Category:Finland–Russia relations]]
[[Category:Wars involving the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Wars involving Finland]]
[[Category:20th century in Finland]]
[[Category:1941 in Finland]]
[[Category:1942 in Finland]]
[[Category:1943 in Finland]]
[[Category:1944 in Finland]]
[[Category:1941 in the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:1942 in the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:1943 in the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:1944 in the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 1941]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 1942]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 1943]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 1944]]
[[Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Norway]]
[[Category:Battles and operations of World War II involving Germany|Norwegian Campaign]]
[[Category:Axis powers]]
[[Category:Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic]]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous

2021-03-06T14:42:15Z

Pudeo: trim

<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
{{SPIarchive notice|SkepticAnonymous}}
{{SPIpriorcases}}

===06 March 2021===
{{SPI case status|CUrequest}}
====Suspected sockpuppets====

* {{checkuser|1=Nmi628|master name={{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}


*'''Tools''': [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users={{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}&users={{urlencode:Nmi628}} Editor interaction utility] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/interaction-timeline?wiki=enwiki&user={{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}&user={{urlencode:Nmi628}} Interaction Timeline] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/{{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}.html User compare report] ''Auto-generated every hour.''

[[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] was blocked on Jan 27. Nmi628 started editing on Feb 27. Ironically, one of their first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Gosar&diff=prev&oldid=1009296801&diffmode=source edits] was complaining about "new accounts". In their first day of editing, they already used wikijargon like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Fuentes&diff=prev&oldid=1009325528 "LGV"] and now linked to more obscure pages like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1010173951&diffmode=source "WP:SQS"].

In Oct 2020, IHateAccounts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=985022863&diffmode=source inquired] why did [[User:Beaneater00|Beaneater00]] choose an ethnic slur as an username. Nmi628 has now edit-warred with Beaneater00 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nmi628&type=revision&diff=1010460133&oldid=1010434438&diffmode=source alleged] that he has a history of pro-Nazi edits. Regardless of the merit of these claims, it is suspicious to butt heads with the same user who isn't even that prolific of an editor.

In the last SPI, the white nationalism topic area was covered. Nmi628 exclusively edits that topic area. Nmi28 requested an edit to use 'transphobia' in J.K. Rowling: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1009364669&diffmode=source]. There's the active use of requests for page protection by both users[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=1010171672&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=991740205&diffmode=source] (IHA 10 edits on [[WP:RFPP]], Nmi628 12 edits). Both users capitalize words in edit summaries but write 'twitter' with lower-case: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Fuentes&diff=prev&oldid=1009362009 Nmi628] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=993491780&diffmode=source IHA].

I can't say with certainty that SA is the sockmaster here, but it's obvious Nmi628 is not a new user. Running a check here would be reasonable to protect Wikipedia from socking.

For good measure, Rockypedia sock {{user|Ewen Douglas}} also has history in [[Nick Fuentes]], [[Steve King]] and [[James Allsup]], but I don't know if there's coherent CU log data for him. [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''

====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

----

Battle of Tali–Ihantala

2021-03-06T13:48:26Z

Pudeo: Reverted 1 edit by 213.238.219.210 (talk): The claim is sourced and sounds right. (Historic battles did not have as much combatants as WWII).

{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2012}}
{{Infobox military conflict
|conflict = Battle of Tali-Ihantala
|image = Tali-Ihantala.jpg
|image_size = 300px
|caption = Finnish soldiers marching next to a destroyed Soviet [[T-34]] tank
|partof = the [[Continuation War]] of [[World War II]]
|date = June 25 to July 9, 1944
|place = {{Coord|60|46|N|28|53|E|name=Battle of Tali-Ihantala|display=inline,title}} [[Karelian Isthmus]]
|result = Finnish victory<ref name="Jowett 2006 p. 14">[[#FAW2006|Jowett & Snodgrass (2006)]]. p. 14.</ref><ref name="Mcateer-184"/><ref name="battlesandsieges-467">[[#battlesandsieges|Jaques (2007)]] p. 467</ref>
|combatant1 = {{flag|Finland}} '''Supported by:''' {{flag|Nazi Germany}}
|combatant2 = {{flag|Soviet Union|1936}}
|commander1 = {{nowrap|{{Flagicon|Finland}} [[C.G.E. Mannerheim]]}} {{flagicon|Finland}} [[Karl Lennart Oesch]] {{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} [[Kurt Kuhlmey]]
|commander2 = {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Leonid Govorov]] {{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Dmitry Gusev]] {{nowrap|{{Flagicon|Soviet Union|1936}} [[Aleksandr Cherepanov (general)|Aleksandr Cherepanov]]}}
|strength1 = {{flagicon|Finland}} 50,000 (later near 100,000)<ref>[[#FAW2006|Jowett & Snodgrass (2006)]]. "Finnish forces total about 50,000 men of IV Corps (LtGen Taavetti Laatikainen), with 50 per cent of the nation's entire complement of artillery committed to the battle. The main Finnish assets committed at Tali-Ihantala are the 3rd, 4th, 6th & 18th Divs, the 'Lagus' Armd Div, and the 3rd 'Blue' brigade. The Finnish artillery perform magnificently, and their accurate fire is one of the main factors in the victory." p. 14.</ref><ref name="Koskimaa"/> {{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} 4,000{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=244}}
|strength2 = 150,000<ref name="Koskimaa"/><ref>[[#FAW2006|Jowett & Snodgrass (2006)]]. "The main Soviet attacking force is the 21st Army, with a total of 150,000 men in 14 infantry divisions, with tank brigades, artillery, and other heavy support assets." p. 13.</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= Punaiset panssarit – Puna-armeijan panssarijoukot 1918–1945 (Red tanks – the Red Army's armoured forces 1918–1945)|last= Kantakoski|first= Pekka |year= 1998|publisher=Hämeenlinna : Ilves-Paino|isbn=951-98057-0-2|pages= 512|language = fi}}</ref>{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=244}} '''Soviet sources:''' 48,000–60,000<ref name=Shigin>[[#Shigin|Shigin (2004)]], pp. 270–271, 316</ref>
|casualties1 ={{flagicon|Finland}} '''Finnish:''' c. 8,750 total
* 1,350 killed{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=244}}
* 1,100 missing{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=244}}
* 6,300 wounded<ref name="Koskimaa" />
* 3 tanks destroyed {{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=243}}
* 12 aircraft{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=243}}
{{flagicon|Nazi Germany}} '''German:'''
* 33 aircraft{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=243}}
|casualties2 ='''Finnish estimate:''' 600 tanks<ref name="Philip Jowett p.14">Philip Jowett & Brent Snodgrass p.14</ref> 284–320 aircraft<ref name="Koskimaa"/> '''Later Finnish estimate''': 21st Army: estimated 4,500–5,500 killed 13,500–14,500 wounded<ref name="MoscowMOD">Archives of Soviet Ministry of Defence, daily casualty reports of 21. Army June 29 – July 10, 1944, 10-day casualty summaries of 21. Army, June–July 1944. Daily reports consists 3,198 KIA, 363 MIA and 13,125 WIA. With the information of 10-day summaries, the casualties of the first four days of the battle could be estimated, which gives total Soviet losses to about 22,000 from which 4,500–5,500 KIA/MIA. According to Soviet military medication statistics from the wounded, about 6% died to their wounds, and those would not be included in the numbers above.</ref><ref name="Manninen"/>{{verify source|date=May 2011}} 23rd Army: 1,458 killed, 288 missing, 6,159 wounded<ref name="raunio_kilin_def"/> '''27,500 total casualties'''
|campaignbox = {{Campaignbox Continuation War}}
}}
The '''Battle of Tali-Ihantala''' (June 25 to July 9, 1944) was part of the Finnish-Soviet [[Continuation War]] (1941–1944), which occurred during World War II. The battle was fought between [[Finland|Finnish]] forces—using war materiel provided by [[Nazi Germany|Germany]]—and [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] forces. To date, it is the largest battle in the history of the [[Nordic countries]].<ref name="Lunde-306"/>

The battle marked a point in the Soviet offensive when the Finnish forces first prevented the Soviets from making any significant gains.<ref name=FAW>Jowett, P., Snodgrass, B. Finland at War 1939–45 Osprey Publishing. 2006.</ref><ref name=Baryshnikov>[[#Baryshnikov|Baryshnikov (2006)]]</ref> Earlier at Siiranmäki and Perkjärvi the Finns had halted advancing Soviet forces.<ref>[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] pp. 286–287</ref> The Finnish forces achieved a defensive victory against overwhelming odds.<ref name="Mcateer-184"/><ref name="battlesandsieges-467"/><ref name="Lunde-379"/>

After the Soviets had failed to create any breakthroughs at Tali-Ihantala, [[Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)|Vyborg Bay]], or [[Battle of Vuosalmi|Vuosalmi]], the Soviet [[Leningrad Front]] started the previously planned transfer<ref name=Baryshnikov/><ref name=Zolotarev>[[#Zolotarev|Zolotarev (1999)]], pp. 97–98, 368</ref><ref name=Vasilevsky>{{cite book |script-title=ru:Дело моей жизни|trans-title=The Point of My Life|url=http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/vasilevsky/23.html|last=Vasilevsky|first=Aleksandr|author-link=Aleksandr Vasilevsky|year=1978|publisher=Politizdat|location=Moscow|page=412|language=ru}}</ref><ref name="moisala-152">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 152–154</ref> of troops from the Karelian Isthmus to support [[Narva Offensive (July 1944)|Narva Offensive]], where they were encountering particularly fierce resistance.<ref name="Mcateer-184"/> Though the Leningrad Front failed to advance into Finland as ordered by the [[Stavka]],<ref name="moisala-152"/><ref>Lehmus K. Tuntematon Mannerheim. Hels., 1967, pp. 179–180</ref><ref>Wirtanen A. Salaiset keskustelut Lahti, 1967, p. 268</ref><ref>Wirtanen A. Poliitiset muistdmat Hels., 1972, p. 27</ref><ref>Seppälä H. Taistelu Leningradista ja Suomi, pp. 272–273</ref> some historians state that the [[Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive|offensive]] did eventually force Finland from the war.<ref name=Glantz>[[#Glantz|Glantz (1998)]], pp. 201–203</ref><ref name=Erickson>[[#Erickson|Erickson (1993)]], pp. 329–330</ref><ref name="Lunde-end"/>

==Background==
[[File:Karelian Isthmus.png|thumb|300px|right|Map of the Karelian Isthmus. The River Vuoksi can be seen originating from near the city Imatra.]]
[[File:Many Karelias.png|middle|thumb|200px|Parts of Karelia, as they are traditionally divided.]]
{{Main|Continuation War}}

After the initial Finnish advance of 1941, the Continuation War was stabilized to [[trench warfare]] with very little activity on either side. When the [[Siege of Leningrad]] was lifted in January 1944, the [[Stavka#Stavka of the RKKA during World War II|Stavka]] received orders to plan an [[Fourth strategic offensive|offensive against Finland]] to push it out of the war.

The Soviet attack on the Finnish front commenced on the [[Karelian Isthmus]] on June 9, 1944, (coordinated with the Allied [[Invasion of Normandy]]). Three Soviet armies were pitted there against the Finns, among them several experienced [[Guards unit|Guard formations]].<ref name="Koskimaa">{{cite book |first=Matti |last=Koskimaa |year=1993 |title=Veitsenterällä : vetäytyminen Länsi-Kannakselta ja Talin-Ihantalan suurtaistelu kesällä 1944 |publisher=WSOY |isbn=951-0-18811-5}}</ref>

The attack soon breached the Finnish front line of defence in [[Valkeasaari]] on June 10, and the Finnish forces retreated to their secondary defence line, the [[VT-line]] (which ran between [[Vammelsuu]] and [[Solovyovo, Priozersky District, Leningrad Oblast|Taipale]]). The Soviet attack was supported by a massive artillery barrage, air bombardments, and armoured forces.<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

The VT-line was breached in [[Sahakylä]] and [[Kuuterselkä]] on June 14; and after a failed counterattack in Kuuterselkä by the Finnish armoured division, the Finnish defence had to be pulled back to the [[VKT-line]] (Viipuri – [[Kuparsaari]] – Taipale).<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

The abandonment of the VT-line was followed by a week of retreat and delaying battles. The Soviet offensive was crowned when the city of Viipuri (Russian: Vyborg) was captured by the Soviets on June 20 after only a short battle. Despite the Red Army's great success in smashing two Finnish defense lines and capturing a substantial piece of territory in just ten days, it had failed to destroy the Finnish army which was able to concentrate its depleted forces on the VKT-line, and had time to get reinforcements from the other main front north of Lake Ladoga.<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

[[Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim|Baron Mannerheim]], the Finnish commander in chief, had asked for German help on June 12, and on June 16 the Flight Detachment Kuhlmey (a composite ad hoc wing of about 70 dive bombers and ground attack fighters, with a fighter and an air transport component) arrived in Finland. A few days later the battalion-sized 303 Assault Gun Brigade and the [[122nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)|122nd Division]] ''Greif'' also arrived; but after that the Germans offered only supplies, the most important of which were [[Panzerfaust]] [[anti-tank]] weapons.<ref name="Koskimaa"/> During one engagement the Finns destroyed 25 Soviet tanks with the Panzerfaust weapons.<ref>Jowlett & Snodgrass p. 14</ref>

On June 21 the Stavka ordered the [[Leningrad Front]] to breach the defensive line and advance to [[Lake Saimaa]].<ref name=Zolotarev/>

On June 21 the Finnish government asked the Soviets about the possibility for peace and accompanying Soviet conditions. The Soviet response arrived on June 23; it demanded a signed statement to the effect that Finland was ready to surrender and was asking for peace, but the Finnish government rejected this.

German Foreign Minister [[Joachim von Ribbentrop|Ribbentrop]] arrived on June 22 and demanded a guarantee that Finland would fight to the end as a precondition of continued German military support. President Ryti [[Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement|gave this guarantee]] as a personal undertaking.

==Order of battle==
{{refimprove section|date=June 2013}}

===Finnish===
HQ of the Commander of the Isthmus Forces (Lieutenant general [[Karl Lennart Oesch]])
* Finnish [[Finnish IV Corps (Continuation War)|IV AK]] (Lieutenant general [[Taavetti Laatikainen]])
** 3rd Brigade "Blue Brigade" (Colonel Lauri Haanterä)
** [[Finnish 3rd Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 3rd Division]] (Major general [[Aaro Pajari]])
** [[Finnish 4th Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 4th Division]] (Major general Pietari Autti)
** [[Finnish 18th Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 18th Division]] (Major general Paavo Paalu sacked June 26, Colonel Otto Snellman),
** since June 27 [[Finnish 11th Division (Continuation War)|11th Division]] (Major general [[Kaarlo Heiskanen]]).
** [[Finnish 6th Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 6th Division]] (Major general [[Einar Vihma]])
* [[Finnish Armoured Division]] (Major general [[Ruben Lagus]])
* LeR 3 (Lieutenant colonel E. Magnusson) (33 [[Messerschmitt Bf 109]], 18 [[Brewster Buffalo]] 239 Fighters and 1 [[Fokker C.X]] reconnaissance)
* LeR 4 (Colonel O. Sarko) (33 [[Bristol Blenheim]], 12 [[Junkers Ju 88]], 8 [[Dornier Do 17]]Z bombers)

On average the strength of Finnish infantry division was 13,300 men, Armoured Division 9,300 and Brigade 6,700-7000 men. With other troops (at least 4 other battalions), Corps/HQ artillery battalions, AA batteries etc. Finnish ground forces during last days of battle were actually near around 100,000 and not 50,000.

===German===
* German air unit [[Detachment Kuhlmey|Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey]] (Oberstleutnant [[Kurt Kuhlmey]]) arrived in Finland on June 16. (23–43 [[Focke-Wulf Fw 190|Fw 190 A-6/F-8]] fighters and ground attack aircraft, 24–30 [[Junkers Ju 87|Ju 87 D Stukas]] and 1–8 [[Bf 109|Bf 109 G-8]] reconnaissance fighters)
* German [[Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303]] (Hauptmann [[Hans-Wilhelm Cardeneo]]) arrived in Finland on June 22. (22 [[StuG III|StuG III Ausf. G assault guns]], 9 [[StuG III|StuH 42 assault howitzers]])

===Soviet===
The Soviet forces that took part in the battle belonged to the Soviet [[Leningrad Front]] under Marshal [[Leonid Govorov]]'s command.
* [[Soviet 21st Army]] ([[Dmitry Gusev]]) (Tali-Ihantala region) attacked;
** [[30th Guards Army Corps|30th Guards Rifle Corps]],
** [[97th Rifle Corps]],
** [[108th Rifle Corps]],
** [[109th Rifle Corps]],
** [[110th Rifle Corps]].
These five corps had together the [[45th Guards Rifle Division|45th]], [[63rd Guards Rifle Division|63rd]] and [[64th Guards Rifle Division]]s and [[46th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|46th]], [[72nd Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|72nd]], [[90th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|90th]], [[109th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|109th]], [[168th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|168th]], [[178th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|178th]], [[265th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|265th]], 268th, 286th, [[314th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|314th]], [[358th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)|358th]] and [[372nd Rifle Division]]s.

Armoured units of 21st Army and armoured reserves of [[Leningrad Front]] in [[Karelian Isthmus]]:

[[1st Guards Tank Brigade]] (described as extremely strong)

[[30th Guards Tank Brigade]]

[[152nd Tank Brigade]]

[[220th Tank Brigade]]

26 th Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment

27th Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment

27th Separate Tank Regiment

31st Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment

98th Tank Regiment

124th Tank Regiment

185th Tank Tank Regiment

260th Guards Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment

351st Guards Guards Heavy Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

394th Heavy Heavy Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

396th Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

397th Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

1222nd Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

1238th Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

1326rh Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

1439th Self-Propelled Gun Regiment

Strength of armoured brigades around 60 and regiments around 15-21 tanks or assault/ Self-propelled guns.

The 21st Army did not commit all of its forces simultaneously but instead kept some of the forces in reserve and committed them only after the initially committed formations had spent their offensive capability and required rest and refit. Also, at the beginning of the battle, some of the Soviet forces that later took part in the battle were deployed on nearby sections of the front, such as the 108th Rifle Corps with its three divisions being deployed to Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay area.

'''Artillery of Leningrad Front and 21st Army'''

5th Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division

15th Breakthrough Artillery Division

51st Artillery Brigade

127 th Artillery Brigade

3rd Guards Mortar Brigade (rocket launchers)

19th Guards Mortar Brigade (rocket launchers)

-7 field artillery regiments (corps)

-4 mortar regiments ( using rocket launchers)
* [[Soviet 23rd Army]] ([[Aleksandr Cherepanov (general)|Aleksandr Cherepanov]]) attacked on the front immediately east of the 21st Army towards Noskua. It deployed the Soviet [[6th Rifle Corps]] which consisted of the [[13th Rifle Division|13th]], [[177th Rifle Division|177th]], and [[382nd Rifle Division]]s.

Average Red Army division of Leningrad Front in early June 1944 had 6,500-7,000 men. Half the personal strength of Finnish infantry division.

'''Soviet air power'''

32nd Anti Aircraft Artillery Division, having 4 AA-regiments.

'''''13th Air Army''''' 9 June 1944 (exact information, according to documents in TsAMO = Russian Defence Ministry Archice in Podolsk): 817 aircraft (including e.g. 235 Il-2s and 205 fighters ). Guards Fighter Aviation Corps, Leningrad: 257 fighters. VVS KBF (Baltic Fleet Air Force) : ~545 aircraft.

Altogether approx 1600 combat aircraft, of which periodically up to 80 % were used against the Finnish forces in June 1944 (the rest securing the southern shore of Gulf of Finland against German Luftflotte 1).

==The terrain==
The Battle of Tali-Ihantala was fought in a small area — {{convert|100|km2}} — between the northern tip of [[Vyborg Bay]] and the [[River Vuoksi]] around the villages of Tali and Ihantala, {{convert|8|to|14|km}} northeast of Vyborg.

The Soviet forces were concentrated on the area east of the city of Vyborg, from where the attack started, through the southern village of Tali, northwards to [[Ihantala]] (Petrovka). This was the only suitable exit terrain for armoured forces out of the [[Karelian Isthmus]], {{convert|10|km}} wide, broken by small lakes and limited by [[Saimaa Canal]] on the west and the [[River Vuoksi]] on the east.

==Tali: June 25–30==
{{refimprove section|date=June 2013}}
[[File:PST-tykki Kannaksella.jpg|thumb|Finnish [[7.5 cm Pak 40]] antitank gun in action]] [[File:StuG III Ausf. G.jpg|thumb|right|Finnish [[Sturmgeschütz III|StuG III]] Ausf. G [[assault gun]]s.]]
[[File:Panzerfaust6.jpg|thumb|Finnish soldiers in a [[Defensive fighting position|foxhole]]. One of the soldiers is holding a [[Panzerfaust]]]]

[[File:Elements of the Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303.jpg|thumb|right|[[Sturmgeschütz]]-Brigade 303 on the move in city of Lappeenranta.]]
[[File:4406TaisteluosastoKuhlmeynStukia.jpg|thumb|Battle Squadron Kuhlmey's Stukas returning from mission in Karelian Isthmus in late June 1944.]]

The fighting in the area began on June 20.

===June 20–24===
The first days were a defensive battle that the Finnish 18th Division (6th and 48th Infantry Regiment and 28th Independent Battalion) and 3rd Brigade (4 battalions) and the 3rd battalion of the 13th Regiment (Swedish speaking) fought against the Soviet 97th and 109th Corps and 152nd Tank Brigade. The defenders were hit especially hard by artillery and air attacks, but managed to put up a strong defense that stalled the Soviet advance long enough for Finnish reinforcements to join the battle.<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

===June 25–26===
The action of June 25 started at 06:30 with a one-hour Soviet heavy artillery bombardment and air attack, followed by a major Soviet offensive from Tali village at 07:30. The Soviets' goal in the attack was to reach Imatra-Lappeenranta-Suurpäälä before June 28. The 30th Guards Rifle Corps had now also joined the battle.

The Soviet army tried to break through along both sides of Lake Leitimojärvi. The attack on the eastern side of the lake was stopped after three kilometers by the Finnish 4th Division. On the west side, the Soviet infantry of the 45th Guards Division and the 109th Corps got stuck in defensive positions around the hills of Konkkalanvuoret defended by the Finnish regiment JR48.
However, the Soviet 27th Tank Regiment was able to force their way to the Portinhoikka crossroads.

The Soviets also attacked with the 178th Division over the Saarela Strait, which was defended by Finnish regiment JR6's 1st battalion, but the attack was thrown back here as well. Meanwhile, the Soviet 97th Corps attacked the Finnish 3rd Brigade's positions but gained little ground. At this stage the situation was very critical for the Finns, whose units were at risk of being cut off and surrounded. This would inevitably have led to the defeat of the Finnish IV Corps and the loss of the VKT line.

The Finns were able to organize a counterattack with the reserves of the 18th Division, parts of the 17th Division, and some battle groups from the 4th Division. Later that afternoon, the Finnish armored division joined the battle and managed to push the Soviet attackers on the west side of the Lake Leitimojärvi back to their starting point. The Soviet 27th Tank Regiment was annihilated except for six tanks that were captured by the Finns.

===June 27–30===
More Finnish units joined the battle along with the German 303rd ''Sturmgeschütz'' brigade. The Finnish units had been spread out and mixed in the battle, which made the organization of a concentrated defence difficult. The Finnish units were therefore reorganized into two battle groups, BG Björkman and BG Puroma. The Soviets also reinforced their forces with the 108th Corps. At this stage, the Soviet forces included at least one armored brigade, two armored breakthrough regiments, and four assault gun regiments (around 180 AFVs if full strength).

The Finns tried to regain the initiative by attacking the four Soviet divisions (46th Guard, 63rd Guard, 64th Guard, 268th Division and the 30th Guards Tank Brigade) – that had broken through east of Leitimojärvi – from three directions, in order to make a "[[Salients, re-entrants and pockets#Motti|motti]]" of the Soviet divisions. The two battle groups, Björkman and Puroma, did manage to advance to within one kilometer of each other but failed to surround the Soviet divisions who had set themselves up into a hedgehog defense around Talinmylly.

The Finnish attack failed because of heavy Soviet resistance especially with massed tanks and artillery, and because communication between several Finnish battalions broke down during the attack. Colonel Puroma said after the war that the one thing he regretted was the failure to make a motti out of Talinmylly. The attack gave the Finnish defenders 72 hours of respite at the same time as the fresh Finnish 6th and 11th Divisions reached the battlefield. Several tank battles took place during this fighting.

On June 28, air activity was high on both sides as Finnish bombers and German Stukas pounded the Soviet formations and the Soviet 276th Bomber Division hit the Finnish troops hard. On June 28, the Finnish commander Oesch gave the order for Finnish units to withdraw back to the line of Vakkila-Ihantalajärvi-Kokkoselkä-Noskuanselkä (still within the VKT line), but they became caught up in a new Soviet offensive. In sector of 18th Division, in Ihantala one powerful barrage by 14 Finnish artillery battalions (~170 guns and howitzers) destroyed or damaged at least 15 Soviet tanks.<ref>Rautonen, 1959: "Kenttätykistön suorittama panssaritorjunta epäsuorin ammunnoin" (Sotakorkeakoulu, diplomityö) http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=64315707</ref>

June 29 was the hardest and worst day for the Finns during the whole battle, and defeat was not far off. The Finnish forces finally managed to restore the line on June 29 after very bloody fighting. On June 30, the Finnish forces retreated from Tali. The heaviest fighting took place between July 1 and July 2 when the Finns lost some 800 men per day.<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

==Ihantala: July 1–9==
The ensuing Finnish concentration of artillery fire was the heaviest in the country's military history.<ref name="Jatkosota">[[Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu|Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun historian laitos]], ''Jatkosodan historia 1–6'', 1994</ref> It was based on the famed fire correction method of Finnish Artillery General [[Vilho Petter Nenonen]], which enabled easy fire correction and quick changes of targets.<ref name="Koskimaa"/> At the critical ''Ihantala'' sector of the battle, the Finnish defenders managed to concentrate their fire to the extent of smashing the advancing Soviet spearhead.<ref name="Jatkosota"/> The clever fire control system enabled as many as 21 batteries, totaling some 250 guns, to fire at the same target simultaneously in the battle; the fire controller did not need to be aware of the location of individual batteries to guide their fire, which made quick fire concentration and target switching possible. The Finnish artillery fired altogether over 122,000 rounds of ordnance. This concentration was considered a world record at the time (In fact with 8 days period Finns fired more rounds in Vuosalmi and if taking 5 days period record of artillery rounds was fired in U-line, Nietjärvi).<ref name="Koskimaa"/> These fire missions managed to halt and destroy Soviet forces that were assembling at their jumping off points. On thirty occasions the Soviet forces destroyed were larger than battalion size.{{sfn|Nenye ''et al.''|2016|p=243}}

According to ''Bitva za Leningrad 1941–1944'' ("The Battle of [[Saint Petersburg|Leningrad]]") edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov:<ref name="Platonov">{{cite book |author=Platonov, S.P. (editor) |year=1964 |title=Битва за Ленинград ("The Battle of Leningrad") |publisher=Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR}}</ref>

''"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and repuls[ing] all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21."''

By this time the Finnish army had concentrated half its artillery in the area, along with the army's only armoured division, with [[StuG III]] assault guns as its primary weapon, and the German 303 [[Sturmgeschütz]] Brigade (it destroyd only one Soviet AFV). The defenders now finally had the new German [[anti-tank weapons]] that were previously kept in storage. The Finnish also made good use of German [[Panzerschreck]] anti-tank weapons. With these weapons the Finnish destroyed a large number of Soviet tanks-including 25 in one afternoon engagement.<ref name="Philip Jowett p.14"/> During 1 July near the village of Tähtelä field artillery of 6th Divisions damaged 4 tanks and during next day 2 July artillery of 6th Division destroyed 5 tanks in Vakkila, Tähtelä and Ihantala.<ref>Rautonen, 1959: "Kenttätykistön suorittama panssaritorjunta epäsuorin ammunnoin" (Sotakorkeakoulu, diplomityö)</ref>

On July 2 the Finns intercepted a radio message that the [[63rd Guards Rifle Division]] and 30th Armored Brigade were about to launch an attack on July 3 at 04:00 hours. The following morning, two minutes before the supposed attack, 40 Finnish and 40 German bombers bombed the Soviet troops, and 250 guns fired a total of 4,000 artillery shells into the area of the Soviets. On the same day, beginning at 06:00, 200 Soviet planes and their infantry attacked the Finnish troops. By 19:00 the Finnish troops had restored their lines.<ref name="Koskimaa"/>

On July 6 the Soviet forces had some success, despite the Finnish 6th Division having 18 artillery battalions and one heavy battery for their defence. However, the Soviets were thrown back the following day, and their counterattacks at 13:30 and 19:00 that day did not amount to anything. By July 7, the focus of the Soviet attacks was already moving to the area of Vuoksi, and the Soviets now began transferring (remnants of) their best troops to the [[Battle of Narva (1944)|Narva front]] in Estonia, to fight the Germans and the [[20 SS|Estonians]]. From July 9, the Soviet troops no longer attempted a break-through. Nevertheless, some fighting continued.

During period from 21 June to 7 July Soviets forces were able to fire 144,000 artillery and 92,000 mortar rounds, surprisingly near the numbers of Finnish artillery. This suggests that Soviet forces have had some logistics issues.<ref name="Koskimaa"/> Soviet field artillery of rifle divisions was also relatively light when 70-75% of guns were 76 mm while only 30% of Finnish field artillery was light. According to Soviet statistics the average fired field artillery shell in 1944 was just 12.5 kilos. In Tali-Ihantala, just like in Vuosalmi and U-line Finns concentrated one minute barrages where average weight of shells were 20-24 kilos.

During period from 20 June to 7 July Finnish artillery ammo expenditure in sector of 18th Division, 6th Division and 3rd Brigade was total 113,500 rounds, in sector of 4th Division 24,600 and in sector of 3rd Division 25,150 rounds. Total 163,250 rounds of Finnish field artillery.<ref>M.Jokelainen (1950), Tykistön toiminta Länsi-Kannaksella kesä-heinäkuussa 1944, "Artillery operating in western Karelian Isthmus June-July 1944", Appendix 10 , http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=60259804 </ref>

Soviet forces were ordered to cease offensive operations and take up defensive positions on July 10 as the Stavka redeployed forces to the Baltic fronts, where the Red Army was encountering "fierce German and Baltic resistance."<ref>[[#FAW2006|Jowett & Snodgrass (2006)]]. p. 15.</ref>

==Losses==
Finnish sources estimate that the Soviet army lost about 600<ref name="Philip Jowett p.14"/> tanks in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, mainly to air attacks, artillery, and close defence weapons. Between 284 and 320 Soviet aircraft were shot down.<ref name="Koskimaa"/> {{#tag:ref| <ref name="Koskimaa"/> Writes exactly “Finnish and German Air Forces destroyed together 569 enemy air planes during the summer 1944 battles in Karelian Isthmus. Of these more than half were shot down during the Tali-Ihantala battle.” From that we can assume that the number is something between 284 - 320|group="Notes"}}

The Finnish army reported that 8,561 men were wounded, missing, and/or killed in action. According to Finnish historian Ohto Manninen, the Soviets reported their losses as about 18,000–22,000 killed or wounded, based on the daily and 10-day summary casualty reports of the Soviet 21st Army. The uncertainty about casualties rises from the fact that 25 percent of the forces of the 21st Army didn't participate in the battle.<ref name="Manninen">[[Ohto Manninen|Manninen, Ohto]], ''Molotovin cocktail, Hitlerin sateenvarjo'', 1994, {{ISBN|951-37-1495-0}}, Painatuskeskus</ref> In addition to the losses of the Soviet 21st Army, the [[6th Rifle Corps]] of the Soviet 23rd Army that attacked east of the 21st Army closer to Vuoksi waterway suffered 7905 casualties, of which 1458 were [[killed in action]] (KIA) and 288 [[missing in action]] (MIA), without taking the losses of its supporting formations into account.<ref name="raunio_kilin_def">{{cite book |title= Jatkosodan puolustustaisteluja 1942–44|last1=Raunio |first1=Ari |last2=Kilin |first2=Juri |year=2008 |publisher=Otavan Kirjapaino Oy |location=Keuruu |isbn=978-951-593-070-5 |page=192}}</ref>

==Impact==

The cease-fire between the Soviet Union and Finland began at 07:00, September 4, 1944, although for the following 24 hours the Red Army failed to comply with it.<ref name="Jakobson" /><ref>[http://www.kevos4.com/Part%2012%20End%20of%20Hostilities.htm Part 12 End of Hostilities for the Continuation War]</ref>

According to historians Jowett & Snodgrass, Mcateer, Lunde, and Alanen & Moisala, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, along with other Finnish victories (in the battles of [[Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)|Vyborg Bay]], [[Battle of Vuosalmi|Vuosalmi]], [[Battle of Nietjärvi|Nietjärvi]], and [[Battle of Ilomantsi|Ilomantsi]]) achieved during the period, finally convinced the Soviet leadership that conquering Finland was proving difficult, and not worth the cost;<ref name="Jowett 2006 p. 14"/><ref name="Mcateer-184">[[#Mcacteer|Macteer (2009)]] p. 184</ref><ref name="Lunde-379"/><ref>[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 154–155, 258–261</ref> the battle was possibly the single most important battle fought in the Continuation War, as it largely determined the final outcome of the war, allowing Finland to conclude the war with relatively favorable terms<ref name="Lunde-379"/><ref name="Jakobson">[[Max Jakobson|Jakobson, Max]], ''Säkerhetspolitik och historia'', 2007, {{ISBN|978-91-7224-061-2}}, Hjalmarson & Högbergs Bokförlag AB, Essay pp. 164–177 Avvärjningsegern, defensive victory</ref> and continue its existence as an autonomous, democratic, and independent nation.<ref name="Lunde-379">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] p. 379</ref><ref>[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] p. 260</ref> Finnish researchers state that Soviet sources, such as [[prisoner of war|POW]] interviews, prove that the Soviets intended to advance all the way to Helsinki.<ref name="moisala-85">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 85, 152–154</ref> There also existed an order from Stavka to advance far beyond the borders of 1940.<ref name=Zolotarev/>

According to Lunde, one of the reasons leading to the Soviet failure was the Finns were able to intercept the Soviet radio messages and to forewarn and prompt the Finnish Army to put up a firmly resolved defense.<ref name="Lunde-306">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] p. 306</ref> Also, the existence of the Finnish [[Salpa Line|Salpa Defence Line]] was an important factor in the peace negotiations in autumn 1944.<ref>http://www.battlevault.com/Events/Wolfkrieg-09/WK-09%20Player%20List_files/German/Rob_Prince_Hist.pdf{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

Russian historian Nikolai Baryshnikov contests this mainstream view and has argued that such views exaggerate the significance and misrepresent the outcome of the Finnish defensive battles of 1944, including the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. According to him, conquering Finland was not one of the known goals of the Soviet offensive.<ref name=Baryshnikov/><ref name=Glantz/><ref name=Erickson/> According to [[Sergei Shtemenko|General Shtemenko]], the goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland, not conquer the country.<ref name=Baryshnikov/> According to Baryshnikov, after transferring most of their available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the [1940 post- Winter War] Finnish border.<ref name=Baryshnikov/> This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating.<ref name=Baryshnikov/> According to Baryshnikov, Finnish propaganda soon started talking about a victory, and after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became an official theme in Finnish historiography.<ref name=Baryshnikov/>
Baryshnikov's view is not supported by the vast majority of historians.<ref name="Mcateer-184"/><ref name="Lunde-306"/><ref name="moisala-152"/>

==Related operations==
{{See also|Battle of Tienhaara|Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)|l2=Battle of Vyborg Bay|Battle of Vuosalmi}}

On June 22, Soviet forces began [[Operation Bagration|a wide-front push into Eastern Poland and Belorussia]].

At the same time, the Soviet 59th Army attacked the islands in [[Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)|Vyborg Bay]] from July 4 on, and after several days of fighting forced the vastly outnumbered Finnish forces out from most of the islands<ref name=Baryshnikov/><ref name="Lunde-307"/> while suffering heavy losses.<ref name="Lunde-307"/><ref>{{cite book |title= Jatkosodan puolustustaisteluja 1942–44|last1=Raunio |first1=Ari |last2=Kilin |first2=Juri |year=2008 |publisher=Otavan Kirjapaino Oy |location=Keuruu |isbn=978-951-593-070-5 |pages=204–205}}</ref> However, the Soviet attack aimed at crossing Vyborg Bay was a failure as the Soviet troops were thrown back by the German [[122nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)|122nd Division]] of the [[Finnish V Corps|V AK]].<ref name="Lunde-307">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] p. 307</ref><ref name="moisala-143">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 143–147</ref>

The [[Soviet 23rd Army]] attempted to start the crossing of the [[River Vuoksi]] on July 4 at [[Battle of Vuosalmi|Vuosalmi]], but due to the Finnish defense at Äyräpää Ridge, it was unable to start the crossing before July 9.<ref name="Lunde-308"/><ref name="moisala-147">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 147–152</ref> Even with the crossing completed, the Soviet forces consisting of elements from three Soviet divisions were not able to expand the beachhead against the defending [[Finnish 2nd Division (Continuation War)|Finnish 2nd Division]], which was later reinforced.<ref name="Koskimaa"/><ref name="Lunde-308">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] pp. 308–309</ref><ref name="moisala-147"/> The unsuccessful Soviet breakthrough attempts continued there until July 21.<ref name="Lunde-308"/>

In addition to Tali-Ihantala, the Finnish front line held fast at [[Kivisilta]] and [[Battle of Tienhaara|Tienhaara]] to the north of Vyborg Bay.<ref name="Lunde-289">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] p. 289</ref><ref name="moisala-134">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] p. 134</ref> There was further [[Battle of Nietjärvi|heavy fighting]] on the northeast side of [[Lake Ladoga]], and in the [[Battle of Ilomantsi]] the Finns were able to encircle two Soviet divisions, though most of the troops were able to escape.<ref name="Lunde-299">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] p. 299</ref><ref name="moisala-127">[[#Moisala|Moisala & Alanen (1988)]] pp. 127–129</ref>

On July 12, Soviet troops received an order to stop their attempts to advance and to dig in. Soon, Finnish scouts noticed trains with empty cars advancing towards Vyborg to take troops away from the Finnish front. They were needed for the great push towards Berlin.<ref name="Lunde-306"/>

The Finnish government declined further negotiations in late June and did not ask for peace until the Soviet offensive had been stopped. The Finnish government instead used the Ryti-Ribbentrop agreement to strengthen Finnish forces.<ref name="Lunde-end">[[#Lunde|Lunde (2011)]] pp. 303–304, 309, 314</ref> Only after the Soviet offensive had been stopped on all primary fronts, was President Ryti ready to resign on July 28. He, together with leading social-democrat Väinö Tanner, requested that [[Commander-in-Chief]] [[Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim|Mannerheim]] accept the candidacy for president, thus freeing Finland from the Ryti-Ribbentrop agreement, which had only been made as a personal pledge of President Ryti. Finland then could ask the Soviet Union for peace.<ref name=Erickson/><ref name="Lunde-end"/>

==Notes==
{{Reflist|group="Notes"}}

==See also==
* ''[[Tali-Ihantala 1944]]'' (film)

==References==
{{reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
{{Refbegin}}
* {{cite web|last=Baryshnikov|first=Nikolai I.|script-title=ru:Феномен фальши: 'Победа в противостоянии'|trans-title=The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation'|year=2006|work=St. Petersburg and the Countries of Northern Europe|publisher=Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy|location=St. Petersburg|language=ru|url=http://rhga.ru/science/conferences/y_confer/sever/2006/barishnikov2.htm|access-date=September 15, 2011|ref=Baryshnikov}}
* {{cite book |last=Baryshnikov |first=Nikolai I. |script-title=ru:Блокада Ленинграда и Финляндия 1941–1944 |trans-title=Finland and the Siege of Leningrad, 1941–1944 |year=2002 |publisher=Johan Beckman Institute |location=St. Petersburg |isbn=952-5412-10-5 |language=ru |url=http://v-n-baryshnikov.narod.ru/blokada.html|ref=Baryshnikov2}}
* {{cite book|last=Erickson|first=John|title=The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War with Germany|year=1993|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven|isbn=0-300-07813-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6UaU6ZLqK4UC|ref=Erickson}}
* {{cite book|last1=Glantz|first1=David|last2=House|first2=Jonathan|title=When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler|year=1998|publisher=Kansas University Press|location=Lawrence|isbn=978-0-7006-0899-7|ref=Glantz|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/whentitansclashe00glan_0}}
* {{cite book |last1=Jaques |first1=Tony |title=Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F–O |publisher=Greenwood Press |location=Westport |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-313-33538-9 |ref=battlesandsieges}}
* {{cite book|last1=Jowett |first1=Philip |
last2=Snodgrass |first2=Brent |
title=Finland at War 1939–45 |
publisher=Osprey Publishing |
location=Botley |
year=2006 |
isbn=978-1-84176-969-1 |
ref=FAW2006 |
url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p58vtOKyVy8C}}
* {{cite book |last1=Lunde |first1=Henrik, O. |title=Finland's War of Choice |date=2011 |publisher=Casemate Pub |ref=Lunde |isbn=978-1-935149-48-4}}
* {{cite book |last1=Mcateer |first1=Sean |title=500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944–1945 |year=2009 |publisher=Dorrance Publishing |ref=Mcateer |isbn=978-1-4349-6159-4}}
* {{cite book |title=Kun hyökkääjän tie pysäytettiin (When the attacker was stopped) |last1=Moisala |first1=U.E. |last2=Alanen |first2=Pertti |year=1988 |publisher=Otava |location=Keuruu |isbn=951-1-10386-5 |ref=Moisala|language=fi}}
* {{cite book |last1=Nenye |first1=Vesa |last2=Munter |first2=Peter |last3=Wirtanen |first3=Toni |last4=Birks |first4=Chris |title=Finland at War. The Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941–45 |date=2016 |publisher=[[Osprey Publishing]] |location=[[Oxford]] |ref={{harvid|Nenye ''et al.''|2016}}}}
* {{cite book |script-title=ru:Битва за Ленинград: крупные операции, белые пятна, потери|trans-title=Battle for Leningrad: Large-scale Operations, White Spots, Casualties|last=Shigin|first=Grigoriy|year=2004|publisher=Poligon|location=St. Petersburg|isbn= 5-89173-261-0|language=ru|ref=Shigin}}
* {{cite book|script-title=ru:Русский архив: Великая Отечественная. Ставка ВКГ: Документы и материалы 1944–1945.|trans-title=Russian Archive. The Great Patriotic War. STAVKA. Documents and Materials 1944–45|editor=Zolotarev, V. A.|location=Moscow|publisher=Terra|year=1999|isbn=5-300-01162-2|language=ru|ref=Zolotarev}}

{{Refend}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tali-Ihantala, Battle Of}}
[[Category:Battles and operations of the Continuation War]]
[[Category:Finland in World War II]]
[[Category:Continuation War]]
[[Category:1944 in Finland]]
[[Category:Battles of World War II involving Germany]]
[[Category:June 1944 events]]
[[Category:July 1944 events]]
[[Category:Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic]]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous

2021-03-06T13:24:32Z

Pudeo:

<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
{{SPIarchive notice|SkepticAnonymous}}
{{SPIpriorcases}}

===06 March 2021===
{{SPI case status|CUrequest}}
====Suspected sockpuppets====

* {{checkuser|1=Nmi628|master name={{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}


*'''Tools''': [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users={{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}&users={{urlencode:Nmi628}} Editor interaction utility] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/interaction-timeline?wiki=enwiki&user={{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}&user={{urlencode:Nmi628}} Interaction Timeline] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/{{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}.html User compare report] ''Auto-generated every hour.''

[[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] was blocked on Jan 27. Nmi628 started editing on Feb 27. Ironically, one of their first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Gosar&diff=prev&oldid=1009296801&diffmode=source edits] was complaining about "new accounts". In their first day of editing, they already used wikijargon like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Fuentes&diff=prev&oldid=1009325528 "LGV"] and now linked to more obscure pages like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1010173951&diffmode=source "WP:SQS"].

In Oct 2020, IHateAccounts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=985022863&diffmode=source inquired] why did [[User:Beaneater00|Beaneater00]] choose an ethnic slur as an username. Nmi628 has now edit-warred with Beaneater00 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nmi628&type=revision&diff=1010460133&oldid=1010434438&diffmode=source alleged] that he has a history of pro-Nazi edits. Regardless of the merit of these claims, it is suspicious to butt heads with the same user who isn't even that prolific of an editor.

In the last SPI, the white nationalism topic area was covered. Although there are no common pages, Nrm628 exclusively edits that topic area. Nrm628 requested an edit to use 'transphobia' in J.K. Rowling: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1009364669&diffmode=source]. There is the active use of requests for page protection by both users[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=1010171672&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=991740205&diffmode=source] (IHA 10 edits on [[WP:RFPP]], Nrm628 12 edits). Both users capitalize words in edit summaries but write 'twitter' with lower-case: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Fuentes&diff=prev&oldid=1009362009 Nrm628] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=993491780&diffmode=source IHA].

Of course, I can't say with certainty that SA is the sockmaster here, but it is obvious that Nrm628 is not a new user. Based on what I wrote above, running a check here would be reasonable to protect Wikipedia from socking.

For good measure, Rockypedia sock {{user|Ewen Douglas}} also has history in [[Nick Fuentes]], [[Steve King]] and [[James Allsup]], but I don't know if there is coherent CU log data for him. [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''

====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

----

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS

2021-02-27T22:02:24Z

Pudeo: /* Maxim and Primefac / possible recusals */ re

{{casenav}}

== Filing party ==

I am curious as to why {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}} has not been added to the case as the filing party, consistent with similar cases such as [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda]]. This is important as disputes do not arise in a vacuum and the filer's conduct should be examined alongside any other parties, even if the conclusion is that no action should be taken. It also stops vexatious cases being filed, as people know that their own conduct can be equally examined, in the same way that a vexatious ANI thread can be [[WP:BOOMERANG]]ed back at them. Can the case page be adjusted to include this? [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:Hi. The arbitrators requested that only RexxS should be a party in the case. An arbitrator will likely respond soon to review this / explain why they asked for PR not to be a party. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy '''Jazz''']] ''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]'' 11:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::Okay, but I need to stress that as it stands, I think it's unfair. RexxS should be allowed to have his right of reply against ProcrastinatingReader with no favouritism to either side. To be clear, I'm not suggesting PR should be sanctioned or that this request is vexatious; rather it's that being an Arb is a thankless task at the best of times, so it's best to be ''seen'' to be scrupulously fair to avoid any unnecessary criticism. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 11:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::PR was not added because this is not a question of "PR vs RexxS", but rather an evaluation of RexxS's conduct across Wikipedia.
:::Speaking personally, events and discussions over the last year or so have indicated that ArbCom needs to make some changes in how it operates, and thus I expect that there will be more actions in the future that break with "tradition" or "precedent". [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm happy that ArbCom is considering change especially if that change removes some of the stress around arbitrations, however, I for one and probably others would feel that fairness was better served if changes were posted before they're implemented, in any filed arbitration, as a movement towards greater transparency. A thought. [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 15:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::There was no lack of transparency here. Multiple arbs, including myself, were clear we did not feel that the PR/Rexx incident as the driving force of this case when we voted to accept. PR, or future filers, will have no way of knowing when they file what scope of a case ArbCom will decide. In some instances, I could see a filer requesting they be kept as a party so that they would have increased diffs/words when filing evidence. I think your point, ultimately, is not that it wasn't transparent, but that there is procedural fairness in knowing what the rules are ahead of time. That is a good point and one I support. What we might be signaling, and I don't think we'll know until we've done it another time or two, is that we have rules around filing a case and then if you're a party we have rules about how a case proceeds. Those rules include past precedent for adding parties to cases in the middle of a case. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Thank you Barkeep. I was saying that arb transparency is always good where possible; anything that illuminates procedure is positive. As a suggestion: changes in Arbitration procedures should be posted as soon a possible after they are decided, perhaps with an implement time-changes can only be implemented in Arbitrations if they have been posted already a defined period of time so that editors posting or considering Arbitrations know where they stand. I was surprised at this change, and do think it's a mistake to have a change implemented that no one beyond the arbs knew about, but I wasn't referring to this case actually, as I have no sense that a question here could change an already posted Arbitration. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I think working groups should be empowered to decide what steps work best for them based on the current situation, and so they shouldn't be compelled to post rationales for every decision prior to their being made. That being said, for this particular case, it's not new for the arbitration committee to decide on a scope that differs from ones raised by participants to the case request. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Arbitrations are meant to clarify behavior in the community, and the community needs to know if there are changes. There is a big difference between "every decision" and a years-long standard for posting arbitrations. I would agree that there are changes that do not involve the community, but there are others that have been operating procedures for years. Delineating the two kinds of changes and making sure the community is aware of a change is probably a good step, in my opinion, such as it is. [[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

==Maxim and Primefac / possible recusals==
Not sure why exactly {{u|Nsk92}} requested {{u|Primefac}} to recuse. I guess the "working relationship" referenced in Primefac's reply means they could have "pro-PR bias". However, Primefac voted for "consensus to promote" in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat|RexxS crat chat]].

More importantly though, {{u|Maxim}} initiated the crat chat and voted for promotion. Remember that at that point many users believed that the RfA was a done deal because it went below the 65 % discretionary range, so opening the chat was a noteworthy act itself. Now Maxim voted to decline this case. A perception of a pattern could arise here. Not saying that Maxim ''should'' recuse, but it's better that if this needs addressing, it's addressed before the proposed decision is being voted on. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:I'll willingly say it, Maxim must recuse to ensure that there is absolutely no question of the appearance of partiality. I am equally sure we can rely on their recusing, based on his answer to this question during his 2019 Arb. Comm. application:'''Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?'''
:''An arbitrator should recuse, broadly speaking, if they cannot be, or appear to be, impartial to a case. Such a decision should be made on a case-by-case basis; "any way" is very broad and may include minor/tangential involvement that might not give the appearance of partiality. Maxim(talk) 11:01 pm, 14 November 2019, Thursday (1 year, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC+0)'' [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 20:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::If the scope was "PR vs RexxS", yes, I was concerned that I would have a pro-PR bias. However, as the scope is dealing specifically with RexxS, and will likely involve evidence not related to PR, I do not think my overall judgement will be influenced (though as mentioned, I will do my best to avoid PR-related sections). In reply to Leaky caldron, I will be entirely honest that I had to read through the crat chat to even figure out what my position was at the time of RexxS's promotion, and I've interacted with them maybe a handful of times since then; if we're talking about recusing for reasons of "has interacted with this individual at all" then I suspect the entire committee would have to recuse on admin-related cases as we have likely interacted with just about everyone at some point or another. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I was only referring to Maxim. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 20:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I figured as much, but I feel like the back half of my response to you is still valid re: Maxim; doing one's job as a crat does not meant that one has been been permanently INVOLVED with that user until the end of time. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 21:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::It could be argued that we are here entirely due to Maxim's actions in the RFA / 'crat chat. I cannot see the hand of involvement and the requirement to avoid the need ''to appear to be, impartial to a case....'' any more clearly. Anyway, it isn't for you to argue the merits - that's up to Maxim. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Why would I be, or appear to be, more "partial" because I initiated the 'crat chat? You're picking a scapegoat because you don't like the close. There were 11 'crats in total who voiced their opinions on the close; Primefac is one of the 11 too. We're not here to relitigate the RfA, as Pudeo attempted in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=892270356#RexxS_RfA_bureaucrat_chat request for arbitration] that was soundly declined. If anything, there would be more logic to asking arbitrators who previously voiced an opinion on the suitability of RexxS as administrator at the time (i.e. voted in the RfA) to recuse. Primefac and I only assessed community consensus in that RfA—we have never voiced an opinion on the candidate. If you ask anyone in that RfA to recuse, we'd left at 4 arbitrators (BDD, CaptainEek, David Fuchs, and Newyorkbrad by my count), but I cannot recall RfA !votes ever disqualifying arbitrators from a case. If, for the sake of argument, we took RfA involvement as a a reason to recuse, the [[rule of necessity]] would apply. '''[[User talk:Maxim|Maxim(talk)]]''' 21:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::The community decided that the discretionary range is 65-75% in a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#C1:_Expand_discretionary_range_to_65%|2015 RfC]]. Voters specifically were against a lower range of 60 %. You opened a crat chat with a 64.1 % result, and then did not give weight to civility concerns in your bureaucrat assessment . Now you voted against accepting a case which evaluates whether these concerns were right. Many hats here, --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 22:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure where the partiality is; the bureaucrats impartially evaluated community consensus in the request for administrative privileges. I do not have the perception that they have any stake in how the administrator's subsequent behaviour is reviewed. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about the 'Crats in general. I am concerned that one particular 'Crat., now a member of the Arbcom., initiated a highly dubious 'crat chat, supported the candidate and was in a minority of 2 in this case, purporting to abstain in a case where, by their own statement wish ''to appear to be, impartial to a case....''. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, I was including that specific bureaucrat as well as the others. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:To answer Pudeo's original question at the top of this thread, I requested Primefac to recuse from this case because earlier Primefac did recuse from this case[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=1007909433&oldid=1007908739], with the recusal rationale stated as "as I do not feel I would be able to be as impartial as necessary in this case due to my working relationship with PR." [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS

2021-02-27T20:16:50Z

Pudeo:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

2021-02-22T23:03:14Z

Pudeo: fixed indenting for the numbering

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1616878877}}
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=DCCD31F}}
A request for comment to discuss changes to the policy on removing administrative permissions
20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

'''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure]]''' ([[WP:DESYSOP2019]]) closed with a consensus for a different desysop procedure to the current process that requires the referral to [[WP:ARBCOM|the Arbitration Committee]]. That discussion did not result in action because no one proposal had the necessary support to achieve community consensus. The close also highlighted concerns that the community had including:
*The ArbCom process is unnecessarily difficult
*Administrators who make unpopular calls could face harassment
*The processes on other projects might not work on the English Wikipedia
*The community needs a way to address problematic conduct
As a follow-up to that RfC, I am proposing the following be added to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] policy:

{{talkquote|Any user who is extended confirmed and has made at least 25 edits in the last 6 months may file a request for desysop under the following conditions:
#The request must link to at least one thread at a community forum such as AN or ANI that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately.
#The request will then be open for endorsements. If 10 extended confirmed users meeting the filing requirements above, including at least three current administrators, endorse the request within 48 hours, the request will be reviewed by a bureaucrat, and if it meets the requirements, certified as being an active request for desysop. If the required endorsements do not occur within 48 hours, the request will be archived as unsuccessful.
#Once certified, the administrator being discussed must transclude the request for desysop at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] within 14 days or resign as an administrator. If neither occurs within 14 days of certification, a bureaucrat will transclude the discussion.

When opened, the editor initiating should place notices at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:BN]] and [[WT:RFA]]. Once a request has been transcluded, it should be added to [[WP:CENT]] and notices placed again on WP:AN, WP:BN. The request will remain open for comments for 7 days after transclusion.

If there is a consensus with a minimum support threshold of 60% supporting removal, a bureaucrat will close the request for desysop as successful and remove {{code|+sysop}}. Users commenting must meet the requirements for filing a desysop request to support or oppose, but may make general comments if they do not qualify.

Users may additionally initiate this request to remove interface administrator or bureaucrat permissions individually. If a user is desysoped through these processes, bureaucrat and interface administrator permissions will be removed as well.}}
[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

==Support==
#'''Support''' I've traditionally opposed these on the grounds that the current process isn't broken, but I think since the last discussion on this a lot has changed on the project and creating a framework for community initiated desyop that takes into accounts the needs and conditions of the English Wikipedia, while being fair to all involved has likely come about. The framework above aims to provide the community with a way to initiate a desysop process without going through the up to 2 months long process of an ArbCom case, while also providing protections against frivolous filings. The activity requirement for voters is a way to deal with socking, as since EC has been around for a while now, a ton of socks have it.{{pb}}I also took into account the traditional benefit of an ArbCom case giving individual under scrutiny time to present their response, by allowing them to choose when to transclude. I think this is fair when dealing with real life circumstances. The 60% threshold goes based on en.wiki's standard practice of requiring consensus to sanction someone, and consensus not being a pure majority. It also is a doable number and not unreachable.{{pb}}I don't think this is a perfect proposal, but I do think it is a good first step for a framework that will provide both people who believe an admin has behaved inappropriately clearer guidelines on how to proceed without the need to worry about an ArbCom case, and also provide the administrator under scrutiny fairness to prevent railroading. I also agree with the comment of Sdkb below that this will likely be refined over time, and is a starting place. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Noting that if there is consensus here, I do not oppose raising this to 65%. Also, per {{u|Tryptofish}}, this is a consensus based discussion, the numeric thresholds are just minimums. That can be clarified in the close/when it is written into the policy if this passes. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This sounds like it is well thought out, and has sufficient safeguards to avoid frivolous or retaliatory requests becoming active. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the endorsements requirement is particularly useful in preventing "grudge" filings. [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'm not really a fan of requiring three administrators to initiate a desysop, which I would think would go against [[WP:TROPHY]] (that is, giving administrators an elevated status in the community). However, I can certainly see why Tony felt it necessary to include that as a requirement, which I imagine would help avoid frivolous desysop requests. With that said, I still consider this to be a net positive, rather than the patchwork of voluntary recall processes that we have that admins may or may not choose to stick to. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''', with the caveat that it will likely need tweaking in the future. We currently have no good way to remove admins who got grandfathered in and really shouldn't be admins. This may not be perfect, but it's something, and it can be refined over time as we come to understand how easy or difficult the thresholds are. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{u|Sdkb}}, Could you expand on what you mean by "grandfathered in"? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{re|RoySmith}} I'm referring to admins who became admins back when there were not strict standards and have retained the bit. See [[grandfather clause]]. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::{{u|Sdkb}}, That's what I figured. In other words, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RoySmith|people like me]]? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - I think the community should have a process for removing admins without the bureaucracy and closed-door nature of ArbCom, a process designed for conflict resolution more than figuring out if an admin has retained the community's trust. This proposal has adequate safeguards against frivolous nominations and a relatively high bar to removing the admin bit, which should make the process viable in cases where an admin clearly needs to be removed but allow admins subject to small-scale disputes to be retained. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 21:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#More strict than [[User:Amorymeltzer/recall|my own procedures]], so I'm in favor. Seems smooth and strong enough to allow a lot of buy-in while limiting misuse/abuse and most common pitfalls. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amory|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is a decent-enough framework to give it a shot. Of course, the numbers are arbitrary and may need tweaking (especially after it is actually used), but I don't think they are too out of left field. Anything that pushes back against the "adminship is for life" narrative to potentially ease pressure at RfA is a good thing. --[[User:Tavix| '''T'''avix]] ([[User talk:Tavix|talk]]) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. This proposal uses input from the entire community to [[WP:ADMINACCT|hold administrators accountable]] to the policies and guidelines. A desysop policy has the potential to lower the expectations at [[WP:RFA|RfA]], which would encourage more editors to run for adminship and help minimize our numerous backlogs. Other Wikimedia projects have successfully implemented community-oriented desysop methods, and it is worth trying out here as well. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#{{ec|2}} '''Support''' Well thought out. Seem my comments below for my one caveat regarding inactive users but that is not enough to make me oppose. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - very well thought out proposal that cuts off many routes for potential abuse. I share most of {{u|Beeblebrox}}'s concerns, but in my personal opinion Tony's plan mitigates them just enough for me to support what is a very much needed process. [[User:Firefly|ƒirefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Eleven years ago, I was the lead proposer of the failed [[WP:CDARFC]], and I just spent a somewhat unpleasant period of time going back to re-read all the objections that were raised to ''that'', to see if any seemed to me to apply ''here''. The proposals are strikingly similar, but not the same. (The old one had a 65% threshold, and I'm not sure if that really makes a difference. This new proposal requires an existing consensus from a thread that closed as finding tool misuse, and ''that's'' a clear improvement.) I think that this proposal adequately addresses the concerns that have been raised in the past over earlier proposals, and seems feasible, unless one just does not believe in letting the community remove the permission. I've come over time to feel that ArbCom has gotten better and better at this, and therefore have come to have less enthusiasm for a community-based process, but I still think that this proposal can satisfy a need. Maybe en-wiki is finally ready for this. I think this could work. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Adding that I think the 60% thing should be adjusted upward a bit, and that there should be a more explicit statement that Crats have discretion in determining consensus. This needs to be not-a-vote. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{u|Tryptofish}}, Agree completely, it must be a discussion so "Desysop - we have too many admins" !votes don't count for much. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:After reading more comments in this discussion, I want to suggest adding the following language to the part about previous AN/ANI discussions: "...there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately{{fontcolor|green|, and for which diffs are provided of the administrator subsequently rejecting or disregarding that consensus}}." --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We do indeed need a community process for removing adminship to reduce the fear that manifests itself as unwillingness to promote candidates at RfA, and independent of ArbCom's brutal process and often apparently arbitrary decisions and the implications of an ArbCom case that someone has done something unconscionable (ArbCom should mostly be dealing with extreme situations). I share the concerns that the numbers may need tweaking, in particular the percentage support, which seems low since we need admins brave enough to take action in contentious areas. I also have some qualms about using extended confirmed status as part of the qualifications for certifying, but since that exists, yes, it's a valid metric. I strongly suggest that there be a bar on participation in the eventual desysop discussion at the same level as that for certifying, since 60% is so much lower than the usual minimum support level for a successful RfA, and I don't see anything in the proposal preventing unregistered and newly registered editors from voting, unless it's supposed to be implied by location of the discussion at the RfA page. I don't share the concern about the 48 hours, since it's followed by a 14-day period, but there should be a requirement to notify the admin at all three stages and I suggest requiring e-mail notification in addition to on-wiki (last I checked, admins are expected to have e-mail activated). Finally, I think I must add that the concern is not solely with "legacy" admins or even "rusty" legacy admins. I remain opposed to activity requirements for admins, partly because those suggested have never captured non-logged actions like removing a [[:WP:G4]] tag after looking at the previously deleted article and determining the new one is different, or defusing a conflict by explaining ''teh roolz'' to a new editor, and we want admins who defuse conflict more than we want admins who strut about blocking everybody in sight or deleting everything nominated for speedy. But also because it's a volunteer project, and RL exists, as does off-wiki. Some "legacy admins", including some who return to the project years later, are valuable links to when the project was about boldly creating content and not being a <s>dick</s> <s>stuffed shirt</s> ... an encumbrance. ''Pace'' [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text|the WMF]], there is a difference between wisdom and clarity and "abuse of seniority and connections". And some abusive admins have been corrupted by their power since much more recent RfAs in the post-"no big deal" era. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{u|Yngvadottir}}, for clarity, there is a requirement barring participation in the discussion to the same metrics as those used to certify: {{tq|Users commenting must meet the requirements for filing a desysop request to support or oppose, but may make general comments if they do not qualify.}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Oh good, thank you! I kept going backwards to re-read the proposal but failed to find that. I will also tack on here that I am very much opposed to {{U|Tryptofish}}'s addendum: the bureaucrats have completely lost my confidence that they discern consensus in RfAs that fall into or below the discretionary range, as opposed to supervoting. This needs to be a straight-up vote, as proposed. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; relatively similar to what I've already agreed to ([[User:ToBeFree/recall]]) based on good experience with the procedure on the German Wikipedia. Regarding the already-certified "request to desysop" transcluded for discussion at WP:RfA, if possible, I'd favor the administrator under discussion to have the first paragraph on the page, or a prominently displayed section for rebuttal, above the votes. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' this much needed and well thought-out scheme. At present it is too hard to deal with abusive admins. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC).
#:I'd like to see some evidence of 'it is too hard to deal with abusive admins', {{U|Xxanthippe}}, and I don't believe this was the spirit in which this proposal was launched. More in the comments section below. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' in principle. I would suggest some minor refinements (see Comments section), but this is a reasonable proposal that avoids bludgeoning over grudges. — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Clear and well thought out with checks and balances. The framework works (although I would clarify in step 1. it is AN/ANI, and no NACs) and the metrics can be refined over time. I think Step 3. would also be useful to ArbCom, who could send ADMINACCT cases there directly. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – on the basis of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good; the details can be tweaked as we learn from experience and IMO this is a good-enough proposal to start with. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as better than nothing. My suspicion is that this proposed process is sufficiently complex that it'll never be used. But we can always tweak it going forward if folks are interested. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 00:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Just a note to add that my preference is to stick with the 60% threshold or lower (I'd support down to at least 50%, possibly lower). 65%, as some have suggested, seems to be stretching it. If most editors in a discussion want me to hand in the tools, it's probably best I hand them in. That said, I'm happy for the 'crats to have some leeway, as they do at RfA now. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 05:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with the caveat that I expect there will be some changes after we see how this works in practice. This isn't free reign to motion to de-admin accounts, it's just a way for the community to deal with some discipline cases without going through ARBCOM proceedings. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 00:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I think this is a good attempt at a desysop policy which has been to date something sorely absent. I feel the proposal has sufficient checks to ensure this proposal is not misused and support its implementation. Hopefully, this might act as an alternative to Arbcom and help the community to feel more empowered to deal with the rare case of admin power misuse.--[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' - This strikes me as an exceptionally reasonable and fair proposal, I really can't see any obvious flaws with it. It gives the community a realistic process to desysop someone for cause, in a way that is not too difficult, but it includes sufficient caveats and restrictions to prevent it from being weaponized disruptively or unfairly. We can play the "what if" game and never get anywhere, or we can implement a ''good'' proposal, probably as good as it's gonna get, with the understanding that if any flaws present themselves, the process can always be tweaked as needed. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 01:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Is it perfect? No, but perfect/enemy of the good and all that. But variations of this proposal have been active for years on multiple large wikis and more or less it seems to have worked out okay for them. It is time we bring more accountability to enwiki administrators. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as others have said above, we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We are long overdue for some form of community-based desysop procedure. The community is competent to bestow the tools and the community is likewise competent to take them away. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 03:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I don't know how this will work in practice, but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)]] 03:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Tony has big ideas, and this is a good one. ArbCom need not be the alpha and omega for any and all sysop revocations. Not saying that it should otherwise relinquish its desysop role, but having another option that, it, as well, sets out appropriate safeguards — that's a good thing. I trust our admins, I trust our bureaucrats and I trust the community. This is progress. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Overdue. It's nigh impossible to remove an abusive admin and this is a step in the right direction. -[[User talk:Fastily|FASTILY]] 05:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: I wouldn't say it's particularly nigh impossible {{U|Fastily}}. Arbcom has made an easy task of it for themselves in recent times - almost lining admins against the wall and shooting them in one session... [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This can only do good for the encyclopedia - [[WP:ADMINACCT|Administrators should be extremely accountable]] for all actions. More to the point, the perception that administrators are ''more'' accountable to the outside world can only do the project some good. It makes people believe we are fairer and the chances of them getting "jumped on" by an admin will be reduced. Unfortunately, I can see there is significant opposition for the ''specific proposal'' rather than the ''general idea''. Please reconsider, and trust yourself that the bigger picture of allowing us to keep admins in check is more important than the nuts and bolts - think of the greater good or the lesser evil, so to speak. Indeed, I would go as far as suggesting any !vote from an admin opposing this should carry less weight as they have a conflict of interest. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom. Maybe increase the 48hrs bit to 72hrs to take into account long weekends, bank holidays and the like. '''[[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]]''' [[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]] 10:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is a good proposal, and though I am willing to negotiate on some details including numbers, these look reasonable to me in the first approximation. Yes, this procedure will definitely be used to harass admins, no doubt about this. But active admins are being subject to constant harassment anyway, with the community unwilling or not being able to do anything in 90% cases (the worst case which happened to me I had to report to police, and I had external sites specifically founded to spread deliberate lies about my personal life - I do not see how deadminship nomination would be any worse). To be honest, I do not foresee this procedure to be used often - to start with, we do not have so many AN(I) threads formally closed, even less closed with an explicit consensus that an admin was at fault, and in the borderline cases it is actually more difficult to get ANI consensus that to get the ArbCom to look at the case - but I think it is important to have this procedure.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 10:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Hello, I '''support'''. [[User:There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day|There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day]] ([[User talk:There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day|talk]]) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:'''Note:''' The above editor, whose account was created on 5 February, has 5 edits, two to articles, two to their own talk page, and the edit above.[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 17:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' My main motivation for supporting is that we need ''some'' process in place. I acknowledge and even agree with some of the objections posted in the comments section. However, it's my belief that having a ''workable'' system in place will increase confidence in admin performance in the wider community. [[User:Tide rolls|'''Tide''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''rolls''']] 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''There has to be a better way of removing admins who have lost the trust of the community than full ArbCom cases, and this proposal has enough safeguards to prevent gaming or harassment. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 14:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the proposal as a whole. I am unable to support the three admin endorsement requirement however. I presume that the requirement's intent is to have at least three respected long term contributors which would very likely be included in a successful request. Great step in the right direction! -- [[User:Dolotta|Dolotta]] ([[User talk:Dolotta|talk]]) 14:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' in principle, with the details to be worked out. Might be good to have a planned debriefing RfC after an incident to see if things worked as intended or needed to be tweaked. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::ETA: agree with BK49, the issue with reluctance to close an AN/I in way that will or won't support this needs to be addressed, and yes, a vote to desysop of more than half but less than the threshhold is a concern. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I concur precisely with Tide rolls' comments; happy days, '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]''''''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]] 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the deadline for the 10 extended confirmed editor endorsement is a little bit short, per Lugnuts, but overall the proposed policy is quite a reform. Also, after it is implemented, I'm sure we can revise it as needed. [[User:P,TO 19104|P,TO 19104]] ([[User talk: P,TO 19104|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/P,TO 19104|contribs]]) 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with the expectation that details may be altered, and with thanks to TB for coming up with this -- and a note to the opposers: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per BMK; "the perfect is the enemy of the good", indeed. Like GiantSnowman mentions in the comment section, it seems a bit off to demand that the admin in question transclude their own request for desysop; seems like asking a user to build their own gallows. (I'm not really a fan of this kind of hyperbole, but it's the only metaphor that comes to mind.) TB's comment in response to that makes sense, though, so I feel like we should add some language in to formalize that they can ask a 'crat to do it for them if they wish. But regardless, I don't think that's a dealbreaker. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Policy proposal is detailed, well-thought-out, and seems like it would be difficult to abuse. I am open to considering amendments to the policy but this is a good start. —[[User:pythoncoder|pythoncoder]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Support the principle. If this passes, I would expect more detailed discussion on the exact process. Things like 10 users, 48 hours, etc. can be adjusted later. I don't agree with the requirement that three editors need to be admins. — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 20:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I have my reservations about specifics (I feel like this would never end up really being used because of the complicated process) but having a community desysop process is needed. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|Talk]]/[[User:Moneytrees/CCI Sort|CCI help]] 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Pythoncoder. [[User:JJPMaster|JJP...MASTER!]][[User talk:JJPMaster|[talk to] JJP... master?]] 22:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# My feelings mirror {{noping|MSGJ}}'s. [[User:SQL|SQL]][[User talk:SQL|Query me!]] 23:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#A thorough proposal that I'm inclined to see implemented. It is clear that the current method is unsatisfactory and this proposal seems an appropriate solution. I'm confident that most issues in harassment or singular evidence will be appropriately addressed by the initial review step from 10 extended-confirmed users and 3 administrators. [[User:Aza24|Aza24]] ([[User talk:Aza24|talk]]) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# The perfect is the enemy of the good --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] [[User_talk:Guerillero|Parlez Moi]] 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' I fully agree with others about this: three admins is a lot (my preference is for ''no'' admins), 48 hours is too short, and getting a close at AN that specifically mentions tool abuse is going to be extremely unlikely. However, this could very well be the first successful de-sysop policy proposal in Wikipedia history, and that is certainly not nothing right there. We can discuss amendments on the specifics later (or maybe the closer will read the discussion and find consensus for the relevant changes to be implemented.. wishful thinking I know). Right now though, we should just take this one step at a time to make the right fixes later. –[[User:MJL|MJL]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]][[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]] 07:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:For the record, I am also not a fan of having the admin have to transclude their own de-sysop request (sounds honestly terribly mean), and I also think it should be a 65% threshold (and probably shouldn't be as discretionary as an RFA is). –[[User:MJL|MJL]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]][[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]] 07:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:: Let me explain why I think no admins is not a good idea. Imagine user A obsessed with admin B to the point they can not see their name. If they are determined, they can grow 10 or 15 of whatever extended confirmed user to certify the desysop request (after B once get in trouble at ANI). But there is no way they can grown an admin account, because administrator is currently almost the only flag which is given as a result of the community discussion (disregarding interface admin, which does not probe qualities relevant for this situation, and bureaucrat and arbitrator, who in practical terms are always admins). Sure, there are some admins who passed RfA a long time ago, and where there are doubts as whether they are in touch with the community, but it is still better than nothing.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#I land here, generally. I don't like hurdle number 1 - largely the 6 month note - the idea that if an admin makes a "mistake" and especially if they are contrite and accept it as a mistake, that they should be looking over their shoulder for the next 6 months doesn't sit well. However, I think hurdle number 2 is excellent - so much so that I've been keeping something similar on my [[User:Worm_That_Turned/Recall_process|recall process]] for a decade. I genuinely see no need for hurdle 1 if hurdle 2 is there, which is why I'm supporting, there's no "looking over your shoulder" if there's a decent safeguard like that. So, if you've got 10 users in good standing thinking you should no longer be an admin, that's a reasonable threshold for a desysop process. I'm not sure I like RfA being the process - but it's simple and well understood by the community. {{pb}} That leaves the question of "do we need this process". Well, I'd say yes. {{u|Kudpung}} mentions below that he and I worked on [[WP:BARC]] a few years ago, a community desysop process ''which got majority support'', even if it wasn't implemented. This process is simpler - I've already mentioned how close it is to my recall process, a process which I strongly believe is needed. Lifetime adminship is a massive problem in the Wikipedia community - it's a role which requires work and has responsibility associated with it. The responsibility of keeping up with changes, with ensuring that keep treating people with respect. The expectation of setting a good example. However, the barrier to desysopping at the moment is an arbcom case. Firstly that means reaching the threshold of an accepted case - quite a few arbs including myself have a lower threshold for accepting admin conduct cases, but it's still woolly. Secondly, going through an arbcom case. Few people want to do that. This process is much clearer. I do have a few concerns, which I'll address in the comments. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''': the necessity of an AN(I) closing statement which indicates poor conduct in the last 6 months and requirement for 3 admins to be included in the desysoping discussion request make me think that misuse would be sufficiently rare. I support more routes for the community to desysop because I think cases of admins behaving with consistent incivility and driving editors (both new and old) off the project are occurring, I believe ArbCom is failing to accept necessary cases, and is otherwise less-suited to assess certain types of issues than the community (such as cases where many ArbCom people would have to recuse) and no-one wants the WMF to be involved. For over a decade now people have been complaining, at least at RfA, about a lack of suitable procedures to desysop and we need to at least try this one out. It's not a suicide pact and failure in practice could see this process removed by community consensus, but the time to act is... well, 2010, but given we're in this position the time to act is now. I encourage anyone fretting over the details (%age, number of endorsers etc.) to just support because numbers like these are best adjusted through practice (as the supporting percentage needed at RfA was) and no-one is able to ''a priori'' arrive at figures that everyone will look at and go "that's exactly right". {{pb}} I would ''absolutely not'' support a requirement that a desysop request must go through this process before ArbCom takes it, or vice versa. We should see this as two venues as better suited to different situations, but if one venue is presented with a request that needs handling then it should take it rather than passing the buck. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|talk]]''') 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Agree with the proposal. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' probably {{u|Bilorv}}'s comment above has convinced me the most, but also a discussion with Tony. However, I'd like to emphasise the 2nd part of Bilorv's comment in regards to ArbCom, which was my biggest concern. This proposal ''cannot'' result in becoming a de facto requirement before an issue is heard at ArbCom. It should not alter the expectations for ArbCom hearing a case, at all. In particular because this proposal only requires 40% community support for an admin to retain the bit, and also because I think some issues benefit more from the structure of a case. Further, I oppose raising the support threshold to 65% (ie, 35% of the community in support of the bit being retained). Also explicitly noting that I don't at all buy the concerns of this being misused - my only concern is people thinking this can suddenly resolve all forms of admin misconduct, which it cannot. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – worth a try; can be tweaked later if needed. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''[[User talk:Graham87|87]] 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I fundamentally believe that it's a broken process where the community has been unable to remove an administrator's bit for cause. I think it causes an unhealthy community atmosphere at times between longtime editors who are not administrators and administrators. We're all in this together, the community is pretty sophisticated on the whole these days, and ArbCom shouldn't be the only option to desysop people. This is why I have my own [[User:Barkeep49|recall procedure]] but I would much prefer a standard community process so here I am voting for this. Now with that said, let me state all my concerns with this proposal in hopes that the closer is sophisticated enough to take the criticisms I see from not only those opposing/being neutral but from those supporting when crafting a closing statement (assuming this gains consensus). {{pb}}I think this proposal presumes that the current culture of AN/ANI will continue after this passes. If that culture were to continue, step 1 would work well. However, I think this proposal would cause AN/ANI to act differently. I think some AN/ANI regulars would be more of a reluctance to close administrator misconduct thread in a way that provides a definitive statement to trigger step 1 (more on this in a moment). I think there would also be pushback/challenges when a thread was closed but closed in a way that partisans found unsatisfying (either hoping to trigger step 1 or not wanting step 1 to be triggered). That will not be healthy for our community. Second, I think we'll need some new crats for this process to work. Quite bluntly, I was waiting for some crat support (being unsurprised at opposition/neutrality) before supporting because without crats willing to do this process it won't work. And, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of crats are very reluctant to act in ways that deny people sysop, even in the face of community consensus that they should do so ([[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_44#Resysop_request_%28Jackmcbarn%29|example]]). We're all volunteers, so I don't begrudge them this. However, I do worry that crats will only judge very clear statements as satisfying the criteria here perhaps to the point of absurdity. I have seen threads where there is clear consensus that an administrator acted wrong closed with statements like "Lessons were learned here". At the moment that's fine (indeed the right close for administrator who feels bad about a mistake), but would that be sufficient for this process? I believe the answer would be no for most crats (and would also be an example of a close ripe for being challenged that I already wrote about). So in the end I think the answer to this is just to elect some more crats who will being willing to implement whatever community consensus is derived here (again assuming this passes). Finally, I'm concerned that someone with 40% confidence in the community can continue on as administrator. We're so concerned about community trust we say that unless 3/4 of the community trusts you we're not willing to give it to you in the first place (at least not without further discussion) but if 59.9% of the community distrusts you but you had the good fortune (or actual skill/competency) to pass at one point, sure you can still be a sysop. If there were ever a scenario where a majority voted to desysop but it wasn't sufficient to pass, especially with all the other safeguards this proposal has, that outcome would be incredible divisive for the community. I fundamentally believe it is untenable for someone who a majority of the community, at a widely attended discussion, distrusts to continue as an administrator.{{pb}}In summary, is having some process better than nothing for me? Yes. Are the "bones" of this process good? Yes. Do the details need to be rethunk to work better? Yes. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is better to have this process than not to have this. Some users are making assumptions on what the community will or will not do once this is implemented, but we will not know for sure until it is put in place. We should revisit this process with another RfC in six months to a year. My support for this process is under the assumption that it will complement the current ArbCom system, not replace it. ArbCom should not use this process as a reason to deny cases. Barkeep49 said above {{tq|I have seen threads where there is clear consensus that an administrator acted wrong closed with statements like "Lessons were learned here".}} If this proposal passes I would closing statements to say one of three things: "Community determines there is not enough evidence to warrant a request for admin desysop", "Community determines there is enough evidence for a request for admin desysop", or "No consensus was reached". If there are a couple of AN reports that conclude with no consensus, it should be accepted as an ArbCom case. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I believe that this process will help improve trust between administrators and long term editors who are sometimes suspicious of administrators. A straightforward process with clear benchmarks is complementary to and a good alternative to the ArbCom route. I have read the opposes and understand many of the points raised, but I conclude that the benefits far outweigh the risks. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] [[User talk:Cullen328|''Let's discuss it'']] 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''': We have had so many cases of ArbCom revoking admin access and even a former admin Fram being banned for inappropriate conduct without community discussion. I think ArbCom should be considered a very last resort as ArbCom is intended to be used to resolve long-term issues with behavioral conduct that community discussion is unable to handle. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] ([[User talk:Awesome Aasim|talk]]) 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is going to be a perennial proposal until it (or a variant) gets adopted, so might as well. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' I see a lot of problems here, and things that won't work as smoothly as envisioned. However, I'd rather we have an imperfect process that can be improved than no process at all. The past month at ANI has featured at least two demonstrations of admins displaying serious competence issues that might not merit an ARBCOM filing, but also show that we need some sort of recourse. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' in the name of starting somewhere, per what I wrote in the previous RfC. That said, as I wrote below, I'd like to see a '''12-month trial period''' and a '''rule restricting how often someone can initiate this process against the same admin'''. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''', this seems like a very careful de-adminning process that would greatly limit the amount of cronyism that many fear a de-adminning process would create. It is clear that something about de-adminning needs to change, and while this isn't perfect, it seems good enough. If serious problems arise, it can be altered. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 20:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per numerous above. About time. '''But''' also per Barkeep. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]])
#'''Support''' Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' There are real dangers here. AN/I is 80 % popularity contest, 20 % substance. Premature closes and edit-warring over closes already exists, and if this is policy, it will be guaranteed that a popular admin will not be stained with a condemning AN/I close. Sandstein's concern in the oppose section is a good one, although unblockables won't get blocked either way. Hopefully this would not deter the ArbCom from accepting some admin conduct cases because now a community process exists and the situations may not be "intangible" anymore. It would be unfortunate if that was the case because it would mean that popular but abusive admins wouldn't be scrutinized by anyone, and this process would just be used to desysop "out-of-touch legacy admins" who happened to step on the toes of an unblockable, as an extension of the mob mentality on AN/I. While these AN/I and three admin endorsement requirements are bad, I think this is an important instrument that should exist. The community has the power to grant adminship and so it should have the power to remove the bits as well. I wish it had been implemented in the beginning so it could have been refined already. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Oppose==
#Per my comments in the discussion section. Overall I think this is needed, and I ''want'' to support it, but I have too many concerns about the specifics. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#Per Beeblebrox; also ''want'' to support, but have too many concerns. Particularly that this process, like many other community processes, is a feedback loop. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 00:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Feedback loop? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::[[:Feedback]] in this sense. Over multiple iterations, "vote you off the island/out of the cool kids club" processes reinforce & ingrain community prejudices & biases; particularly processes with self-selected participants/voters. And, while I appreciate the intent and the thought put into the proposal, I consider the process above to be overly complex and, in places, unbalanced - "and has made at least 25 edits in the last 6 months" is unnecessary; "including at least three current administrators", step 3. & "60%" are detrimental, and not likely to change once the process is implemented. If we are going to have a vote process, admins should need to show that they retain the confidence of the community; with (the bar set at) at least 50% in favour of them retaining the tools(; probably higher). - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC) - clarified [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 12:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::50% is a problem though - why should administrators be able to stay as admins with only 50% support, when perfectly capable and competent editors can't pass RfA with 50% support from that community ? I know it's apples versus pears, but still... And yes, if it comes to it, I'm probably advocating lowering the bar at RfA, not raising the bar in a desysop discussion. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 11:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::I agree entirely; which is why I have included, and emphasised, "at least". The bar should be at least as high as 50% support to retain; probably higher. The process, as drafted & proposed, requires 60% support for the desysop, and (assuming neutral responses are permitted) allows admins to retain tools with between 0% & 40% support for them to do so - this is problematic. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 12:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::::Once some has been an admin for some time, they usually have made a number of decisions that were correct but still angered some people. Consequently, a DeRFA process will most likely see those people support removal regardless of cause. As such, requiring a higher percentage to remove makes sense to counteract these impulses. Regards [[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]] 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::::I understand this line of thought. I agree with the first two sentences, and disagree with the last. I am comfortable with a lower bar to retain admin than to gain it initially; but not for that bar to be below 50%. I also agree with the thought above advocating lowering the bar at RfA. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Parking here as there are quite a number of unresolved questions below which could change the content of what is being voted on. I'm supportive of a community desysop process in general. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I'm "leaning support", and will likely swap once the discussions below settle more. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I don't support adding the int-admin parts to this policy, it creates an overlap of existing other policy and doesn't improve the options for dealing with bad int-admins, no benefit for adding this component has been identified. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 12:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::'''Oppose''' as unnecessary policy creep regarding interface administrators; '''Neutral''' on the components related to admins (still think there is some gaps regarding the process in relationship to timings of resignations); undecided on the de-bureaucrat addon. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 15:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per those above. Very likely supportive of the creation of such a process, but cannot endorse these specifics. — [[User:Godsy|'''Godsy''']] ([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]][[Special:Contributions/Godsy|CONT]]) 05:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I have concerns about the process described here; it has a double jeopardy kind of feel to it. I would like to imagine that someone who has behaved inappropriately should be encouraged to improve their behaviour. The process that is outlined here feels more punitive. In addition, "behaved inappropriately" is too vague - a close that included "trouts all around" could be construed as a conclusion that someone behaved inappropriately. I think we need something that incentivised improved behaviour, and that gives someone a sheltered window in which to improve. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 05:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' "The request must link to at least one thread at a community forum such as AN or ANI that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately." We all make mistakes, we are all human, and while I think I am rather up to date with policy and guideline, there are always things I do not know. The 'at least one' still is 'one strike is enough'; 'community forum such as AN or ANI' can still be an obscure community noticeboard; 'the administrator behaved inappropriately' is way too vague, there are several actions that are within policy or guideline, but catch the right opponents and you will face that it is 'inappropriately' (especially on an obscure noticeboard). Have your fans all around and you will be fine even if you 'behave inappropriately', fall out of grace and even something within policy can be inappropriate. I fully support the fact that we need this, but this is, as written, is a shortcut to a ArbCom requiring levels which are way too far below what normally would go to ArbCom (we generally do not report to ArbCom at one negative AN(/I). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] [[User_Talk:Beetstra|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|C]] 05:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The described ordeal sounds awful. If a person is on the wrong end of an AN/I thread, then they have to figuratively watch their back for six months (perhaps even consider stepping away from Wikipedia entirely to allow the six months to elapse). It doesn't allow the person from AN/I, if they learned from their mistake, to put the matter to rest for half a year. In the event that someone does get the ten required endorsements, then this person has to sweat it out for up to two weeks while working on their defense. Then when the Request For Desysop proper begins, this person has to (potentially) watch dozens of people pile on for a week about all the mistakes this person has made and why they're unfit for adminship. Sounds emotionally brutal. I prefer the (hopefully) tactful approach of ArbCom. That isn't to say that the people commenting on the RFD would necessarily be lacking in tact, I'm just saying that those in ArbCom are specifically tactful. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 06:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#I think it will render AN both high stakes, and less likely to correct Admins, because everyone will know how high-stakes it has become. Admins behaving badly need to reign themselves in and just stop, early, but they will have less encouragement to do so, because AN will 'vindicate' them in its lack of conclusion. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 09:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Admin. cronyism has always been a major factor in AN/ANI discussions. Setting a requirement of ''"at least three current administrators, endorse the request"'' sets the inception of a successful community desysop debate too high. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Happy to support if the threshold is reduced to TWO. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 10:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: If this proposal passes successfully, there will need to be close attention paid to how AN/ANI discussions are handled - the horse trading which goes on with ArbCom goes on with other administrators too, and one area which will need to be very carefully scrutinised is the closure of AN/ANI discussions which could lead to Community Desysop. There is a risk (intention or unintentional) that administrators commenting will contend the issue is not serious or severe, that there was provocation and there's a very significant risk of favours being asked for and performed which will see discussion threads being closed as the administrator behaving appropriately with no case to answer. There's an equally severe risk that the initial complainer at such a thread, if not an admin, will be subject to massively increased scrutiny, sanctioned or blocked (for the duration of the discussion or longer) and treated most unfairly. But that's outwith the purview of this policy and would need further attention should the proposal be successful. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:<s>Parking here as well.</s> moving to support. Some outstanding issues that concern me, particularly on how this process will act in relation to ArbCom and I share some of the concerns of some opposers above. But I hope to move to support with some clarifications/changes; I believe in the idea that the community can take back what it gives, and is entitled to decide itself who it wants mopping on its behalf. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I agree that we need a way to desysop problematic admins. I'm not 100% in agreement with the decisions Arbcom has made as our community elected deadminship process. But they have proved a more nuanced and effective process than is being detailed here. When they need to move fast with a motion to desysop they can move faster than this process would allow, when they need to give time and treat people with the respect due to any of our volunteers they can do that as well. I think it would be a mistake to have two desysop processes operating under different criteria, so I'm opposing this proposal in favour of keeping Arbcom as our desysop process. I urge those who are unhappy with our current arrangements to define what extra criteria they think that Arbcom should desysop people for and file an RFC along the lines of "in future, Arbcom should desysop admins caught doing x" ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 12:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# Agree with many of the above. Insufficient protections against a howling mob.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: Unless one believes in the existence of the putative "anti-admin brigade" (who's actuality was largely discredited a year ago), I suggest that a so-called "howling mob" (at AN or ANI) serves the purpose of attempting to deal with Admin bad practice. Not a bad motive that. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#While the proposal is generally well conceived, the need to include safeguards against abuse makes it rather complex with a relatively great number of steps that are likely to become focal points for wikilawyering and drama. And despite the safeguards, this process's existence is likely to make admins even more reluctant to take necessary action against popular and well-connected problematic editors (see [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]]). But most importantly, I've yet to be persuaded that this is a problem in need of a solution. The relatively high number of admins desysopped by ArbCom indicates to me that the existing process works well enough. [[User:Sandstein|''' Sandstein ''']] 13:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' We already have a community desysop process: and its called Arbcom! Arbcom is a community process, as all the prominent members are from the community, and they are also selected by the community. That Arbcom is not a community process is essentially a misnomer, they're as community as community can be IMO. Do we need a parallel process to Arbcom? I believe not, it works well in my experience, and there have been no convincing arguments that this isn't the case. Arbcom's cases are extremely nuanced, and it has a large number of safeguards against abuse my editor cliques. No reasonable demonstration that Arbcom has failed has been demonstrated to me, and until this happens I will oppose unnecessary and considerably more flawed parallel processes. [[User:Mrjulesd|Jules]] [[User talk:Mrjulesd|(Mrjulesd)]] 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:For what it's worth, [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] closed with {{tq|wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input, but does not involve ArbCom}}. It's been decided to have one; we just haven't agreed on one. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - whilst I am open to a idea like this in principle, there are too many concerns raised about the risk of abuse/lack of safeguards, and some far more careful thought needs to be given to the process itself. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Tony: {{tq|'''Strongest possible oppose''' We already have a community desysop system: we elect trusted community members to hear evidence and then vote on conclusions. A system that provides some semblance of fairness while also holding administrators to account and also just as importantly making it clear that the people who ask for a hearing will also have their conduct examined. All previous proposals have failed because any one that would be fair is effectively a proposal to create ArbCom by another name.{{pb}}Additionally, there is this idea that it’s easier to desysop someone via community process than via ArbCom. I disagree completely. A popular admin who misbehaves repeatedly will never be desysoped by the community. They would by ArbCom. For all it’s flaws, the ArbCom process at least attempts to give both sides a fair hearing. No other project does that. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 12:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I've already commented, but I've been thinking about this most of the day, and the more I think about it, the more depressed I become at what this would likely lead to for our community. This is because the issue with a community-based desysop system is not that it will result in more desysops. It won't. In all likelihood, a community-based process would result in substantially '''''less''''' desysops ([[c:Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful requests for de-adminship|see Commons as an example]]). The issue is that we'd gain a tool for people to harass and attempt to silence good people who have no chance of being desysoped, but who work in areas where they've made enough enemies, you could probably start a valid request. I'll be blunt and say I'm probably one of those admins where you could find enough people to do any certification process, but where community removal would be unlikely to happen, and it's not something I'd particularly enjoy, even if as a whole I'm confident I retain the trust of the community. If I didn't feel I had that trust, I would have resigned already.{{pb}}The issue here is that any community desysop process will be a '''''spectacle''''', where all of their flaws will be commented on via aspersions and an angry minority will be able to make their life suck for a week. Who on earth would want to subject themselves to that.{{pb}}People are focusing too much on the end-process goal here: yes, the community likely would be able to keep good admins from revenge requests, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the human being on the other side of the screen who will have to go through a week of humiliation, often by people who are likely to be community banned within the year. They'll have their worst moments highlighted rather than their norm, and the community won't stop it, because we give exceptionally wide latitude to people in forums like RfA/RfB/CUOS/ACE, and we'd be very likely to give the same latitude here.{{pb}}The end result is the bullying of other human beings, condoned in the name of accountability, targeted at sysops who have no chance of actually being desysoped. We should be better than that, and while ArbCom might be flawed, it is better than every single other process described below at attempting to give all sides a fair shake. That is what we should be focusing on. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)}} — [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 17:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Yeah, I was wondering when people would bring that up. To be clear, my views have changed in that what I care about is fair outcomes to all involved, both people complaining and those under scrutiny. In the 16 months since the last discussion, a lot has changed on the project, and my belief is that implementing a form of community desysop with the appropriate checks will ultimately make it easier to remove administrators who are behaving problematically while also making a defense of ones own actions easier as well. In other words, I think we’d see more desysops that have community consensus that would not occur now, and that the more controversial cases would get a more straightforward hearing. Ultimately, I believe those will lead to fairer outcomes for the people involved, and better outcomes for the community. I didn’t think this 16 months ago, but my thinking has obviously changed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Please explain the two most significant changes of the the last 16 months that have caused you to lose confidence in ArbCom's handling of desysops, and why they've made you change your mind. [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::Gladly: first I’ve thought more about how this happens on other projects, and how it seems to work perfectly fine there on large projects. One of the main issues I was concerned about on en.wiki is AE/nationalist disputes, but I think the requirements surrounding certification there address my previous concern that you could get one side of a conflict targeting an admin.{{pb}}The other is that I think we don’t actually know that the community considers behaviour worthy of desysoping beyond the broad strokes of policy. I think in the last 2 years, a lot of concerns have grown surrounding inappropriate actions by administrators who are unfamiliar with current practice and who then disappear or continue behaving outside the norms in small ways. I think there’s very likely community consensus to desysop them, but that you’d have significant difficulty getting ArbCom to open a case. On the other end, there were cases like Portals where the desysop vote was close, at least one arb who said they might have been too hard, but where there were conduct concerns. The justification usually given in cases like that are is they can demonstrate community trust via an RfA, but I don’t know of anyone who has, and part of that is because how difficult the desysop mark can be, even if it might not have had community consensus at the time. Creating a process where we can directly see if the community supports desysoping in edge cases surrounding admin conduct, in my view is likely a process that would be more likely to reflect the community’s view on a specific case than the current “desysop and see if they can pass RFA.” As I said, I think it will likely create fairer outcomes both for people who think someone should be desysoped, and for those under discussion. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::As I noted in my support comment, I went back to re-read the oppose comments from the proposal of eleven years ago, and if we're going to note editors' past comments, I can't help noticing that some of the opposes that have shown up here use remarkably consistent language now as then. Well, I guess there's something to be said for consistency. Just sayin'. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Commons is my 'other' project and I've been involved in several of the desysop discussion there - it's a completely different project with very different patterns of behaviour and very different issues which result in the desysop discussions. It really tends to be straight tool misuse on Commons, but as there's less opportunity for tool misuse and the vast majority of admins are pulling in the same direction (primarily managing intellectual property issues) the strong editing disputes that characterise many en.wp Arbitration cases simply don't appear on Commons with anything like the same regularity or intensity. I would also worry that {{xt|A popular admin who misbehaves repeatedly will never be desysoped by the community. They would by ArbCom.}} is both correct but downplays that popularity - they're equally likely to be elected to ArbCom... [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 09:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I also think it's worth noting that [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] closed with {{tq|wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input}}. Even if Tony ''hadn't'' changed his mind, it'd still be worth suggesting a policy since consensus is to have one. Opposing this proposal on the grounds that we shouldn't have one is opposing that prior community consensus. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' without prejustice to any future and better version. The idea might be great, but it is hard to imagine that such complex procedure will ever work. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# I land here, per Nick's response to Leaky cauldron and the emergent effects on AN and ANI, which are quite broken or misshapen as they are already. Moreover, [[WP:TINC]], but it doesn't take long to see some editors (admins or not) get chummy with other editors, and then appear to make closes at such places, preventing the community, under this proposal, from using the process in question (no, not just GAMEmanship). There's aren't sufficient protections against those cliques foundering issues brought up at our behavior review boards. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. While well-intentioned, I share Sandstein's concern regarding the chilling effect this may have on correct but unpopular admin actions (such as blocking the "unblockables"). [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 10:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Firstly, as Sandstein points out, this is a solution in search of a problem; ArbCom is willing to desysop in controversial cases, and nobody's pointed to an ArbCom case (or lack of case) that ended up with an egregiously bad result. Secondly, there is no way for the community to reject the opening of a vexatious anti-RfA if the requirements are technically met (well, there is IAR but I don't see any crats wanting to invoke that here in any circumstances). And finally, the threshold for removal is ''lower'' than for promotion, and there is no guidance on what the discretionary range for crats to discuss the matter is (if there is one at all); effectively turning this anti-RfA in to a vote from the perspective of the community. [[User:Iffy|Iffy]]★[[User Talk:Iffy|Chat]] -- 12:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I appreciate the principle, but I think this will make admins even more reluctant than they already are to do anything contentious, or anything which annoys a large group of editors. For example the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLE|unblockables problem]] will get a lot worse, because attempting to block an unblockable usually results in a thread on some noticeboard where the unblockable's friends attack the blocking admin. This would now probably lead to a desysop request, and even if the admin survives it will not be a pleasant experience. I also don't think that we should be desysopping admins for a single mistake unless the mistake is very serious, and the threshold of a single thread will allow this to happen. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 13:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:It wouldn't be desysopping for a single mistake, it'd be allowing a consensus that a behavior or action was inappropriate to be used to garner a petition that, if endorsed by a number of editors (including peer admins), would then be submitted to the community for review. Right now, we have to get a bunch of AN/ANI closings then ask ArbCom to intervene; the community can express itself repeatedly at AN/I and when voting for Arbs, hoping the two collide. This would just institute a process whereby the community can vote itself. Almost by definition, if we consider an RfA to be the will of the community, then whatever a de-RfA decides would likewise be the will of the community. We just don't have a way of ''getting'' there. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::A [[Recall election]] isn't the only way for the expression of the will of the community. In politics recall elections usually lead to expensive disasters. Elected officials need to be able to do their jobs while in office. Their accountability to the voters is ensured by elected offices having limited terms and by the elected officials periodically having to run for re-election. We might consider using a similar system with admins. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 14:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I’ll add a bit to what {{u|Amorymeltzer}}, but I find it interesting that people are opposing for this reason since I added it to be an increase from the current requirements to file an ArbCom case: there are none. It is entirely possible to craft a case request without showing there is ''any'' agreement by the community that someone is acting problematically and convince 2-3 arbs that “this should be looked at but we don’t have to sanction”, which then snowballs into an acceptance. Basically the current desysop process is completely arbitrary as to what can be a cause for initiating it. While you can start a dozen ANI threads and not get a case accepted, you can go with no ANI finding a problem and have one accepted. This was meant to create a standard to prevent people from using the process as a way around normal dispute resolution and to create some standard as to when it’s applicable, as compared to the current standard of 'know which arbs care about specific issues and bring cases they’ll agree to hear.' [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::I think the distinction is that Arbcom is two-sided; if you file a frivolous case request or are playing pot-calling-kettle-black, you are likely to land in trouble yourself. If you do the same on this de-RfA what happens? [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::There is no threshold to file an ArbCom case request, no, but filing an ArbCom case request by itself is not a big deal. Unless ArbCom accept it very little will happen. On the other hand this desysop request would be a big deal, and even if you survived the mere threat of one would be a significant deterrent by itself. RfA already has such a bad reputation that many qualified people are deterred from going through it, and this would be a lot worse. Another important difference is that meeting the threshold here could be little more than a unpopularity contest. An admin who has done something controversial (e.g. blocked someone popular) can easily get some experienced editors yelling at them on a noticeboard, which is all you actually need for this process to start. Convincing a majority of arbitrators is rather harder. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# Details can always be tweaked, but if we're going to do this, we need to get it at least broadly right at first or it will only further entrench the difficulty of desysopping. Unfortunately I think this proposal combines the worst aspects of AN/I while keeping none of the strengths of arbitration cases. Let's be honest, AN/I is a dysfunctional exercise in mob rule. Rooting the desysop process there is going to give control of it to the ''loudest'' voices in our community, not the community as a whole. The initial 48 hour window of opportunity accentuates this by encouraging people to rush to judgement. It will probably work okay for those rare cases where a single incident is egregious enough to justify a desysop – but those are also the cases that ArbCom is already good at dealing with. The cases we struggle with—and the cases the arbitration format ''can'' be good at, when the committee overcomes its constitutional lethargy—are where there is repeated, low-level misconduct over a longer period of time. AN/I routinely fails to do anything about this because its focus is on recent single incidents, deciding which party is most at fault, and reaching a quick "close". Arbitration is better at it because its allows enough time and space to discuss more complex issues, and the decision format encourages an explicit link between findings of fact and remedies rather than taking sides. What I'd like to see is a community procedure that replicates this—perhaps by listing specific instances of misconduct that, if reasonably demonstrated with diffs, can be a basis for a desysop request—but is more streamlined and easier to access than ArbCom. And doesn't have anything to do with AN/I. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#Moving here, for originally the reasons in my neutral-leaning-oppose position, but simply inflated to the point of unavoidability. I'm particularly concerned about the issues raised here regarding how difficult it'll become to make hard or contentious decisions, considering how dogged people can get about them. Ultimately, this proposal looks far too easy to weaponize. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This is a well intentioned attempt to improve the desysop process, but I think that our current 'bicameral' system provides for a better result overall, however imperfect it may be. There's a reason why governing systems work better and last a lot longer when there is an upper chamber of sorts, that sits above the fray, generally moving slower and more carefully than a unicameral one that is open to sudden and damaging changes by way of knee-jerk reactions from involved partisans, who may also be too shy to make controversial but necessary decisions that alter their standing within the governing body and population (the 'community', in our case). Desysopping can be the most difficult of all duties in this community. I feel it was right to place that power in the hands of an uninvolved elected committee, and that should continue. My main concern for any changes to this procedure would be dealing effectively with [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]], and Sandstein convinced me that this proposal will make this worse. [[User:RandomGnome|RandomGnome]] ([[User talk:RandomGnome|talk]]) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Many of the oppose voters expressed sentiments similar to mine. I've always felt that the urge to cut ArbCom out of the loop stemmed more from the frustration of would be lynch-mob leaders than any genuine "difficulty" the existing method held. What hadn't occurred to me was the notion that making it easier to get rid of admins would inevitably lead to admins declining to make controversial calls, something that sounds all too likely an outcome. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' for 3 reasons: 1) Being an administrator is already difficult enough, without the need to avoid controversial decisions. We already see the lynch-mob mentality at RFA for candidates witha less-than-prefect background, and I can see this happening to admins who work in the darker areas of Wiki. 2) Whilst the Arbcom process may be difficult, I disagree with the premise that it is unnecessarily so. 3) I see no evidence that there is anything wrong with the current system. — [[User:Voice of Clam|O Still Small]] [[User talk:Voice of Clam|Voice of Clam]] 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# {{small|(I initially posted this under "Neutral", but having read it over, I think it might fit better under "Oppose". [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC))}} First, the good: I think this is a very well-thought-out proposal and is probably the best community-based desysop proposal I've seen. It addresses many of the most critical concerns that have previously caused community-based desysop ideas to fail. There is a relatively high bar for starting a review (it requires an initial AN/ANI thread, 10 established users must endorse within 48 hours, 3 of whom must be admins, and a supermajority vote (60%) is required to desysop)—these safeguards may adequately prevent frivolous requests as well as "chilling effects" where administrators are hesitant to make the right decision in a controversial dispute for fear of retaliation. {{pb}} That said, at [[WP:DESYSOP2019]], I expressed a fair amount of skepticism about whether we really need a community-based desysop process, especially one that would result in an "anti-RfA" of sorts. It's no secret that a lot of us think that the RfA process is "broken" because it often overemphasizes isolated incidents and recent dramas, fails to require corroboration for any allegations or claims, and requires candidates to submit to an intense and often unpleasant examination of every nook and cranny of their [[Special:Contributions]]. And while it's not clear to me how these issues can be fixed, I remain skeptical about any proposal that repurposes the unstructured format of RfA into a request for desysopping. As I wrote in 2019, {{tq|It feels like every time I think about reforming the desysop process, my thoughts always go back to the question: "What if we made a process that allows a group of trusted users, who are vetted regularly for their judgement and experience at knowing what's good for the project, be the main body in charge of reviewing administrator conduct?" That is the process we already have.}} Because I'm not convinced that the current system actually needs fixing, I find myself in this section. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 20:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. This is well-intentioned and offered in good faith, but (1) there is no evidence that ArbCom and other processes aren't working to curb abuses (i.e., this is a solution in search of a problem); (2) there is too much of a risk of gamesmanship; and (3) I fear this will disincentivize admins from making the right call. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 22:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Neutral==
#'''Neutral''' This is obviously a "removal for cause"-type proposal and I don't think the current processes are unable to quickly or effectively address admins who are intentionally performing actions against the community interest. It is the admins who inadvertently or unintentionally perform such actions, or who perform no actions, that are a bigger issue. We have policies and procedures to address misbehavior but we have none to address the continuing [[Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Long-term_nearly-inactive_administrators|retention of the tools by admins that do not perform admin tasks]]. The admins who obtained the bit in the early 2000's when admins status was subject [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|to very little examination]] and have managed ''just'' enough to retain the status are [[WP:HATC|retaining their hats]] not because they want to improve the project (they manifestly are not doing so). The misbehaving admin can be addressed through ANI, ArbCom, T&S (and possibly other processes I forget) so this proposal would be a fourth such process. There are no processes for the other category. We should address the lacuna in process before adding another to a current set of processes. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:IMO, the only issue with admins who do not perform admin tasks is that they do not perform admin tasks, not that they retain the tools. We should be thinking about how to make such admins perform more admin tasks rather than trying to desysop them. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' I would support this but i think the minimum support threshold should be changed from 60% supporting removal to 65% and requests for desysop between 65 and 75% support should be subject to the discretion of bureaucrats to make it aligned with how RfA's work [[User:1.Ayana|🌸 1.Ayana 🌸]] ([[User talk:1.Ayana|talk]]) 22:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:This will be difficult to implement given the Bureaucrats were not elected to make this decision. Would the current Bureaucrats be happy to make such a decision and in turn, is the community happy for the Bureaucrats to do so ? [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{strikethrough|'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''}} Beeblebrox's concerns are deeply convincing, especially considering the potential for harrassment. I'm also concerned about the human tendency towards negativity bias -- that is, the possibility more people will come out with negative than positive opinions for even fairly uncontroversial administrators, such that only people with sufficient numbers of friends in high places can pass the desysop-RfA. Simultaneously, there are real concerns about legacy admins in particular that result in a "probably shouldn't drag to ArbCom, probably shouldn't have the bit" category. Not going in the oppose column yet, but have real concerns. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::Moving to oppose. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' The first thing I did once I became an admin (2012) was start a similar proposal [[WP:RAS]], which failed. Coren (former Arb then) was helpful and coauthored the attempt. Several others have also failed since then, to the point of it being a perennial subject. Back then, Arb was much busier than it is now, case wise, and I don't really see the need, but open minded if the idea can be fleshed out properly. The bottom of the RAS page has some links to previous attempts 2012 and older. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I know Tony will be disappointed at me not supporting. Like {{U|Dennis Brown|Dennis}} above, I launched a [[WP:BARC|similar proposal]] just under a decade ago. There is still some work to do, and an alternative to Arbcom is sorely needed, but this isn't it. I have made a longer explanation in the comments section. I hope I will not have wasted anyone's time by asking them to read it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''', for now. I feel that in this case the worry about "what ifs" is warranted and one needs to think through the possible consequences of implementing this proposal more carefully. I would also still like to hear a stronger justification for why the proposal it is needed in the first place. A generalized sentiment that admins should be more accountable is, IMO, insufficienent as a justification here. The process described in the proposal is pretty brutal and arduous. The process may be necessary and I could support it, but I'd like to hear a more convincing explanation for why it is necessary (e.g. that the current arbcom desysop process is seriously deficient and fails to remove many admins who should be removed). In geneneral I can see less brutal and confrontational ways of increasing admin accountability, such as instituting admin term limits, with a mandatory reconfirmation RfA at the end of the term for those wishing to retain the sysop bit. Somebody in the support column mentioned that the lack of a community desysop process makes people more reluctant to support RfA candidates. A much much much bigger problem at RfA now is the lack of RfA candidates and the difficulty in recruiting them. As stressful and unpleasant as RfAs can be now, these desysop RfAs will be 100 times more contentious. It is likely that the prospect of potentially facing such a gory public spectacle will make the job of recruiting RfA candidates even harder. I am also concerned about the interactions of the proposed process with the existing ArbCom desysop process. It is naive to assume that the ArbCom desysop process will simply continue on its merry way, completely unaffected. It may well happen that the ArbCom will become much more reluctant to accept desysop cases, preferring/waiting for the community desysop to take place. ArbCom often looks to the community for guidance on important policy issues. IMO, a successful version of this proposal needs to explicitly state something to the effect that the two procesess are strictly independent and complementary, and, moreover, that, in the opinion of the community, the ArbCom should never consider the lack of a prior community desysop attempt as a reason to decline a desysop request. It is a more complicated question as to what is supposed to happen if a commputity desysop RfA fails and then a desysop case is filed at ArbCom. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 11:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# Somewhat torn here. I support a community desysop procedure in principle, and I like the outlines of this one. I appreciate the steps taken to prevent the "howling mob", as others have called it; but I'm a little concerned about the specifics. First, is this going to turn any AN discussion about an admin into a "howling mob" situation? As things stand, all AN can do is to rap an admin on the knuckles; now the consensus of an ANI discussion is a necessary step to a desysop; it seems to me AN discussions are going to become much more of an ordeal as a consequence. I don't necessarily think that's a fatal flaw, but worth thinking about. Second, I understand that the three admins are meant to act as a sanity-check, but disputes among admins are not uncommon, and it's not unlikely that for any long-standing admin, three others who think they ought to be desysopped can be found. Admins are humans too; we have feuds just like other editors. Arbitrators are expected to recuse from cases where they're too close to the parties; ideally, I'd like to see the same safeguard here. That said, I'm not sure these are sufficient reason to oppose, so I'm going to park here for the moment and read what my colleagues have to say. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{U|TonyBallioni|Tony}}, is there a reason the proposal reads "that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus" rather than simply "reached a consensus"? I do not in any way think this is intentional, but as written, this doesn't actually require a consensus, and therefore opens the door to further acrimony. I saw only because I was going over the wording in detail to see if my concerns were warranted, and had the thought that an uninvolved admin closure would help considerably. I know it's too far along for that sort of amendment, but worth noting, I think. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 17:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::It was trying to require a formal close so people couldn’t just point to a thread being all “look! A complaint!” Basically having an objective standard here, which as I mentioned in my reply to Hut 8.5, I see the current ArbCom process as lacking. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''[[Consensus_decision-making#Dissent_options|Stand aside]]''' I'm suspicious of the proposal, largely per Vanamonde and Beeblebrox, but have no intent to prevent its adoption. While I view direct democracy as an advantage, my impression from [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] was that [[meatball:CommunityDoesNotAgree|the community does not agree]] on whether direct democracy is a positive or negative. That fundamental disagreement cannot be resolved structurally which is why proposals, no matter how well we design the safeguards, repeatedly fail. Personally, I didn't follow up on the 2019 discussion because I came to the conclusion that any solution that would gain consensus would not differ substantially from ArbCom, so we may as well just work on reforming the structure and culture of ArbCom. That's not to say I oppose direct recall--quite the opposite--but it means that I would like some tangible benefit beyond direct recall. Put another way, direct recall is a major rift in the community, and bridging that gap requires some superordinate goal that we all agree would be helped by a resurrected RFC/U. Absent that broader, unifying goal, I doubt the community can agree on a recall system for the sake of a recall system. I would be happy if I were wrong in this case. I want to see a direct recall system, but that desire isn't enough for me to overlook the real problems editors in opposition raise. There are sufficient concerns with this proposal that I am not comfortable supporting, but I have no desire to block the proposal, so I stand aside. — [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]] 01:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#I have long been in favor of a community-driven de-sysopping process, but I find this proposal overly bureaucratic. If I believe an admin has been grossly uncivil, for example, why should I have to look through six months of AN/ANI archives to dig up dirt on said admin or start a new thread just to rehash the same discussion at a separate venue? [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 02:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:How is an AN thread endorsing a re-RfA overly bureaucratic? Searching the AN archives takes like a minute or two. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Having a discussion just to have a second (really a third if you include the endorsement period) seems to be the epitome of bureaucracy. [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::I'd also like to add that making AN/ANI a prerequisite for any desysop requests will only add to the battlefield mentality seen there, as any attempt to discuss an administrator could be seen as a pre-reverse RFA. My concerns about this proposal go beyond that, however. The group of users who would be able to initiate the process is too restricted; 48 hours is too short of a time for the endorsement period; requiring that any of the endorsers be admins is contrary to [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]; and admins should be desysopped if more than half the community no longer trusts them with their tools, not 60%. [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I'm in favor of a community desysop process, and don't think this one is terribly far from what we need. But I have enough specific reservations that I can't quite get myself to supporting it. Specifically (in order of how things are mentioned in the proposal):
#*Get rid of the "at least 25 edits in the last 6 months" requirement. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it both disenfranchises people who have been hounded into retirement, and is too easy to game by bad actors. So it adds complexity with no value.
#*Get rid of the dependency on closing statements. Lots of discussions never get formally closed. Also, making a negative close a trigger for this process will change both how people close discussions, and when/how people bring problems up for discussion. [[WP:ARBGUIDE]] says, {{tq|The filing user is also expected to show that prior dispute resolution has already been attempted}}. Similar wording would work here.
#*Get rid of the "at least three administrators" required to endorse. This is supposed to be a community process. Rules like this just enforce the impression that admins carry more weight in forming community consensus.
#*This one's a bit of a nit, but the 48 hour endorsement window is too short. Lots of people would miss it entirely because they don't edit more than a couple times a week.
#*I really don't like the "must" in {{tq|the administrator being discussed must transclude the request }}. That seems cruel. It's like being forced to carry your own cross to your crucifixion. Change it to something like, "may initiate the discussion by transcluding the request at a time of their own choosing in the next 14 days". It's the same thing, but sounds less spiteful.
#*Once the discussion is started, it should be up to the managing crat to place the required notices. You really want to make sure that's done correctly. The last thing you want is for a process like this to get derailed because of a defective notice.
#:Finally, I'll just echo the sentiment others have noted. The gist of this is if I can't get 40% of the community to agree that that I still deserve a mop, I must have been doing some really bad shit and clearly need to find a new hobby. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Neutral''' leaning oppose. The item #3 "Once certified, the administrator being discussed must transclude the request for desysop at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within 14 days or resign as an administrator." is a non-starter for me. There's entirely too much shaming coming from a [[Cancel culture]] in wikipedia as is (not to mention online in general). Remove #3, and you might get a support from me. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 19:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Neutral''' Admins should definitely be held to account when using the admin tools (I've subscribed to [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall]] since I got the tools), but this seems like an overly complex set of rules to start the process. I'd prefer something more along the lines of 'N editors in good standing' (where N editors could be quite a low number) + someone reasonable checking that it is a sensible request + a desysop process that is separate from RfA (since it should be a review rather than a request from scratch - but then if the editor is desysop'd then they would have to go through RfA to get the tools back). But that's the ideal, steps to improve the desysop (and the sysop) process need to be taken, hence this neutral vote. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''[[Consensus_decision-making#Dissent_options|Declare reservations]]''': I'll keep this short. RoySmith and Ched above me state numerous, and, in my view, well-articulated concerns about the proposal. I wish to reiterate the concerns regarding requiring an administrator to personally start a discussion regarding their removal, the 60% threshold (which I find is too low a bar to allow for removal of any administrator), the short time window, and the question of administrator endorsement (especially given long-standing feuds). All of these are enough for me to withhold a support vote, but, conversely, my personal views and circumstances are simply not enough to sway me to disagree with this proposal altogether. — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]]) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Comments==
<s>You might say it is implicit, but the the words "or resign as an admin" need to be in point 3.</s> ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:I meant to add that myself. Added. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Why does the admin being discussed need to transclude the request for desysop? That should be the 'crat imho. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**That was added to give people the flexibility as to when they want to present their case if they are contesting the desysop. I'm sure they could as a crat to do it for them and no one would mind. The goal is not to force them into a discussion when they don't have time to respond because of real world commitments. I'm open to tweaks in the language around that, but it seemed to be the easiest way to address that criticism that has been raised previously during desysop reform proposals. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Why 60%? Why not 50%? Why not 75%? Why not [[WP:NOTAVOTE]]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**RFA has numeric thresholds, as do other projects, and this seems to be the norm for these type of discussions. Our process typically requires consensus to sanction, not consensus to keep the status quo. 60% to me appears as a number that is in line with this concept, but is also not impossible to reach, which 75% arguably would be in most cases. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**:Shouldn't the threshold then be the same as for a successful RFA? Seems weird that you would need less support to remove someone than to appoint them in the first place. Instead of putting in a strict percentage, how about just pointing to the one's already in place for RFA? Also, RFA does have thresholds but they are not strict. You can fail an RFA with 70% and pass with 65%. DeRFA should have similar rules. Regards [[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]] 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I'm undecided on the general proposal, but two technical questions:
*# What forum should the request-for-desysop be filed at?
*# Why 48 hours? That seems like it could be awkward over weekends and holidays - it seems like the critical mass of people needs to be assembled before filing the paperwork, which may or may not be the intention.
*: [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::Re: 1, the way I picture it would be something along the lines of [[Wikipedia:Requests for desysop/Example]]. This would be linked to at BN, AN, and WT:RFA (just like this RfC). It'd contain the complaint and an endorsement section, and a section for a response.
*::Re: 2, it seemed like a reasonable amount of time to allow for endorsements without being something that hangs around forever. I'd be open to something like 72 hours so it would always have a weekday, and actually debated that. I ended up with 48 because I thought that if a frivolous request is filed, you don't really need it there for 3 days. If a serious request is filed where the community agrees, you should be able to get 10 comments supporting it within 48 hours (see: most ANI or ARC threads.) There's also nothing preventing it being re-filed if someone misses the cutoff and would have endorsed to get it to 10. That being said, I'm very open to that number being adjusted. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|OhKayeSierra}}, I'll address your point here since I assume others might have it. Currently, it requires endorsement from 6-8 admins/functionaries (i.e. arbs) to initiate a desysop request. What I was concerned about specifically dealt with issues arising from nationalists disputes. I can think of some admins where you could probably find 10 editors on the other side of an ethnic dispute to endorse a request, but you couldn't find a single admin who would.{{pb}}I agree it isn't perfect, but so long as we continue to have stuff like India-Pakistan, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Armenia-Azerbaijan this is going to be an issue. The other option to combat that would be to up the endorsement requirements from 10, but that might be too big of a burden to lift. This felt like the easiest compromise on the point. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Two questions about the endorsement stage: (1) Where will it be appropriate to link the desysop request during this stage? (We want to strike a balance between allowing canvassing and having it be totally hidden.) (2) What should people who oppose the dedysop be expected to do during this stage? Just sit it out since it's only for gathering affirmative endorsements, or comment their opposition, which seems like it would make the stage just a slightly less well-advertised version of the actual RfC? Also, if the goal is to allow the respondent to choose the timing of the RfC, comments after an endorsement has succeeded but before the RfC begins should be disallowed. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 21:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**The proposal states AN, BN, and WT:RFA during the endorsement phase. My thoughts would be there, and if there's an active ANI or the like, I also think it would be reasonable to link to as a part of that thread. The standard canvassing rules would apply, in my view.{{pb}}On 2, I think having a comments section is reasonable underneath the endorsements so that people can discuss. I also agree once certified there shouldn't be comments until transclusion. Basically we'd need to create a template along the lines of the RfA or AE templates, but these are details in implementation that can be worked out once we get a policy. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**:Ah, thanks for clarifying on (1); I got a little turned around. We'll have to come up with good shortcuts, as WP:RFD is already taken. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

*I have, in the past, strongly argued for a community-based desysop process, and have written such a proposal myself, and have been a "hawk" when it comes to removing problematic admins. However, I cannot support this proposal in its current form. One single thread in which it is concluded that an admin made ''one'' mistake is simply too low of a threshold. There are very few things an admin can do that are so bad that they should have admin tools yanked over a single instance, and in those rare cases, arbcom is actually equipped to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions|act considerably faster]] than this process. In short, I feel that, as currently structured, this is still too open to gaming and use for harassment. Frivolous requests may not go forward, but after enough of them people will start to argue "there's been five request to desysop, the ''must'' be doing something wrong" and we'll lose good admins. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*: It's "one single thread" that's required before opening a process where many users must endorse proceeding before it is then listed for voting. That's quite a lot of hoops to jump through, even before the RFA. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amory|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::My concern is that it will be end up being used to harass admins, even if the cases don't move forward. People will just use it to further bickering, even when they know they won't get a desysop out of it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::Had a lot of edit conflicts, but Amory captured what I was going to say more succinctly. I also worded in as "inappropriately" to make it so that it wasn't just a mistake i.e. community consensus to unblock someone isn't the same thing as saying it was an inappropriate action for the admin to block. Oddly, I designed the procedure not to harass admins. I think one of the things that's changed in the last 3 or so years is that case requests have become easier to game and use to harass people as well, and felt this would be an improvement in fairness to ''both'' sides of the dispute. {{u|Beeblebrox}}, something I considered adding was allowing the crat to delete it if certification fails if it was determined it was being used to harass admins or was frivolous because I really do share a lot of your concerns and this proposal was designed in part to fix some of those flaws in the current ArbCom system and both be less prone to harassment and easier to initiate if needed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Question: If this process is implemented, is it intended to replace the ArbCom desysop process? If not, how are the two processes expected to interact with each other? [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Nsk92}} ArbCom has the ability to impose binding sanctions, and a desysop is one of them, so this would not remove that (I don't think you could without amending ARBPOL, which takes forever.) I see as a benefit here that it provides guidance as to what the community wants to see before desysops. As an example, if there was an issue 10 months ago and now you're in a dispute with an admin, you couldn't argue for a desysop under this without getting consensus at AN that there was a current issue with conduct. Under the current system, you could run to ArbCom and depending on the topic, they could accept it. I think in an indirect way, this would help make that existing process more fair as well. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Hmmm. Some degree of concern I have is that if this community desysop process is implemented, ArbCom will be much more reluctant to act on desysop requests. In fact, I am certain that this will happen. In some cases that might be a good thing but it is necessary to think about the possible consequences now. There are situations where ArbCom can, and currently does, move quickly to perform a desysop. The process described in this RfC is rather lengthy. I feel that it is important not simply to devise a community desysop process but also include some language that expressly addresses the interaction with the Arbcom desysop process. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::::My personal concern is if the standards for ArbCom cases on administrator issues become higher as a result of this. Ideally this proposal is simply an alternate route, and nothing about the current ArbCom process, or the requirements arbs expect for cases, will change compared to whatever they are now. Any editor should be free to choose which process they want to use, imo. There are some advantages of Committee scrutiny, especially for multifaceted disputes. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Can this process be applied to current bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights or ArbCom members? Will it only remove the sysop flag?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:As proposed, I believe it will apply only to the sysop flag. Any admin who is also in one of the above groups would still be subject to this proposal regarding their admin actions. I don't think a community process regarding checkuser or oversight actions is possible given that by their nature the details of those actions are not able to be examined by most community members. Abuse of these permissions can be investigated by the arbitration committee and the [[m:Ombuds commission]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*: I think that either CU/OS holders should either be immune from the process (must go to ARBCOM due to the potential of private information), or those permissions should be removed automatically as well by this process. The bureaucrat flag should go away as well as the admin flag. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|Power~enwiki}} As someone with the Oversight right, I'd say that if the issue is related to my actions with Oversight then the complaint should be addressed to arbcom for them to investigate. If the issue is related to normal admin work (say closing XfDs) then this process would be appropriate. If I was desysopped by the community I would expect ArbCom to be officially notified (by the crat who flipped the bit) and to investigate my continued suitability for the role. It would need to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for them to rule that I was, especially as a practical matter, oversight involves regularly deleting pages/revisions and viewing deleted pages/revisions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::I think only bureaucrat and interface admin should be addressed here (since ArbCom can handle CU/OS). And they probably should, at least for bureaucrat since only stewards can remove that one. We could wind up with a situation where the community has desysopped but ArbCom won't remove bureaucrat and neither will stewards, since policy doesn't explicitly state it and stewards won't act outside explicit policy, especially not on enwiki. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I have minor concerns regarding inactive users. The first would be easy to resolve by adding a requirement that no desysop request may be opened unless the admin has made at least one edit in the last 5 days. The other is for editors who are not available during the RFA period. I think the way to handle this would be something like allowing admins to declare this (publicly or privately to arcom or a crat) that they will not be available to give an RFA attention within the next 14 days. Such admins would not be allowed to take any admin actions (or make major edits?) until they do stand at RFA - with deysopping the penalty for not complying. If an editor thought they would be available for RFA but it turns out they don't then crats should have the discretion to pause the RFA on that admin's request until they return. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*In the last paragraph, should {{tq|successful remove}} be {{tq|successful and remove}}? [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**Done [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{replyto|TonyBallioni}} Please add a [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statement]] directly after the {{tlx|rfc}} tag. At over 2,600 bytes, the existing statement above (from the {{tlx|rfc}} tag to the first timestamp) is far too long for {{user|Legobot}} to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]]. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:It looks fine on that page to me, and this is how I format every major policy RfC I've proposed. If there's an easy fix, feel free to make it, but please do not change my writing. The presentation on this page is more important than on the page the bot updates. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::At [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] there is a link. That's all. Compare the other RfCs on that listing: with one exception, each one has a link; a statement; perhaps a signature; and a timestamp. The one exception is [[Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements#rfc D415B6E|Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements]], and that is also because it lacks a brief statement. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|TonyBallioni}} It's now more than 24 hours since I pointed out this problem, is it going to be fixed? --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*::::No. I don't consider it a problem. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::What, the fact that no statement is displayed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] is not a problem? Legobot cannot parse the statement because it is insufficiently brief, thus, it cannot process the RfC. This isn't some petty rule that I have made up - it is a fact. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::I’ve responded on your talk page since I think that’s a better place to have this discussion, but yes, I don’t see a problem there. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I think the community forums in point 1. would have to be ANI or AN (and nothing else) - i.e. major and highly visible forum. I think that you would also need to confirm that the ANI/AN discussion was closed by an admin (or even two admins), who concluded that there were problems - i.e. not an NAC (and probably not a single admin). [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Am I right in thinking that step 3 is in effect a "reverse RfA", needing 60% to '''oppose''' to desyop? That would make sense to me as a fair process. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Could ArbCom use this process? E.g. instead of starting off a 2-month ArbCom investigation, ArbCom could just !vote to send the admin in question direct to step 3. (above)? Ultimately, step 3. might turn out to be a better system for ADMINACCT cases (e.g. general conduct vs. technical breeches/tool misuse)? thanks. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::Arbcom almost always desysops by motion, quickly, without opening a full case. It doesn't take them 2 months. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 23:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::: I don't think that was the case for the recent desyops of {{noping|BrownHairedGirl}} or {{noping|Kudpung}}, which were I think ADMINACCT cases? [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Britishfinance}}: to answer your questions, I agree, I was thinking AE might be another place in some circumstances so left some wiggle room. On point 2, yes, reverse RfA. I'm using 60%, but am fine with 65% as others here have suggested. That is the people who would need to support removal. On 3, I don't think arbs would open by motion, but all of them meet the requirements for initiating and endorsing a request, so they could do one as a community member if they felt it better than a full case. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::TonyBallioni, you could find that if step 1. was being contested amongst admins, that it could go ArbCom, who on confirming a valid close, would then send it direct to step 3. I have a feeling that step 3. would be an important tool for ArbCom to be able to send ADMINACCT-type cases to. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* I'm somewhat concerned that step 1 will make it more burdensome to close contentious dramaboard threads. — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* I feel that explicitly requiring notices at WP:AN, WP:BN, WT:RFA, and WP:CENT is verging on [[WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP]]. Perhaps just say "publicized at community noticeboards". — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I think it's good to be explicit. Those boards are highly watchlisted, and the idea is probably to ensure it gains wide attention. FWIW, the BAG nominations process also enumerates each board to advertise to. BTW, Tony, I presume the "request for desysop", once transcluded, will be advertised on watchlists like normal RfAs are? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::I intentionally avoided the watchlist suggestion, because I don't think it would contribute to meaningful discussion (i.e. it would overadvertise and people who aren't familiar with the situation would pile-on one side or the other.) That could be something discussed afterwards though if people felt it necessary. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::Understood, thanks for clarifying. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Per 'leaning oppose', I should note I ''strongly'' agree with the suggestions of a higher desysop-% required to lose the bit than the original 60% proposal, if this does go through. (I can see an argument for a higher percentage than needed to confirm an RfA in the first place.) [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*What happens if no bureaucrat reviews the endorsement thread? Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**Presumably the filer or somebody else would make a post at BN. I think we have enough active bureaucrats at this point that a post there asking them to confirm the requirements have been met would result in action. They’d have a clear policy directive to follow, and I don’t think it’s likely all of the active ones would ignore a request to do something the community has requested they do. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Comment. Could somebody try to articulate ''why'' a community desysop procedure is needed now? I've read the 2019 RfC (in which I did not participate) but did not really find convincing answers there. People supporting the idea there mostly postulate their support axiomatically ("yes, we definitely need such a system"). Or they say something to the effect that what the community bestowed, the community should be able to take away. But is it actually the case that the current ArbCom desysop system is significantly deficient? Is it too difficult to desysop admins for cause there? [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:* The ArbCom system has always been deficient. ArbCom are able to shape cases to suit their own opinions on the subject of the case, they get to choose whether to accept the case, they already limit the amount of evidence and can refuse to hear further evidence, and then get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing. There's also extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals. It's like a more or less shitty version of a Presidential impeachment. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::*"''extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals"'' This has no basis in reality. Neither does "''get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing''" [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*Some thoughts: 1) would ArbCom still be able to desysop? I don't think that should be taken away entirely, especially for emergencies or private information-related ones. 2) The general categories of what is covered should probably be spelled out. Is this covering a) abuse of tools b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator c) inactivity? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:1) Of course it would; the proposed text addition does not replace anything and does not modify [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy]]. 2) The only required coverage limit is described in condition #1 of the proposal; this already excludes pure inactivity. There is no need for additional limitation. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 01:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} Re: 1), yes they would, as it’s a sanction and sometimes falls within private information. This would not remove their ability to desysop. I think that this would, however, greatly reduce desysop cases as it’d be another venue of community dispute resolution, and presumably the committee would defer to the community when possible, as has been their practice over the last few years for things like block reviews. 2) this was designed in place of cases, so mainly abuse of tools and conduct unbecoming. 3) I’m for stricter activity standards, but I think that’s a separate discussion and this would be unlikely to pass if they were bundled. This would create the opportunity to desysop someone who makes 1 edit a year and then makes an involved block, edit wars then protects the page, etc. that could be handled more easily this way if there was community consensus for it, which I suspect there probably would be in some cases.{{bcc|Rschen7754}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|TonyBallioni}}, a couple of questions on specific details - 1) is there a reason that such a long timescale from the Community discussion was selected (as it only needs to be the most recent case) - 3 months would seem to serve? 2) Is there any limitation to multiple requests for endorsements off the same thread? 3) Would it be beneficial to specifically include an option that allowed admins to just directly trigger the request for desysop stage - if this passes, I can see lots of individuals updating their voluntary recall standards or just choosing to do it in the event they feel they did act problematically but disagree it warrants resigning. Without a clear note that's possible, the first time someone would want to do it, would involve an additional discussion at what would presumably be a tense time. 4) Would normal canvassing restrictions apply to the endorsement stage? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I also partially agree with Britishfinance - some specific listing of forums that area sufficiently considered would be beneficial. For example, a DRV thread saying an admin made an improper close, usually 5-7 individuals, probably shouldn't count (if someone is often making poor closes, it should then be taken to AN(I), then could count). [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Nosebagbear}} on point 1, the reason for all of these numbers is because I write my RfCs in a way that I’m comfortable can get enough people behind them on both sides even if they aren’t perfect. I personally would prefer 3 months, but I think 6 is sufficient and avoids the objection that 3 is too short. If people prefer 3, that can be tweaked as the process is worked out. 2) Not necessarily beyond the social limitation. I had envisioned this as “here’s a thread where consensus shows they’re acting inappropriately”, followed by another instance, which could trigger a request. If someone’s doing involved actions regularly within 6 months, I’m not sure we should limit the thread. At the same time, I feel there would be strong social incentive not to keep beating a dead horse, and the community could sanction people who did. 3) I think that’s a reasonable suggestion. I don’t want to add it now since there’s significant votes, but I think a footnote in the policy noting it’s allowed would be reasonable if this passes. 4) Yes. Hope that clarifies.{{pb}}Also, as a general note, having done a few of these major RfCs all the issues raised in the comments can be clarified when the proposal is merged into the policy page in line with the closing statement. These RfCs tend to bring forth a lot of complex issues, and getting a framework down and then tweaking to reflect the full consensus from the discussion usually works best. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*More on the {{tq|resign as an administrator}} clause - this appears to result in a "voluntary resignation", meaning there is a path to resysop via simple request that then late puts a responsibility on 'crats to determine if this is a disqualifier --- any reason that this can't just be codified? I suggest that this component, and the entire policy in general include verbiage that specifically calls out that a future restoration of access must follow the "standard" process (i.e. RFA). — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Policy already says they wouldn't get it back ([[Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship]].) I'd oppose adding it here since there's already a clear policy on the issue, and I think adding an explicit text saying so would undermine the usefulness of the existing wording. Don't feel that strongly opposed to it, but I think the policy as a whole works better if we don't repeat what's already there. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***{{re|TonyBallioni}} so that's just kicking the problem down the road, and assuming the "cloud" will be revealed later - generally with arbcom desysops the cloud is prescribed, preventing any drama at BN later. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
****No. It's expecting that bureaucrats will follow the already unambiguous policy that prevents this. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*On the IADMIN stuff, the [[Wikipedia:Interface administrators]] policy already has a simpler path to community removal, and already includes mandatory removal on -sysop for any reason; so suggest this is all removed instead of making a competing (harder) process. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Rschen7754 suggested this above when dealing with the crat/int-admin question. Someone already pointed out on the talk page that there are already other ways to do this (actually, I think I might have suggested it at the time...) I don't see a need to change the proposal again, though. Nothing contradicts and it's just another venue for removal if people want something more structured for whatever reason. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***{{re|Rschen7754}} I really can't see why anyone would want to go through this huge process to argue -iadmin for someone, when the first step should already cover it - what scenarios are you envisioning? — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
****Bureaucrat was more what I was concerned about; each wiki has their own rules regarding interface admin and I'm not quite up to date as to the rules for it, just wanted to make sure it was considered. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 06:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**:This proposal requires that an AN thread be closed with something inappropriate, ''then'' the rest can begin. The IAdmin policy only requires the first part: {{tq|After misuse of the access by consensus (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard).}} That makes this, in my mind, an unnecessary complexity and simply confusing. I don't think this proposal should apply to IA, because we already have a weaker process to deal with such abuse. I agree with the idea that IA rights should be removed on desysop, but I believe that's current practice anyway (a non-admin cannot hold IA). So, the proposal should probably only apply to admins and crats. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 08:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*WT:RFA is for discussing the operations of WP:RFA, it shouldn't be a noticeboard for things - why is that needed? — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Because some people still watchlist WP:RFA to check for transclusions of RfAs. Since this is a similar process, allowing people to know when it is initiated on a highly watched page they're already watching for those purposes makes sense. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Could I ask for some examples (say, three) of AN/ANI threads that would have qualified under step 1? I think that would be useful in evaluating this proposal. More broadly, I'm somewhat concerned that this would worsen the dramaboard tendencies of AN/ANI: the last thing we want is to turn the noticeboards into an "admin complaint box". That being said, I hope someone can assuage my fears, because I really do think that this is a very well-thought-out proposal. Cheers, [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 04:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*As I was reading this proposal, two suggestions came to mind. The first is that, out of respect for concerns of harassment, within a set time period (say 90 days, arbitrarily), another request for deadminship cannot be brought against the same admin by the same party. Perhaps require a different 11 (1 + 10) people to initiate it, for example. If whatever new incident is egregious enough that it would attract enough support for removing the flag, asking for 11 different initiators shouldn't be a big hurdle. The second suggestion may be moot, because it was a thought I had before scrolling down to see the overwhelming support this has so far. Nonetheless: since the last RfC closed without a clear consensus for how to implement, with various misgivings about this or that approach, perhaps it would be a good idea to say that this is a 12 month trial run. Given how hard it has been to come to consensus about this, that would make it easier to fix if this turns out to be a bad idea while allowing for proof of concept. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 04:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*I appreciate what TonyBallioni is trying to accomplish, and also that he is trying to allow a convenient time for the administrator under discussion. However, forcing the administrator to transclude his own desysop request seems.... cruel. I'm sure others will have better wording suggestions, but my feeble attempt is as follows: "Once certified, the administrator being discussed must indicate the starting time of the request for desysop, not to exceed 14 days subsequent to the certification. They may transclude the desysop discussion themselves, or indicate they would prefer a bureaucrat to do it on their behalf. If the administrator under discussion wishes to avoid the discussion, they may resign as administrator. If no indication regarding timing is recieved from the administrator under discussion, a bureaucrat will transclude the discussion at the end of 14 days." Thoughts? [[User:78.26|78.26]] ([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]]) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|78.26}}, I think I mentioned this above, but it was my assumption that they could just ask a crat to do it and they would do it. I think I the specific wording could be tweaked if this policy passes without another RfC to allow that, or they could just ask. The reason I'm trying to avoid any more changes is that we've already had 30ish votes and I feel another mass ping would be disruptive. I've done several RfCs of similar scale before and when implemented, they're never tied to the exact wording of the proposal, but tend to be word smithed based on the close that reflects the full consensus of the discussion on points such as this. I don't think what you're suggesting would be out of line for that type of post-close tweak. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***I agree. This was intended as a point of discussion, and not intended to be a policy rewording requiring a separate vote. [[User:78.26|78.26]] ([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]]) 05:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*How do you deal with repeated requests being filed ''ad infinitum'' as a form of harassment? Any group of 10 people can easily meet the requirements to re-file the request as soon as the previous one is removed. Do we need a caveat saying the same person and/or endorsers can't repeatedly re-request? [[User:Tarl_N.|Tarl N.]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|discuss]]) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I don't think there's going to be any perfect system and that if we spelled stuff like that out, you'd probably get opposes for it being too complex. My view is that there would be a strong social pressure not to do that, and that the requirement that there be 3 current admins endorsing would also be a bit of a control: if they did this inappropriately, they could be desysoped for acting in a way inconsistent with adminship. The community can also sanction people for [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour. Basically I think it's the same reason why you don't see indefinitely repeated ArbCom requests: people's patience will wear thin. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***Sure but blocking someone for their "good faith" filing of a desysop would be pretty bold ("show me the policy saying I can only start one desysop a month"). And the blocking admin would have to want to be a target for a group of people known to use desysops as a weapon. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
** [ec] I am cautiously in favour of the proposal, but like {{u|Tarl N.}} see potential for this becoming a tool for harassment, and would like it to be made clear that this would not be tolerated, possibly some specific consequences for inappropriate behaviour. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 05:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**:I feel like the community has very little tolerance for this type of gaming and am not concerned about editors being able to pull this off without consequences. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**::Agreed. I imagine the social pushback against someone abusing the system in this way would be rapid. And if it turns out to be a concern once implemented, additional measures could be put in place to specifically address how the system is being gamed -- something that we just can't know at this point. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Questions: is this intended to effectively replace ArbCom as a method of first resort? In other words, will editors seeking arbitration be expected/de facto required to have tried this process first? Or is this just a secondary process, and an editor has the choice of whether they go via this or via arbitration? I support the idea that the community can take back what it gives, and has the right to decide which admins can mop on its behalf. Further, I get that there are some cases that arbs don't take up that the community still might want to act on. Still, I think I'd be opposed if this raises the bar to arbitration. There are ''some'' issues that community-based processes just cannot deal with, and if this proposal raises the bar for ArbCom intervention I think that'd be concerning. An explicit mention in the proposal along these lines would resolve this concern. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I also note the high bar to removal. An editor could retain their adminship with only 59% editors supporting removal, i.e. only 41% of editors in support of their adminship. If that were an RfA, it would be a clear failure. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*One area that does come to mind is that of avoiding double jeopardy - I would say that while a case request at ARBCOM is pending, the Community method can't also be used (in edge cases, it can always be tolled). I don't consider this to be an outlier, and if it doesn't add in now, then it won't even be considered for adding in until at least one person has had to deal with both trying to occur at the same time. I would note that while TB's proposal is decent, I am a little offput by them saying that they don't want to make certain changes because a number of people have !voted. Indeed, that's why voting shouldn't have been opened until further discussion had taken place. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 12:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I think that falls into the category of things we should deal with socially rather than with a specific policy. We could adjust this for many hypotheticals, but it would never be perfect and it’d become unwieldy very quickly. As for workshopping it for a week, I think that’d have been the quickest way to get it to fail as no kind would be able to create a perfect procedure, and it’d end up being opposed for imperfection after a specific minor issue wasn’t addressed. A lot of the things being discussed here are not substantive changes, such as who transcludes. Those are the type of things that in my experience are usually best cleaned up post-close by tweaking the policy page to be in line with the closing statement and fixing any glaring minor issues. That’s why I’d prefer to do it then rather than mass ping a bunch of people multiple times.{{bcc|Nosebagbear}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
----
*Some in opposition find this procedure too prone to an angry mob, while others in opposition find it too entrenched to matter due to the three-sysop requirement. I'm supporting, but I'm curious if anyone opposing (or leading that way) finds both facts to be concerning? I suppose that imagination would be: (1) the act of opening of a request for endorsements could be repeated to the point of abuse, and then (2) systematically opposed by trenchant sysops. Is that roughly right? Otherwise the two views seem largely mutually exclusive. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 15:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* From where I stand the problem isn't with removing a few errant admins, it's with keeping the majority of them accountable (in other words, giving [[WP:ADMINACCT]] teeth). Wikipedia admins receive lifetime appointments - a rare luxury in most other organizations, and for a reason. What we ought to have is limited terms - 2-3 years, after which the admin must face community review. This will force admins not only to "behave", but also to ''listen''.
: As for this proposal, it has two problems: the first is the requirement of supportive closing statement, which means admins would have to criticize one of their own loudly enough to merit a mention - a rare occasion; the second is the requirement to "transclude" something, which is a technical point and doesn't belong in a substantial discussion (cf. "law" vs "regulation"). [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::Remains to be tested, but I think we're ''more'' likely to see sysops openly and honestly share criticisms with such a policy. At the moment, there's little incentive for invective unless/until there's an ArbCom case, which, despite some recent(ish) examples, is fairly rare. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 16:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I don't know where I stand on this yet, but one thing that immediately jumped out at me was the {{tq|at least 25 edits in the last 6 months}} requirement. I'd strongly suggest dropping that. I understand the desire to limit this to people who are contributing, but this is a poor way to do it. On the one hand, a bad actor who fails the 25-in-6 requirement can just make 25 junk edits, the same way people game [[WP:ACPERM]] now. On the other hand, if somebody is legitimately abused by an admin to the point that they quit the project, they may want to come back a year later and explain what said admin did to them which was so horrible. We disenfranchise those people. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I've done a bunch more reading, and I'm still not sure where I am. I will add another comment, however. There's general agreement that we need more admins. And I think there's also general agreement that the hazing atmosphere at RfA chases away reasonable candidates. So far, so good.
*:
*:One of the premises stated by several of the supporters is that by making it easier to remove bad admins, we'll make RfA more civilized. The consequences of making a wrong choice won't be as durable, so people won't be so nit-picky. With a kinder and gentler RfA, we'll attract more candidates. That's a plausible theory. But, another plausible theory is that RfA won't get any better, because it's in some people's nature to be nit-picky. And if that's the case, then we'll make it even less attractive. If we can't convince people to subject themselves to hell week on the chance of winning a mop for life, we certainly won't be able to convince them to try for a mop that's easier to take away. I honestly don't know which is more likely, but I certainly don't agree that this will necessarily attract more candidates. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I'm disappointed by the opposition tbh. Bunch of users saying "I would support this in theory, but there are too many concerns". When there are literally next to no specific, logical concerns even being articulated. The proposal contains protection after protection against a mob mentality, from an existing recent consensus that an admin breached the admin behavioral standards, to activity restrictions, to endorsement restrictions, to admin endorsement restrictions, to the requirement that the final re-RfA requires a supermajority of support for removal, and that you only have to hit 40% support to retain the bit. People are really saying that this is unleashing the mob? Really? I can be a real asshole. I can and have crossed the line way too many times. And even I don't have a single community discussion to my name with a consensus saying that I violated admin behavioral standards. Not in the past decade, much less in the past six months. This proposal literally bends over backwards to accomodate admin protection. If everything goes absolutely terrible for me, and I am forced to run a re-RfA, and I can't hit fucking 40% support, do you think I or anyone else could possibly claim that the process is unfair? That this RfA which is advertised on CENT and AN and BN and every watchlist is unfair to me? That it's unrepresentative of the community?? Obviously not. If 10 users including three admins request your removal, and you run an RfA and can't pull 40% support, do you really deserve to be an admin? Hell no. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I think that's as clear an articulation as any of several of the flaws in the proposal. By no means all of them, but it did capture a lot. FWIW, I've tried to be specific in my follow up comments. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 10:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Swarm}} You're free to say the reasons provided by those opposing are insufficient, but it's completely inaccurate to say "next to no specific, logical concerns" - numerous ones have been provided. To give examples: no policy defence against multiple issuances based off the same threads; no coverage for what happens if pending ARBCOM cases and community desysops occur at the same time; 6 months is a very long time from the most recent problematic AN/ANI thread; no formal consideration of which forums count as sufficiently clear to be authorised to count for the purposes of hurdle 1; no clarification on whether timing starts six months before being passed or just on passing etc etc etc. Don't trade accuracy for rhetoric [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

*{{u|TonyBallioni}} and anyone else who's working hard on this, I have a few concerns.
*#Since hurdle 1 is linking matters to a single incident - how will we handle "double jeopardy" concerns? Would multiple petitions be able to be made regarding the same AN thread?
*#Would there be a central location to record these - which has it's upsides (transparency and ability to check history) and it's downsides (concerns of "no smoke without fire")?
*#If a petition is accepted, there is a potential 2 week window where the admin is effectively under a cloud. Should we be accepting their judgement as an admin in that time, or would it be a good idea to put in a clause that they should not take admin actions in that period?
*#What of the personal cost? Having been involved in many desysops (between my work on Arbcom and my involvement in [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests|recall requests]]) and when a user is desysopped, it is a difficult process for them on a personal level. Given that the individual would have been invested enough in Wikipedia to become an administrator, do you have any thoughts on how reduce the unpleasantness of the process, therefore increasing the likelihood of keeping them as an editor? [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::That No.4 is very interesting, {{U|Worm That Turned|Worm}} and deserves some quick calculation: How many desysoped admins ''have'' continued to edit? How many desysoped admins were indeed highly visible and/or totally engaged on Wikipedia? I know ''I've'' completely stopped doing any pro-active editing. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Very hard to judge {{u|Kudpung}}, but according to [[Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/for_cause|this table]], in the last 5 years, 11 admins have been removed for cause, and only 1 has stopped editing completely, 1 stopped about 4 years later, and 9 have edited in the last week. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's not that hard to judge, {{U|Worm That Turned|Worm}} . If one takes the trouble to load their edit counts, most of their editing patterns since they were desysoped are like mine: only a tiny, tiny fraction of what they used to do. Most of them had been fairly prolific editors. Speaks for itself - without predjudice for the actual reason for having their bits yanked. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Kudpung}}, indeed - but again edit counts don't tell the whole picture, as much of the count was tied up in admin actions. However, I don't disagree that there is a drop when an admin is desysopped for cause. Creating a new route to desysop for cause should acknowledge that. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*IANATB, but while I too would prefer a "double jeopardy" clause, the time limit helps a bit in that regard. While not stated, I imagine it'd be quite hard to clear any of these steps for something already litigated. For item 2, we have [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests]], so I'd imagine so. On 3, it's not something typically done at ArbCom so why would it be here? ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:I was writing long enough in my support above, but I thought about a different form of double jeopardy: can an administrator be subject to both an ArbCom case and the community process? Realistically I think it's not likely that ArbCom would accept a case where the community had gone through the process and not removed sysop (but there would be ''lots'' of pressure in the insufficient majority situation I discussed above so certainly possible). But what about the reverse? A person goes to ArbCom, there's a case, ArbCom declines to remove sysop. Could the community still launch this process? I think yes and I think it also unlikely that the community would remove sysop (in other words I expect both the community and ArbCom to respect the decisions the other group reacheds) but it would be further unpleasantness for the specific admin. I think we can't remove this form of double jeopardy but I am definitely in favor of removing the double jeopardy that Worm outlines here. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:{{u|Amorymeltzer}}, What is "IANATB"? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*::{{re|RoySmith}} Worm asked some questions of {{tq|TonyBallioni and anyone else who's working hard on this}}. I care about the issue, but I wouldn't presume to say I've been working hard on it. Certainly not to the degree Tony has in creating this, so when I answered, I wanted to clarify that I Am Not A TonyBallioni (it was light-hearted). ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:I posted this as an addendum to my "support" comment, but what with all the multiple sub-discussions here, I'll comment on it again. Instead of simply requiring a past AN or ANI incident, I'd suggest that there also be diffs showing that the admin ''subsequently'' rejected or disregarded the consensus of that discussion. In other words, if the admin said that they didn't accept that they had done anything wrong and kept on doing it, then that would be reason to invoke the procedure proposed here – but if instead the admin had said that they would go along with the community's will and not do it again, and kept their word, then there would be no opportunity for desysop. I think that would remove much of the potential for misuse of the process, and the need to be looking over one's shoulder. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::I agree in principle but disagree in practice. I think the criteria as it sits there now will cause enough angst and challenge for the crats. I don't want to layer another criteria, and one requiring even more subjective judgement, on top of the process. Instead I think we need to have faith that the community will reject a proposal where the admin has already been "I was wrong and I'll do better" for first time offenses. For second incidents and beyond it then does become a matter of judgement for the community to decide if they're going to stop or not. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

-------

*What would be in "request for de-sysop"? I apologise, but I don't understand. I mean, if an editor alleges admin XYZ is a meanie, and provides evidences, and if that RfC is supported by 10 ex-cons, including 3 admins. Then is that accused admin supposed to transclude request for de-sysop at RfA? And whats going to be that request? A defence statement? I think its going to be a standard RfA + a defence statement, am I right? —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

*Is "there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately" meant to refer to any inappropriate behaviour, or behaviour in the role of an admin (using tools, closing discussions etc)? I would definitely be in favour if it were the latter, but think the former is open to abuse by editors with grudges. If it is meant to refer to the latter, could the wording be changed to "there was consensus that the administrator used their status or tools inappropriately". Cheers, [[User:Number 57|Number]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

=== On hypotheticals ===
Policy is never perfect on the first go. Governments employ armies of policy analysts and advisors whose entire job it is to revisit and revamp existing rules and procedures to meet changing landscapes and address unforeseen consequences. The work is considered to be iterative -- a policy is made, evaluated as time goes by, and modifications are made as necessary to accomplish the intent behind the policy. The standard for the first iteration is that it adequately takes into account potential risks while providing the intended benefit.

The process that Tony has proposed has ample safeguards against the process being used as harassment, double what most sister projects use as their standard before a desysop request. Rather than worry over every potential hypothetical scenario, I suggest that we focus on two things: first, the evidence, which is that on Meta/Commons/Wikidata (the three desysop processes I am familiar with) the desysop process is not abused as a form of harassment. Second, the fact that this proposal is ''good enough'', meaning that it will accomplish the desired benefit and has explicit thought placed into mitigating the risks. And if the process doesn't work as intended, we can change these rules once they are made.

We as a community have decided that there should be a community desysop process. Let's try to get one in place within a decade after that decision was made. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 06:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*'''Some alternative system is clearly needed''' and as {{U|TonyBallioni}} is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=948695602&oldid=948694394 no friend of Arbitration Committees] this proposal comes as no surprise. [[WP:BARC]] launched by me with support from {{U|Worm That Turned}} almost a decade ago was an attempt at community desysoping without the ANI-style interference or uninvolved users and holders of superior rights jumping in with further threats and/or harassment without having first familiarised themselves with the background. While some suggested it might give the ‘crats something to do with their status and position, there is still plenty of resistance from the community to forcing tasks onto the ‘crats they have not signed up for; the 'crats themselves said little on the subject. One user appears to defend [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=1007800885&oldid=1007780695 both solutions]. We learned through our BARC that the ‘crats should first be asked if they would accept such an extension to their mandate.
:There are several very different reasons for a desysoping ‘for cause’. Some are clear cases of blatant misuse of the tools, wheel warring, using their tools for pay, etc, while there are other reasons that are more subjective and where the evidence is not necessarily clear , is circumstantial, is purely vindictive, or just plain railroading. Compared to the number of admins desysoped 'for cause' over the years, the Arbitration Commitees have a much, much higher record of impropriety among their own ranks and/or former members. Some Arbcom policies are already too vague and open to any interpretation one wants to make in order to make a case stick, especially in the well known Wiki culture of cherry-picking and taking things - deliberately and convincingly - out of context.
:Between this proposal and Arbcom, is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. As an already desysoped user, I ‘m not really bothered much about the outcome of this RfC, but as a retired user, I ''will'' come out of retirement to protest about any cases that might be leaning towards an unsafe verdict based on claims and ‘evidence', offered by uninvolved, wannabe Wikipolice - as some users here are already aware, and especially if an admin is standing in the dock and likely to receive a punishment for which the Arbcom policy allows no appeal.
:This means finding an alternative desysop procedure that limits the participation of the peanut gallery rather than giving them even more scope and power. In recent times, various compositions of Arbcom have shown that while the Committee might not be corrupt, it does favor the claims of highly vociferous, non involved users as well as those of its own members, and although it is jury, judge, and executioner all rolled into one, it tends to simply read and execute a community consensus and it does fail to check the veracity of the accusers’ claims, choosing a solution which they think the community wants to hear rather than the good of the Wipipedia. Hence I’ll reprint {{U|Nick}}’s comment in its entirety: {{tq|The ArbCom system has always been deficient. ArbCom are able to shape cases to suit their own opinions on the subject of the case, they get to choose whether to accept the case, they already limit the amount of evidence and can refuse to hear further evidence, and then get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing. There's also extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals. It's like a more or less shitty version of a Presidential impeachment}},

:I won't repeat here all the various comments by {{U|Beeblebrox}}, {{u|Tarl N.}}, and {{U|Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood}}, but they are spot on and I certainly endorse them. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

:Regarding {{u|Kudpung}}{{'}}s comment about "{{xt|Arbcom has made an easy task of it for themselves in recent times - almost lining admins against the wall and shooting them in one session}}" - I beg to differ. In the case of RHaworth, it took ''years'' of multiple ANI threads, talk page notices, chats in the pub, and the final Arbcom case only happened because something egregiously wrong happened that tipped it over the edge. More to the point, it destroyed RHaworth the editor who's now just a bitter grump about being desysopped, as opposed to somebody I could work with writing about architecture in South London. And the desysop of Fram only happened because of a [[WP:FRAMGATE|deus ex machina]] (whatever your views on Fram, you cannot deny a significant amount of people opposed his adminship as demonstrated in the subsequent RfA - for the record, I think Fram has got better since and don't have strong views on him running an RfA now).
:I'm also really surprised to see {{u|Leaky caldron}} opposing this. I would have assumed he'd be strongly in favour of getting increased administrator accountability and improving the sanction mechanisms. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Ritchie333}}My oppose, I should have made clearer, is not about the proposition per se and on reflection guarded support or neutral would have been more appropriate. The primary concern I have is that requiring the advocacy of 3 fellow members of the admin. brigade will be insurmountable in the case of some high-profile individuals. 2 active Admins. supporting should be more than enough to back a community case. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Leaky caldron}}, I viewed that as something that could easily be changed by the community if it isn’t working. Again, the requirement was put in place specifically to deal with ethnic dispute cases, where I could see there being two admins on one “side” of a dispute certifying a baseless case (there’s a lot of ethnic disputes and a lot of legacy admins.) Three felt like a safe number to deal with this. I think adjusting it downward is certainly possible, but my goal with this proposal was what Ajraddatz pointed out, to provide a framework that could be adjusted with experience, and I felt that 3 admins worked for those purposes since I knew a major concern would be harassment. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:[ec] I agree that policy is seldom, and should not be expected to be, perfect first time round. I have seen this in several iterations of Health and Safety policy that I have been involved in, but from that experience I have seen that a relatively gradual change generally causes less overall pain and astonishment than a revolutionary swing, which is often followed by a swing in the opposite direction as a reaction to the change when it is seen to be excessive. From an engineering viewpoint we want a heavily damped oscillation around where we think we want to be rather than overshooting and setting up an unstable positive feedback loop. A trial period with a specific time limit, and a date for the next review is probably a good idea, and is standard practice in OHS (OSH for some). I would like to see minimum pain inflicted on all involved in the early stages, as there will be some with their knives out, either for revenge or to further an unmentioned agenda. On the other hand, I also think that there are enough of us who will be watching the process that it would be foolhardy to try to get away with vindictiveness or political dirty work. There may still be unnecessarily unpleasant consequences, as some of our community do not seem to understand the policy on no personal attacks, which should be strictly enforced by clerks appointed for that specific purpose and who have demonstrated their competence in identifying the range of ad hominem arguments common in our disputes. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 13:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

2021-02-22T23:01:43Z

Pudeo: /* Support */ +

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1616878877}}
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=DCCD31F}}
A request for comment to discuss changes to the policy on removing administrative permissions
20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

'''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure]]''' ([[WP:DESYSOP2019]]) closed with a consensus for a different desysop procedure to the current process that requires the referral to [[WP:ARBCOM|the Arbitration Committee]]. That discussion did not result in action because no one proposal had the necessary support to achieve community consensus. The close also highlighted concerns that the community had including:
*The ArbCom process is unnecessarily difficult
*Administrators who make unpopular calls could face harassment
*The processes on other projects might not work on the English Wikipedia
*The community needs a way to address problematic conduct
As a follow-up to that RfC, I am proposing the following be added to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] policy:

{{talkquote|Any user who is extended confirmed and has made at least 25 edits in the last 6 months may file a request for desysop under the following conditions:
#The request must link to at least one thread at a community forum such as AN or ANI that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately.
#The request will then be open for endorsements. If 10 extended confirmed users meeting the filing requirements above, including at least three current administrators, endorse the request within 48 hours, the request will be reviewed by a bureaucrat, and if it meets the requirements, certified as being an active request for desysop. If the required endorsements do not occur within 48 hours, the request will be archived as unsuccessful.
#Once certified, the administrator being discussed must transclude the request for desysop at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] within 14 days or resign as an administrator. If neither occurs within 14 days of certification, a bureaucrat will transclude the discussion.

When opened, the editor initiating should place notices at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:BN]] and [[WT:RFA]]. Once a request has been transcluded, it should be added to [[WP:CENT]] and notices placed again on WP:AN, WP:BN. The request will remain open for comments for 7 days after transclusion.

If there is a consensus with a minimum support threshold of 60% supporting removal, a bureaucrat will close the request for desysop as successful and remove {{code|+sysop}}. Users commenting must meet the requirements for filing a desysop request to support or oppose, but may make general comments if they do not qualify.

Users may additionally initiate this request to remove interface administrator or bureaucrat permissions individually. If a user is desysoped through these processes, bureaucrat and interface administrator permissions will be removed as well.}}
[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

==Support==
#'''Support''' I've traditionally opposed these on the grounds that the current process isn't broken, but I think since the last discussion on this a lot has changed on the project and creating a framework for community initiated desyop that takes into accounts the needs and conditions of the English Wikipedia, while being fair to all involved has likely come about. The framework above aims to provide the community with a way to initiate a desysop process without going through the up to 2 months long process of an ArbCom case, while also providing protections against frivolous filings. The activity requirement for voters is a way to deal with socking, as since EC has been around for a while now, a ton of socks have it.{{pb}}I also took into account the traditional benefit of an ArbCom case giving individual under scrutiny time to present their response, by allowing them to choose when to transclude. I think this is fair when dealing with real life circumstances. The 60% threshold goes based on en.wiki's standard practice of requiring consensus to sanction someone, and consensus not being a pure majority. It also is a doable number and not unreachable.{{pb}}I don't think this is a perfect proposal, but I do think it is a good first step for a framework that will provide both people who believe an admin has behaved inappropriately clearer guidelines on how to proceed without the need to worry about an ArbCom case, and also provide the administrator under scrutiny fairness to prevent railroading. I also agree with the comment of Sdkb below that this will likely be refined over time, and is a starting place. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Noting that if there is consensus here, I do not oppose raising this to 65%. Also, per {{u|Tryptofish}}, this is a consensus based discussion, the numeric thresholds are just minimums. That can be clarified in the close/when it is written into the policy if this passes. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This sounds like it is well thought out, and has sufficient safeguards to avoid frivolous or retaliatory requests becoming active. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the endorsements requirement is particularly useful in preventing "grudge" filings. [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|''(talk)'']] 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'm not really a fan of requiring three administrators to initiate a desysop, which I would think would go against [[WP:TROPHY]] (that is, giving administrators an elevated status in the community). However, I can certainly see why Tony felt it necessary to include that as a requirement, which I imagine would help avoid frivolous desysop requests. With that said, I still consider this to be a net positive, rather than the patchwork of voluntary recall processes that we have that admins may or may not choose to stick to. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''', with the caveat that it will likely need tweaking in the future. We currently have no good way to remove admins who got grandfathered in and really shouldn't be admins. This may not be perfect, but it's something, and it can be refined over time as we come to understand how easy or difficult the thresholds are. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{u|Sdkb}}, Could you expand on what you mean by "grandfathered in"? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{re|RoySmith}} I'm referring to admins who became admins back when there were not strict standards and have retained the bit. See [[grandfather clause]]. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::{{u|Sdkb}}, That's what I figured. In other words, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RoySmith|people like me]]? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - I think the community should have a process for removing admins without the bureaucracy and closed-door nature of ArbCom, a process designed for conflict resolution more than figuring out if an admin has retained the community's trust. This proposal has adequate safeguards against frivolous nominations and a relatively high bar to removing the admin bit, which should make the process viable in cases where an admin clearly needs to be removed but allow admins subject to small-scale disputes to be retained. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 21:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#More strict than [[User:Amorymeltzer/recall|my own procedures]], so I'm in favor. Seems smooth and strong enough to allow a lot of buy-in while limiting misuse/abuse and most common pitfalls. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amory|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is a decent-enough framework to give it a shot. Of course, the numbers are arbitrary and may need tweaking (especially after it is actually used), but I don't think they are too out of left field. Anything that pushes back against the "adminship is for life" narrative to potentially ease pressure at RfA is a good thing. --[[User:Tavix| '''T'''avix]] ([[User talk:Tavix|talk]]) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. This proposal uses input from the entire community to [[WP:ADMINACCT|hold administrators accountable]] to the policies and guidelines. A desysop policy has the potential to lower the expectations at [[WP:RFA|RfA]], which would encourage more editors to run for adminship and help minimize our numerous backlogs. Other Wikimedia projects have successfully implemented community-oriented desysop methods, and it is worth trying out here as well. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#{{ec|2}} '''Support''' Well thought out. Seem my comments below for my one caveat regarding inactive users but that is not enough to make me oppose. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - very well thought out proposal that cuts off many routes for potential abuse. I share most of {{u|Beeblebrox}}'s concerns, but in my personal opinion Tony's plan mitigates them just enough for me to support what is a very much needed process. [[User:Firefly|ƒirefly]] ( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] ) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Eleven years ago, I was the lead proposer of the failed [[WP:CDARFC]], and I just spent a somewhat unpleasant period of time going back to re-read all the objections that were raised to ''that'', to see if any seemed to me to apply ''here''. The proposals are strikingly similar, but not the same. (The old one had a 65% threshold, and I'm not sure if that really makes a difference. This new proposal requires an existing consensus from a thread that closed as finding tool misuse, and ''that's'' a clear improvement.) I think that this proposal adequately addresses the concerns that have been raised in the past over earlier proposals, and seems feasible, unless one just does not believe in letting the community remove the permission. I've come over time to feel that ArbCom has gotten better and better at this, and therefore have come to have less enthusiasm for a community-based process, but I still think that this proposal can satisfy a need. Maybe en-wiki is finally ready for this. I think this could work. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Adding that I think the 60% thing should be adjusted upward a bit, and that there should be a more explicit statement that Crats have discretion in determining consensus. This needs to be not-a-vote. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{u|Tryptofish}}, Agree completely, it must be a discussion so "Desysop - we have too many admins" !votes don't count for much. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:After reading more comments in this discussion, I want to suggest adding the following language to the part about previous AN/ANI discussions: "...there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately{{fontcolor|green|, and for which diffs are provided of the administrator subsequently rejecting or disregarding that consensus}}." --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We do indeed need a community process for removing adminship to reduce the fear that manifests itself as unwillingness to promote candidates at RfA, and independent of ArbCom's brutal process and often apparently arbitrary decisions and the implications of an ArbCom case that someone has done something unconscionable (ArbCom should mostly be dealing with extreme situations). I share the concerns that the numbers may need tweaking, in particular the percentage support, which seems low since we need admins brave enough to take action in contentious areas. I also have some qualms about using extended confirmed status as part of the qualifications for certifying, but since that exists, yes, it's a valid metric. I strongly suggest that there be a bar on participation in the eventual desysop discussion at the same level as that for certifying, since 60% is so much lower than the usual minimum support level for a successful RfA, and I don't see anything in the proposal preventing unregistered and newly registered editors from voting, unless it's supposed to be implied by location of the discussion at the RfA page. I don't share the concern about the 48 hours, since it's followed by a 14-day period, but there should be a requirement to notify the admin at all three stages and I suggest requiring e-mail notification in addition to on-wiki (last I checked, admins are expected to have e-mail activated). Finally, I think I must add that the concern is not solely with "legacy" admins or even "rusty" legacy admins. I remain opposed to activity requirements for admins, partly because those suggested have never captured non-logged actions like removing a [[:WP:G4]] tag after looking at the previously deleted article and determining the new one is different, or defusing a conflict by explaining ''teh roolz'' to a new editor, and we want admins who defuse conflict more than we want admins who strut about blocking everybody in sight or deleting everything nominated for speedy. But also because it's a volunteer project, and RL exists, as does off-wiki. Some "legacy admins", including some who return to the project years later, are valuable links to when the project was about boldly creating content and not being a <s>dick</s> <s>stuffed shirt</s> ... an encumbrance. ''Pace'' [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text|the WMF]], there is a difference between wisdom and clarity and "abuse of seniority and connections". And some abusive admins have been corrupted by their power since much more recent RfAs in the post-"no big deal" era. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{u|Yngvadottir}}, for clarity, there is a requirement barring participation in the discussion to the same metrics as those used to certify: {{tq|Users commenting must meet the requirements for filing a desysop request to support or oppose, but may make general comments if they do not qualify.}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Oh good, thank you! I kept going backwards to re-read the proposal but failed to find that. I will also tack on here that I am very much opposed to {{U|Tryptofish}}'s addendum: the bureaucrats have completely lost my confidence that they discern consensus in RfAs that fall into or below the discretionary range, as opposed to supervoting. This needs to be a straight-up vote, as proposed. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; relatively similar to what I've already agreed to ([[User:ToBeFree/recall]]) based on good experience with the procedure on the German Wikipedia. Regarding the already-certified "request to desysop" transcluded for discussion at WP:RfA, if possible, I'd favor the administrator under discussion to have the first paragraph on the page, or a prominently displayed section for rebuttal, above the votes. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' this much needed and well thought-out scheme. At present it is too hard to deal with abusive admins. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC).
#:I'd like to see some evidence of 'it is too hard to deal with abusive admins', {{U|Xxanthippe}}, and I don't believe this was the spirit in which this proposal was launched. More in the comments section below. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' in principle. I would suggest some minor refinements (see Comments section), but this is a reasonable proposal that avoids bludgeoning over grudges. — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Clear and well thought out with checks and balances. The framework works (although I would clarify in step 1. it is AN/ANI, and no NACs) and the metrics can be refined over time. I think Step 3. would also be useful to ArbCom, who could send ADMINACCT cases there directly. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – on the basis of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good; the details can be tweaked as we learn from experience and IMO this is a good-enough proposal to start with. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as better than nothing. My suspicion is that this proposed process is sufficiently complex that it'll never be used. But we can always tweak it going forward if folks are interested. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 00:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Just a note to add that my preference is to stick with the 60% threshold or lower (I'd support down to at least 50%, possibly lower). 65%, as some have suggested, seems to be stretching it. If most editors in a discussion want me to hand in the tools, it's probably best I hand them in. That said, I'm happy for the 'crats to have some leeway, as they do at RfA now. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 05:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with the caveat that I expect there will be some changes after we see how this works in practice. This isn't free reign to motion to de-admin accounts, it's just a way for the community to deal with some discipline cases without going through ARBCOM proceedings. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 00:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I think this is a good attempt at a desysop policy which has been to date something sorely absent. I feel the proposal has sufficient checks to ensure this proposal is not misused and support its implementation. Hopefully, this might act as an alternative to Arbcom and help the community to feel more empowered to deal with the rare case of admin power misuse.--[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' - This strikes me as an exceptionally reasonable and fair proposal, I really can't see any obvious flaws with it. It gives the community a realistic process to desysop someone for cause, in a way that is not too difficult, but it includes sufficient caveats and restrictions to prevent it from being weaponized disruptively or unfairly. We can play the "what if" game and never get anywhere, or we can implement a ''good'' proposal, probably as good as it's gonna get, with the understanding that if any flaws present themselves, the process can always be tweaked as needed. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 01:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Is it perfect? No, but perfect/enemy of the good and all that. But variations of this proposal have been active for years on multiple large wikis and more or less it seems to have worked out okay for them. It is time we bring more accountability to enwiki administrators. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as others have said above, we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We are long overdue for some form of community-based desysop procedure. The community is competent to bestow the tools and the community is likewise competent to take them away. [[User:Lepricavark|LEPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk]]) 03:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I don't know how this will work in practice, but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)]] 03:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Tony has big ideas, and this is a good one. ArbCom need not be the alpha and omega for any and all sysop revocations. Not saying that it should otherwise relinquish its desysop role, but having another option that, it, as well, sets out appropriate safeguards — that's a good thing. I trust our admins, I trust our bureaucrats and I trust the community. This is progress. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Overdue. It's nigh impossible to remove an abusive admin and this is a step in the right direction. -[[User talk:Fastily|FASTILY]] 05:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: I wouldn't say it's particularly nigh impossible {{U|Fastily}}. Arbcom has made an easy task of it for themselves in recent times - almost lining admins against the wall and shooting them in one session... [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This can only do good for the encyclopedia - [[WP:ADMINACCT|Administrators should be extremely accountable]] for all actions. More to the point, the perception that administrators are ''more'' accountable to the outside world can only do the project some good. It makes people believe we are fairer and the chances of them getting "jumped on" by an admin will be reduced. Unfortunately, I can see there is significant opposition for the ''specific proposal'' rather than the ''general idea''. Please reconsider, and trust yourself that the bigger picture of allowing us to keep admins in check is more important than the nuts and bolts - think of the greater good or the lesser evil, so to speak. Indeed, I would go as far as suggesting any !vote from an admin opposing this should carry less weight as they have a conflict of interest. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom. Maybe increase the 48hrs bit to 72hrs to take into account long weekends, bank holidays and the like. '''[[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]]''' [[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]] 10:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is a good proposal, and though I am willing to negotiate on some details including numbers, these look reasonable to me in the first approximation. Yes, this procedure will definitely be used to harass admins, no doubt about this. But active admins are being subject to constant harassment anyway, with the community unwilling or not being able to do anything in 90% cases (the worst case which happened to me I had to report to police, and I had external sites specifically founded to spread deliberate lies about my personal life - I do not see how deadminship nomination would be any worse). To be honest, I do not foresee this procedure to be used often - to start with, we do not have so many AN(I) threads formally closed, even less closed with an explicit consensus that an admin was at fault, and in the borderline cases it is actually more difficult to get ANI consensus that to get the ArbCom to look at the case - but I think it is important to have this procedure.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 10:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Hello, I '''support'''. [[User:There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day|There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day]] ([[User talk:There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day|talk]]) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:'''Note:''' The above editor, whose account was created on 5 February, has 5 edits, two to articles, two to their own talk page, and the edit above.[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 17:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' My main motivation for supporting is that we need ''some'' process in place. I acknowledge and even agree with some of the objections posted in the comments section. However, it's my belief that having a ''workable'' system in place will increase confidence in admin performance in the wider community. [[User:Tide rolls|'''Tide''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''rolls''']] 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''There has to be a better way of removing admins who have lost the trust of the community than full ArbCom cases, and this proposal has enough safeguards to prevent gaming or harassment. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 14:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the proposal as a whole. I am unable to support the three admin endorsement requirement however. I presume that the requirement's intent is to have at least three respected long term contributors which would very likely be included in a successful request. Great step in the right direction! -- [[User:Dolotta|Dolotta]] ([[User talk:Dolotta|talk]]) 14:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' in principle, with the details to be worked out. Might be good to have a planned debriefing RfC after an incident to see if things worked as intended or needed to be tweaked. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::ETA: agree with BK49, the issue with reluctance to close an AN/I in way that will or won't support this needs to be addressed, and yes, a vote to desysop of more than half but less than the threshhold is a concern. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I concur precisely with Tide rolls' comments; happy days, '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]''''''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]] 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the deadline for the 10 extended confirmed editor endorsement is a little bit short, per Lugnuts, but overall the proposed policy is quite a reform. Also, after it is implemented, I'm sure we can revise it as needed. [[User:P,TO 19104|P,TO 19104]] ([[User talk: P,TO 19104|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/P,TO 19104|contribs]]) 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with the expectation that details may be altered, and with thanks to TB for coming up with this -- and a note to the opposers: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per BMK; "the perfect is the enemy of the good", indeed. Like GiantSnowman mentions in the comment section, it seems a bit off to demand that the admin in question transclude their own request for desysop; seems like asking a user to build their own gallows. (I'm not really a fan of this kind of hyperbole, but it's the only metaphor that comes to mind.) TB's comment in response to that makes sense, though, so I feel like we should add some language in to formalize that they can ask a 'crat to do it for them if they wish. But regardless, I don't think that's a dealbreaker. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Policy proposal is detailed, well-thought-out, and seems like it would be difficult to abuse. I am open to considering amendments to the policy but this is a good start. —[[User:pythoncoder|pythoncoder]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Support the principle. If this passes, I would expect more detailed discussion on the exact process. Things like 10 users, 48 hours, etc. can be adjusted later. I don't agree with the requirement that three editors need to be admins. — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 20:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I have my reservations about specifics (I feel like this would never end up really being used because of the complicated process) but having a community desysop process is needed. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|Talk]]/[[User:Moneytrees/CCI Sort|CCI help]] 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Pythoncoder. [[User:JJPMaster|JJP...MASTER!]][[User talk:JJPMaster|[talk to] JJP... master?]] 22:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# My feelings mirror {{noping|MSGJ}}'s. [[User:SQL|SQL]][[User talk:SQL|Query me!]] 23:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#A thorough proposal that I'm inclined to see implemented. It is clear that the current method is unsatisfactory and this proposal seems an appropriate solution. I'm confident that most issues in harassment or singular evidence will be appropriately addressed by the initial review step from 10 extended-confirmed users and 3 administrators. [[User:Aza24|Aza24]] ([[User talk:Aza24|talk]]) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# The perfect is the enemy of the good --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] [[User_talk:Guerillero|Parlez Moi]] 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' I fully agree with others about this: three admins is a lot (my preference is for ''no'' admins), 48 hours is too short, and getting a close at AN that specifically mentions tool abuse is going to be extremely unlikely. However, this could very well be the first successful de-sysop policy proposal in Wikipedia history, and that is certainly not nothing right there. We can discuss amendments on the specifics later (or maybe the closer will read the discussion and find consensus for the relevant changes to be implemented.. wishful thinking I know). Right now though, we should just take this one step at a time to make the right fixes later. –[[User:MJL|MJL]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]][[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]] 07:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:For the record, I am also not a fan of having the admin have to transclude their own de-sysop request (sounds honestly terribly mean), and I also think it should be a 65% threshold (and probably shouldn't be as discretionary as an RFA is). –[[User:MJL|MJL]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]][[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]] 07:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:: Let me explain why I think no admins is not a good idea. Imagine user A obsessed with admin B to the point they can not see their name. If they are determined, they can grow 10 or 15 of whatever extended confirmed user to certify the desysop request (after B once get in trouble at ANI). But there is no way they can grown an admin account, because administrator is currently almost the only flag which is given as a result of the community discussion (disregarding interface admin, which does not probe qualities relevant for this situation, and bureaucrat and arbitrator, who in practical terms are always admins). Sure, there are some admins who passed RfA a long time ago, and where there are doubts as whether they are in touch with the community, but it is still better than nothing.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#I land here, generally. I don't like hurdle number 1 - largely the 6 month note - the idea that if an admin makes a "mistake" and especially if they are contrite and accept it as a mistake, that they should be looking over their shoulder for the next 6 months doesn't sit well. However, I think hurdle number 2 is excellent - so much so that I've been keeping something similar on my [[User:Worm_That_Turned/Recall_process|recall process]] for a decade. I genuinely see no need for hurdle 1 if hurdle 2 is there, which is why I'm supporting, there's no "looking over your shoulder" if there's a decent safeguard like that. So, if you've got 10 users in good standing thinking you should no longer be an admin, that's a reasonable threshold for a desysop process. I'm not sure I like RfA being the process - but it's simple and well understood by the community. {{pb}} That leaves the question of "do we need this process". Well, I'd say yes. {{u|Kudpung}} mentions below that he and I worked on [[WP:BARC]] a few years ago, a community desysop process ''which got majority support'', even if it wasn't implemented. This process is simpler - I've already mentioned how close it is to my recall process, a process which I strongly believe is needed. Lifetime adminship is a massive problem in the Wikipedia community - it's a role which requires work and has responsibility associated with it. The responsibility of keeping up with changes, with ensuring that keep treating people with respect. The expectation of setting a good example. However, the barrier to desysopping at the moment is an arbcom case. Firstly that means reaching the threshold of an accepted case - quite a few arbs including myself have a lower threshold for accepting admin conduct cases, but it's still woolly. Secondly, going through an arbcom case. Few people want to do that. This process is much clearer. I do have a few concerns, which I'll address in the comments. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''': the necessity of an AN(I) closing statement which indicates poor conduct in the last 6 months and requirement for 3 admins to be included in the desysoping discussion request make me think that misuse would be sufficiently rare. I support more routes for the community to desysop because I think cases of admins behaving with consistent incivility and driving editors (both new and old) off the project are occurring, I believe ArbCom is failing to accept necessary cases, and is otherwise less-suited to assess certain types of issues than the community (such as cases where many ArbCom people would have to recuse) and no-one wants the WMF to be involved. For over a decade now people have been complaining, at least at RfA, about a lack of suitable procedures to desysop and we need to at least try this one out. It's not a suicide pact and failure in practice could see this process removed by community consensus, but the time to act is... well, 2010, but given we're in this position the time to act is now. I encourage anyone fretting over the details (%age, number of endorsers etc.) to just support because numbers like these are best adjusted through practice (as the supporting percentage needed at RfA was) and no-one is able to ''a priori'' arrive at figures that everyone will look at and go "that's exactly right". {{pb}} I would ''absolutely not'' support a requirement that a desysop request must go through this process before ArbCom takes it, or vice versa. We should see this as two venues as better suited to different situations, but if one venue is presented with a request that needs handling then it should take it rather than passing the buck. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|talk]]''') 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Agree with the proposal. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' probably {{u|Bilorv}}'s comment above has convinced me the most, but also a discussion with Tony. However, I'd like to emphasise the 2nd part of Bilorv's comment in regards to ArbCom, which was my biggest concern. This proposal ''cannot'' result in becoming a de facto requirement before an issue is heard at ArbCom. It should not alter the expectations for ArbCom hearing a case, at all. In particular because this proposal only requires 40% community support for an admin to retain the bit, and also because I think some issues benefit more from the structure of a case. Further, I oppose raising the support threshold to 65% (ie, 35% of the community in support of the bit being retained). Also explicitly noting that I don't at all buy the concerns of this being misused - my only concern is people thinking this can suddenly resolve all forms of admin misconduct, which it cannot. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – worth a try; can be tweaked later if needed. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''[[User talk:Graham87|87]] 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I fundamentally believe that it's a broken process where the community has been unable to remove an administrator's bit for cause. I think it causes an unhealthy community atmosphere at times between longtime editors who are not administrators and administrators. We're all in this together, the community is pretty sophisticated on the whole these days, and ArbCom shouldn't be the only option to desysop people. This is why I have my own [[User:Barkeep49|recall procedure]] but I would much prefer a standard community process so here I am voting for this. Now with that said, let me state all my concerns with this proposal in hopes that the closer is sophisticated enough to take the criticisms I see from not only those opposing/being neutral but from those supporting when crafting a closing statement (assuming this gains consensus). {{pb}}I think this proposal presumes that the current culture of AN/ANI will continue after this passes. If that culture were to continue, step 1 would work well. However, I think this proposal would cause AN/ANI to act differently. I think some AN/ANI regulars would be more of a reluctance to close administrator misconduct thread in a way that provides a definitive statement to trigger step 1 (more on this in a moment). I think there would also be pushback/challenges when a thread was closed but closed in a way that partisans found unsatisfying (either hoping to trigger step 1 or not wanting step 1 to be triggered). That will not be healthy for our community. Second, I think we'll need some new crats for this process to work. Quite bluntly, I was waiting for some crat support (being unsurprised at opposition/neutrality) before supporting because without crats willing to do this process it won't work. And, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of crats are very reluctant to act in ways that deny people sysop, even in the face of community consensus that they should do so ([[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_44#Resysop_request_%28Jackmcbarn%29|example]]). We're all volunteers, so I don't begrudge them this. However, I do worry that crats will only judge very clear statements as satisfying the criteria here perhaps to the point of absurdity. I have seen threads where there is clear consensus that an administrator acted wrong closed with statements like "Lessons were learned here". At the moment that's fine (indeed the right close for administrator who feels bad about a mistake), but would that be sufficient for this process? I believe the answer would be no for most crats (and would also be an example of a close ripe for being challenged that I already wrote about). So in the end I think the answer to this is just to elect some more crats who will being willing to implement whatever community consensus is derived here (again assuming this passes). Finally, I'm concerned that someone with 40% confidence in the community can continue on as administrator. We're so concerned about community trust we say that unless 3/4 of the community trusts you we're not willing to give it to you in the first place (at least not without further discussion) but if 59.9% of the community distrusts you but you had the good fortune (or actual skill/competency) to pass at one point, sure you can still be a sysop. If there were ever a scenario where a majority voted to desysop but it wasn't sufficient to pass, especially with all the other safeguards this proposal has, that outcome would be incredible divisive for the community. I fundamentally believe it is untenable for someone who a majority of the community, at a widely attended discussion, distrusts to continue as an administrator.{{pb}}In summary, is having some process better than nothing for me? Yes. Are the "bones" of this process good? Yes. Do the details need to be rethunk to work better? Yes. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is better to have this process than not to have this. Some users are making assumptions on what the community will or will not do once this is implemented, but we will not know for sure until it is put in place. We should revisit this process with another RfC in six months to a year. My support for this process is under the assumption that it will complement the current ArbCom system, not replace it. ArbCom should not use this process as a reason to deny cases. Barkeep49 said above {{tq|I have seen threads where there is clear consensus that an administrator acted wrong closed with statements like "Lessons were learned here".}} If this proposal passes I would closing statements to say one of three things: "Community determines there is not enough evidence to warrant a request for admin desysop", "Community determines there is enough evidence for a request for admin desysop", or "No consensus was reached". If there are a couple of AN reports that conclude with no consensus, it should be accepted as an ArbCom case. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I believe that this process will help improve trust between administrators and long term editors who are sometimes suspicious of administrators. A straightforward process with clear benchmarks is complementary to and a good alternative to the ArbCom route. I have read the opposes and understand many of the points raised, but I conclude that the benefits far outweigh the risks. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] [[User talk:Cullen328|''Let's discuss it'']] 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''': We have had so many cases of ArbCom revoking admin access and even a former admin Fram being banned for inappropriate conduct without community discussion. I think ArbCom should be considered a very last resort as ArbCom is intended to be used to resolve long-term issues with behavioral conduct that community discussion is unable to handle. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] ([[User talk:Awesome Aasim|talk]]) 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is going to be a perennial proposal until it (or a variant) gets adopted, so might as well. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' I see a lot of problems here, and things that won't work as smoothly as envisioned. However, I'd rather we have an imperfect process that can be improved than no process at all. The past month at ANI has featured at least two demonstrations of admins displaying serious competence issues that might not merit an ARBCOM filing, but also show that we need some sort of recourse. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' in the name of starting somewhere, per what I wrote in the previous RfC. That said, as I wrote below, I'd like to see a '''12-month trial period''' and a '''rule restricting how often someone can initiate this process against the same admin'''. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''', this seems like a very careful de-adminning process that would greatly limit the amount of cronyism that many fear a de-adminning process would create. It is clear that something about de-adminning needs to change, and while this isn't perfect, it seems good enough. If serious problems arise, it can be altered. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 20:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per numerous above. About time. '''But''' also per Barkeep. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]])
#'''Support''' Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' There are real dangers here. AN/I is 80 % popularity contest, 20 % substance. Premature closes and edit-warring over closes already exists, and if this is policy, it will be guaranteed that a popular admin will not be stained with a condemning AN/I close. Sandstein's concern in the oppose section is a good one, although unblockables won't get blocked either way. Hopefully this would not deter the ArbCom from accepting some admin conduct cases because now a community process exists and the situations may not be "intangible" anymore. It would be unfortunate if that was the case because it would mean that popular but abusive admins wouldn't be scrutinized by anyone, and this process would just be used to desysop "out-of-touch legacy admins" who happened to step on the toes of an unblockable, as an extension of the mob mentality on AN/I. While these AN/I and three admin endorsement requirements are bad, I think this is an important instrument that should exist. The community has the power to grant adminship and so it should have the power to remove the bits as well. I wish it had been implemented in the beginning so it could have been refined already. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Oppose==
#Per my comments in the discussion section. Overall I think this is needed, and I ''want'' to support it, but I have too many concerns about the specifics. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#Per Beeblebrox; also ''want'' to support, but have too many concerns. Particularly that this process, like many other community processes, is a feedback loop. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 00:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Feedback loop? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::[[:Feedback]] in this sense. Over multiple iterations, "vote you off the island/out of the cool kids club" processes reinforce & ingrain community prejudices & biases; particularly processes with self-selected participants/voters. And, while I appreciate the intent and the thought put into the proposal, I consider the process above to be overly complex and, in places, unbalanced - "and has made at least 25 edits in the last 6 months" is unnecessary; "including at least three current administrators", step 3. & "60%" are detrimental, and not likely to change once the process is implemented. If we are going to have a vote process, admins should need to show that they retain the confidence of the community; with (the bar set at) at least 50% in favour of them retaining the tools(; probably higher). - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC) - clarified [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 12:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::50% is a problem though - why should administrators be able to stay as admins with only 50% support, when perfectly capable and competent editors can't pass RfA with 50% support from that community ? I know it's apples versus pears, but still... And yes, if it comes to it, I'm probably advocating lowering the bar at RfA, not raising the bar in a desysop discussion. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 11:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::I agree entirely; which is why I have included, and emphasised, "at least". The bar should be at least as high as 50% support to retain; probably higher. The process, as drafted & proposed, requires 60% support for the desysop, and (assuming neutral responses are permitted) allows admins to retain tools with between 0% & 40% support for them to do so - this is problematic. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 12:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::::Once some has been an admin for some time, they usually have made a number of decisions that were correct but still angered some people. Consequently, a DeRFA process will most likely see those people support removal regardless of cause. As such, requiring a higher percentage to remove makes sense to counteract these impulses. Regards [[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]] 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::::I understand this line of thought. I agree with the first two sentences, and disagree with the last. I am comfortable with a lower bar to retain admin than to gain it initially; but not for that bar to be below 50%. I also agree with the thought above advocating lowering the bar at RfA. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#Parking here as there are quite a number of unresolved questions below which could change the content of what is being voted on. I'm supportive of a community desysop process in general. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I'm "leaning support", and will likely swap once the discussions below settle more. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I don't support adding the int-admin parts to this policy, it creates an overlap of existing other policy and doesn't improve the options for dealing with bad int-admins, no benefit for adding this component has been identified. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 12:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::'''Oppose''' as unnecessary policy creep regarding interface administrators; '''Neutral''' on the components related to admins (still think there is some gaps regarding the process in relationship to timings of resignations); undecided on the de-bureaucrat addon. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 15:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per those above. Very likely supportive of the creation of such a process, but cannot endorse these specifics. — [[User:Godsy|'''Godsy''']] ([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]][[Special:Contributions/Godsy|CONT]]) 05:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I have concerns about the process described here; it has a double jeopardy kind of feel to it. I would like to imagine that someone who has behaved inappropriately should be encouraged to improve their behaviour. The process that is outlined here feels more punitive. In addition, "behaved inappropriately" is too vague - a close that included "trouts all around" could be construed as a conclusion that someone behaved inappropriately. I think we need something that incentivised improved behaviour, and that gives someone a sheltered window in which to improve. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 05:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' "The request must link to at least one thread at a community forum such as AN or ANI that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately." We all make mistakes, we are all human, and while I think I am rather up to date with policy and guideline, there are always things I do not know. The 'at least one' still is 'one strike is enough'; 'community forum such as AN or ANI' can still be an obscure community noticeboard; 'the administrator behaved inappropriately' is way too vague, there are several actions that are within policy or guideline, but catch the right opponents and you will face that it is 'inappropriately' (especially on an obscure noticeboard). Have your fans all around and you will be fine even if you 'behave inappropriately', fall out of grace and even something within policy can be inappropriate. I fully support the fact that we need this, but this is, as written, is a shortcut to a ArbCom requiring levels which are way too far below what normally would go to ArbCom (we generally do not report to ArbCom at one negative AN(/I). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] [[User_Talk:Beetstra|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|C]] 05:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The described ordeal sounds awful. If a person is on the wrong end of an AN/I thread, then they have to figuratively watch their back for six months (perhaps even consider stepping away from Wikipedia entirely to allow the six months to elapse). It doesn't allow the person from AN/I, if they learned from their mistake, to put the matter to rest for half a year. In the event that someone does get the ten required endorsements, then this person has to sweat it out for up to two weeks while working on their defense. Then when the Request For Desysop proper begins, this person has to (potentially) watch dozens of people pile on for a week about all the mistakes this person has made and why they're unfit for adminship. Sounds emotionally brutal. I prefer the (hopefully) tactful approach of ArbCom. That isn't to say that the people commenting on the RFD would necessarily be lacking in tact, I'm just saying that those in ArbCom are specifically tactful. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 06:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#I think it will render AN both high stakes, and less likely to correct Admins, because everyone will know how high-stakes it has become. Admins behaving badly need to reign themselves in and just stop, early, but they will have less encouragement to do so, because AN will 'vindicate' them in its lack of conclusion. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 09:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Admin. cronyism has always been a major factor in AN/ANI discussions. Setting a requirement of ''"at least three current administrators, endorse the request"'' sets the inception of a successful community desysop debate too high. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Happy to support if the threshold is reduced to TWO. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 10:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: If this proposal passes successfully, there will need to be close attention paid to how AN/ANI discussions are handled - the horse trading which goes on with ArbCom goes on with other administrators too, and one area which will need to be very carefully scrutinised is the closure of AN/ANI discussions which could lead to Community Desysop. There is a risk (intention or unintentional) that administrators commenting will contend the issue is not serious or severe, that there was provocation and there's a very significant risk of favours being asked for and performed which will see discussion threads being closed as the administrator behaving appropriately with no case to answer. There's an equally severe risk that the initial complainer at such a thread, if not an admin, will be subject to massively increased scrutiny, sanctioned or blocked (for the duration of the discussion or longer) and treated most unfairly. But that's outwith the purview of this policy and would need further attention should the proposal be successful. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:<s>Parking here as well.</s> moving to support. Some outstanding issues that concern me, particularly on how this process will act in relation to ArbCom and I share some of the concerns of some opposers above. But I hope to move to support with some clarifications/changes; I believe in the idea that the community can take back what it gives, and is entitled to decide itself who it wants mopping on its behalf. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# I agree that we need a way to desysop problematic admins. I'm not 100% in agreement with the decisions Arbcom has made as our community elected deadminship process. But they have proved a more nuanced and effective process than is being detailed here. When they need to move fast with a motion to desysop they can move faster than this process would allow, when they need to give time and treat people with the respect due to any of our volunteers they can do that as well. I think it would be a mistake to have two desysop processes operating under different criteria, so I'm opposing this proposal in favour of keeping Arbcom as our desysop process. I urge those who are unhappy with our current arrangements to define what extra criteria they think that Arbcom should desysop people for and file an RFC along the lines of "in future, Arbcom should desysop admins caught doing x" ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 12:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# Agree with many of the above. Insufficient protections against a howling mob.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#: Unless one believes in the existence of the putative "anti-admin brigade" (who's actuality was largely discredited a year ago), I suggest that a so-called "howling mob" (at AN or ANI) serves the purpose of attempting to deal with Admin bad practice. Not a bad motive that. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#While the proposal is generally well conceived, the need to include safeguards against abuse makes it rather complex with a relatively great number of steps that are likely to become focal points for wikilawyering and drama. And despite the safeguards, this process's existence is likely to make admins even more reluctant to take necessary action against popular and well-connected problematic editors (see [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]]). But most importantly, I've yet to be persuaded that this is a problem in need of a solution. The relatively high number of admins desysopped by ArbCom indicates to me that the existing process works well enough. [[User:Sandstein|''' Sandstein ''']] 13:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' We already have a community desysop process: and its called Arbcom! Arbcom is a community process, as all the prominent members are from the community, and they are also selected by the community. That Arbcom is not a community process is essentially a misnomer, they're as community as community can be IMO. Do we need a parallel process to Arbcom? I believe not, it works well in my experience, and there have been no convincing arguments that this isn't the case. Arbcom's cases are extremely nuanced, and it has a large number of safeguards against abuse my editor cliques. No reasonable demonstration that Arbcom has failed has been demonstrated to me, and until this happens I will oppose unnecessary and considerably more flawed parallel processes. [[User:Mrjulesd|Jules]] [[User talk:Mrjulesd|(Mrjulesd)]] 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:For what it's worth, [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] closed with {{tq|wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input, but does not involve ArbCom}}. It's been decided to have one; we just haven't agreed on one. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - whilst I am open to a idea like this in principle, there are too many concerns raised about the risk of abuse/lack of safeguards, and some far more careful thought needs to be given to the process itself. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Tony: {{tq|'''Strongest possible oppose''' We already have a community desysop system: we elect trusted community members to hear evidence and then vote on conclusions. A system that provides some semblance of fairness while also holding administrators to account and also just as importantly making it clear that the people who ask for a hearing will also have their conduct examined. All previous proposals have failed because any one that would be fair is effectively a proposal to create ArbCom by another name.{{pb}}Additionally, there is this idea that it’s easier to desysop someone via community process than via ArbCom. I disagree completely. A popular admin who misbehaves repeatedly will never be desysoped by the community. They would by ArbCom. For all it’s flaws, the ArbCom process at least attempts to give both sides a fair hearing. No other project does that. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 12:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I've already commented, but I've been thinking about this most of the day, and the more I think about it, the more depressed I become at what this would likely lead to for our community. This is because the issue with a community-based desysop system is not that it will result in more desysops. It won't. In all likelihood, a community-based process would result in substantially '''''less''''' desysops ([[c:Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful requests for de-adminship|see Commons as an example]]). The issue is that we'd gain a tool for people to harass and attempt to silence good people who have no chance of being desysoped, but who work in areas where they've made enough enemies, you could probably start a valid request. I'll be blunt and say I'm probably one of those admins where you could find enough people to do any certification process, but where community removal would be unlikely to happen, and it's not something I'd particularly enjoy, even if as a whole I'm confident I retain the trust of the community. If I didn't feel I had that trust, I would have resigned already.{{pb}}The issue here is that any community desysop process will be a '''''spectacle''''', where all of their flaws will be commented on via aspersions and an angry minority will be able to make their life suck for a week. Who on earth would want to subject themselves to that.{{pb}}People are focusing too much on the end-process goal here: yes, the community likely would be able to keep good admins from revenge requests, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the human being on the other side of the screen who will have to go through a week of humiliation, often by people who are likely to be community banned within the year. They'll have their worst moments highlighted rather than their norm, and the community won't stop it, because we give exceptionally wide latitude to people in forums like RfA/RfB/CUOS/ACE, and we'd be very likely to give the same latitude here.{{pb}}The end result is the bullying of other human beings, condoned in the name of accountability, targeted at sysops who have no chance of actually being desysoped. We should be better than that, and while ArbCom might be flawed, it is better than every single other process described below at attempting to give all sides a fair shake. That is what we should be focusing on. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)}} — [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 17:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Yeah, I was wondering when people would bring that up. To be clear, my views have changed in that what I care about is fair outcomes to all involved, both people complaining and those under scrutiny. In the 16 months since the last discussion, a lot has changed on the project, and my belief is that implementing a form of community desysop with the appropriate checks will ultimately make it easier to remove administrators who are behaving problematically while also making a defense of ones own actions easier as well. In other words, I think we’d see more desysops that have community consensus that would not occur now, and that the more controversial cases would get a more straightforward hearing. Ultimately, I believe those will lead to fairer outcomes for the people involved, and better outcomes for the community. I didn’t think this 16 months ago, but my thinking has obviously changed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Please explain the two most significant changes of the the last 16 months that have caused you to lose confidence in ArbCom's handling of desysops, and why they've made you change your mind. [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::Gladly: first I’ve thought more about how this happens on other projects, and how it seems to work perfectly fine there on large projects. One of the main issues I was concerned about on en.wiki is AE/nationalist disputes, but I think the requirements surrounding certification there address my previous concern that you could get one side of a conflict targeting an admin.{{pb}}The other is that I think we don’t actually know that the community considers behaviour worthy of desysoping beyond the broad strokes of policy. I think in the last 2 years, a lot of concerns have grown surrounding inappropriate actions by administrators who are unfamiliar with current practice and who then disappear or continue behaving outside the norms in small ways. I think there’s very likely community consensus to desysop them, but that you’d have significant difficulty getting ArbCom to open a case. On the other end, there were cases like Portals where the desysop vote was close, at least one arb who said they might have been too hard, but where there were conduct concerns. The justification usually given in cases like that are is they can demonstrate community trust via an RfA, but I don’t know of anyone who has, and part of that is because how difficult the desysop mark can be, even if it might not have had community consensus at the time. Creating a process where we can directly see if the community supports desysoping in edge cases surrounding admin conduct, in my view is likely a process that would be more likely to reflect the community’s view on a specific case than the current “desysop and see if they can pass RFA.” As I said, I think it will likely create fairer outcomes both for people who think someone should be desysoped, and for those under discussion. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::::As I noted in my support comment, I went back to re-read the oppose comments from the proposal of eleven years ago, and if we're going to note editors' past comments, I can't help noticing that some of the opposes that have shown up here use remarkably consistent language now as then. Well, I guess there's something to be said for consistency. Just sayin'. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:Commons is my 'other' project and I've been involved in several of the desysop discussion there - it's a completely different project with very different patterns of behaviour and very different issues which result in the desysop discussions. It really tends to be straight tool misuse on Commons, but as there's less opportunity for tool misuse and the vast majority of admins are pulling in the same direction (primarily managing intellectual property issues) the strong editing disputes that characterise many en.wp Arbitration cases simply don't appear on Commons with anything like the same regularity or intensity. I would also worry that {{xt|A popular admin who misbehaves repeatedly will never be desysoped by the community. They would by ArbCom.}} is both correct but downplays that popularity - they're equally likely to be elected to ArbCom... [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 09:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I also think it's worth noting that [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] closed with {{tq|wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input}}. Even if Tony ''hadn't'' changed his mind, it'd still be worth suggesting a policy since consensus is to have one. Opposing this proposal on the grounds that we shouldn't have one is opposing that prior community consensus. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' without prejustice to any future and better version. The idea might be great, but it is hard to imagine that such complex procedure will ever work. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# I land here, per Nick's response to Leaky cauldron and the emergent effects on AN and ANI, which are quite broken or misshapen as they are already. Moreover, [[WP:TINC]], but it doesn't take long to see some editors (admins or not) get chummy with other editors, and then appear to make closes at such places, preventing the community, under this proposal, from using the process in question (no, not just GAMEmanship). There's aren't sufficient protections against those cliques foundering issues brought up at our behavior review boards. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. While well-intentioned, I share Sandstein's concern regarding the chilling effect this may have on correct but unpopular admin actions (such as blocking the "unblockables"). [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 10:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Firstly, as Sandstein points out, this is a solution in search of a problem; ArbCom is willing to desysop in controversial cases, and nobody's pointed to an ArbCom case (or lack of case) that ended up with an egregiously bad result. Secondly, there is no way for the community to reject the opening of a vexatious anti-RfA if the requirements are technically met (well, there is IAR but I don't see any crats wanting to invoke that here in any circumstances). And finally, the threshold for removal is ''lower'' than for promotion, and there is no guidance on what the discretionary range for crats to discuss the matter is (if there is one at all); effectively turning this anti-RfA in to a vote from the perspective of the community. [[User:Iffy|Iffy]]★[[User Talk:Iffy|Chat]] -- 12:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I appreciate the principle, but I think this will make admins even more reluctant than they already are to do anything contentious, or anything which annoys a large group of editors. For example the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLE|unblockables problem]] will get a lot worse, because attempting to block an unblockable usually results in a thread on some noticeboard where the unblockable's friends attack the blocking admin. This would now probably lead to a desysop request, and even if the admin survives it will not be a pleasant experience. I also don't think that we should be desysopping admins for a single mistake unless the mistake is very serious, and the threshold of a single thread will allow this to happen. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 13:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:It wouldn't be desysopping for a single mistake, it'd be allowing a consensus that a behavior or action was inappropriate to be used to garner a petition that, if endorsed by a number of editors (including peer admins), would then be submitted to the community for review. Right now, we have to get a bunch of AN/ANI closings then ask ArbCom to intervene; the community can express itself repeatedly at AN/I and when voting for Arbs, hoping the two collide. This would just institute a process whereby the community can vote itself. Almost by definition, if we consider an RfA to be the will of the community, then whatever a de-RfA decides would likewise be the will of the community. We just don't have a way of ''getting'' there. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::A [[Recall election]] isn't the only way for the expression of the will of the community. In politics recall elections usually lead to expensive disasters. Elected officials need to be able to do their jobs while in office. Their accountability to the voters is ensured by elected offices having limited terms and by the elected officials periodically having to run for re-election. We might consider using a similar system with admins. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 14:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:I’ll add a bit to what {{u|Amorymeltzer}}, but I find it interesting that people are opposing for this reason since I added it to be an increase from the current requirements to file an ArbCom case: there are none. It is entirely possible to craft a case request without showing there is ''any'' agreement by the community that someone is acting problematically and convince 2-3 arbs that “this should be looked at but we don’t have to sanction”, which then snowballs into an acceptance. Basically the current desysop process is completely arbitrary as to what can be a cause for initiating it. While you can start a dozen ANI threads and not get a case accepted, you can go with no ANI finding a problem and have one accepted. This was meant to create a standard to prevent people from using the process as a way around normal dispute resolution and to create some standard as to when it’s applicable, as compared to the current standard of 'know which arbs care about specific issues and bring cases they’ll agree to hear.' [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::I think the distinction is that Arbcom is two-sided; if you file a frivolous case request or are playing pot-calling-kettle-black, you are likely to land in trouble yourself. If you do the same on this de-RfA what happens? [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::There is no threshold to file an ArbCom case request, no, but filing an ArbCom case request by itself is not a big deal. Unless ArbCom accept it very little will happen. On the other hand this desysop request would be a big deal, and even if you survived the mere threat of one would be a significant deterrent by itself. RfA already has such a bad reputation that many qualified people are deterred from going through it, and this would be a lot worse. Another important difference is that meeting the threshold here could be little more than a unpopularity contest. An admin who has done something controversial (e.g. blocked someone popular) can easily get some experienced editors yelling at them on a noticeboard, which is all you actually need for this process to start. Convincing a majority of arbitrators is rather harder. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# Details can always be tweaked, but if we're going to do this, we need to get it at least broadly right at first or it will only further entrench the difficulty of desysopping. Unfortunately I think this proposal combines the worst aspects of AN/I while keeping none of the strengths of arbitration cases. Let's be honest, AN/I is a dysfunctional exercise in mob rule. Rooting the desysop process there is going to give control of it to the ''loudest'' voices in our community, not the community as a whole. The initial 48 hour window of opportunity accentuates this by encouraging people to rush to judgement. It will probably work okay for those rare cases where a single incident is egregious enough to justify a desysop – but those are also the cases that ArbCom is already good at dealing with. The cases we struggle with—and the cases the arbitration format ''can'' be good at, when the committee overcomes its constitutional lethargy—are where there is repeated, low-level misconduct over a longer period of time. AN/I routinely fails to do anything about this because its focus is on recent single incidents, deciding which party is most at fault, and reaching a quick "close". Arbitration is better at it because its allows enough time and space to discuss more complex issues, and the decision format encourages an explicit link between findings of fact and remedies rather than taking sides. What I'd like to see is a community procedure that replicates this—perhaps by listing specific instances of misconduct that, if reasonably demonstrated with diffs, can be a basis for a desysop request—but is more streamlined and easier to access than ArbCom. And doesn't have anything to do with AN/I. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#Moving here, for originally the reasons in my neutral-leaning-oppose position, but simply inflated to the point of unavoidability. I'm particularly concerned about the issues raised here regarding how difficult it'll become to make hard or contentious decisions, considering how dogged people can get about them. Ultimately, this proposal looks far too easy to weaponize. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This is a well intentioned attempt to improve the desysop process, but I think that our current 'bicameral' system provides for a better result overall, however imperfect it may be. There's a reason why governing systems work better and last a lot longer when there is an upper chamber of sorts, that sits above the fray, generally moving slower and more carefully than a unicameral one that is open to sudden and damaging changes by way of knee-jerk reactions from involved partisans, who may also be too shy to make controversial but necessary decisions that alter their standing within the governing body and population (the 'community', in our case). Desysopping can be the most difficult of all duties in this community. I feel it was right to place that power in the hands of an uninvolved elected committee, and that should continue. My main concern for any changes to this procedure would be dealing effectively with [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]], and Sandstein convinced me that this proposal will make this worse. [[User:RandomGnome|RandomGnome]] ([[User talk:RandomGnome|talk]]) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Many of the oppose voters expressed sentiments similar to mine. I've always felt that the urge to cut ArbCom out of the loop stemmed more from the frustration of would be lynch-mob leaders than any genuine "difficulty" the existing method held. What hadn't occurred to me was the notion that making it easier to get rid of admins would inevitably lead to admins declining to make controversial calls, something that sounds all too likely an outcome. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' for 3 reasons: 1) Being an administrator is already difficult enough, without the need to avoid controversial decisions. We already see the lynch-mob mentality at RFA for candidates witha less-than-prefect background, and I can see this happening to admins who work in the darker areas of Wiki. 2) Whilst the Arbcom process may be difficult, I disagree with the premise that it is unnecessarily so. 3) I see no evidence that there is anything wrong with the current system. — [[User:Voice of Clam|O Still Small]] [[User talk:Voice of Clam|Voice of Clam]] 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# {{small|(I initially posted this under "Neutral", but having read it over, I think it might fit better under "Oppose". [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC))}} First, the good: I think this is a very well-thought-out proposal and is probably the best community-based desysop proposal I've seen. It addresses many of the most critical concerns that have previously caused community-based desysop ideas to fail. There is a relatively high bar for starting a review (it requires an initial AN/ANI thread, 10 established users must endorse within 48 hours, 3 of whom must be admins, and a supermajority vote (60%) is required to desysop)—these safeguards may adequately prevent frivolous requests as well as "chilling effects" where administrators are hesitant to make the right decision in a controversial dispute for fear of retaliation. {{pb}} That said, at [[WP:DESYSOP2019]], I expressed a fair amount of skepticism about whether we really need a community-based desysop process, especially one that would result in an "anti-RfA" of sorts. It's no secret that a lot of us think that the RfA process is "broken" because it often overemphasizes isolated incidents and recent dramas, fails to require corroboration for any allegations or claims, and requires candidates to submit to an intense and often unpleasant examination of every nook and cranny of their [[Special:Contributions]]. And while it's not clear to me how these issues can be fixed, I remain skeptical about any proposal that repurposes the unstructured format of RfA into a request for desysopping. As I wrote in 2019, {{tq|It feels like every time I think about reforming the desysop process, my thoughts always go back to the question: "What if we made a process that allows a group of trusted users, who are vetted regularly for their judgement and experience at knowing what's good for the project, be the main body in charge of reviewing administrator conduct?" That is the process we already have.}} Because I'm not convinced that the current system actually needs fixing, I find myself in this section. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 20:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. This is well-intentioned and offered in good faith, but (1) there is no evidence that ArbCom and other processes aren't working to curb abuses (i.e., this is a solution in search of a problem); (2) there is too much of a risk of gamesmanship; and (3) I fear this will disincentivize admins from making the right call. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 22:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Neutral==
#'''Neutral''' This is obviously a "removal for cause"-type proposal and I don't think the current processes are unable to quickly or effectively address admins who are intentionally performing actions against the community interest. It is the admins who inadvertently or unintentionally perform such actions, or who perform no actions, that are a bigger issue. We have policies and procedures to address misbehavior but we have none to address the continuing [[Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Long-term_nearly-inactive_administrators|retention of the tools by admins that do not perform admin tasks]]. The admins who obtained the bit in the early 2000's when admins status was subject [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|to very little examination]] and have managed ''just'' enough to retain the status are [[WP:HATC|retaining their hats]] not because they want to improve the project (they manifestly are not doing so). The misbehaving admin can be addressed through ANI, ArbCom, T&S (and possibly other processes I forget) so this proposal would be a fourth such process. There are no processes for the other category. We should address the lacuna in process before adding another to a current set of processes. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:IMO, the only issue with admins who do not perform admin tasks is that they do not perform admin tasks, not that they retain the tools. We should be thinking about how to make such admins perform more admin tasks rather than trying to desysop them. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' I would support this but i think the minimum support threshold should be changed from 60% supporting removal to 65% and requests for desysop between 65 and 75% support should be subject to the discretion of bureaucrats to make it aligned with how RfA's work [[User:1.Ayana|🌸 1.Ayana 🌸]] ([[User talk:1.Ayana|talk]]) 22:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:This will be difficult to implement given the Bureaucrats were not elected to make this decision. Would the current Bureaucrats be happy to make such a decision and in turn, is the community happy for the Bureaucrats to do so ? [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#::{{strikethrough|'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''}} Beeblebrox's concerns are deeply convincing, especially considering the potential for harrassment. I'm also concerned about the human tendency towards negativity bias -- that is, the possibility more people will come out with negative than positive opinions for even fairly uncontroversial administrators, such that only people with sufficient numbers of friends in high places can pass the desysop-RfA. Simultaneously, there are real concerns about legacy admins in particular that result in a "probably shouldn't drag to ArbCom, probably shouldn't have the bit" category. Not going in the oppose column yet, but have real concerns. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 23:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#:::Moving to oppose. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' The first thing I did once I became an admin (2012) was start a similar proposal [[WP:RAS]], which failed. Coren (former Arb then) was helpful and coauthored the attempt. Several others have also failed since then, to the point of it being a perennial subject. Back then, Arb was much busier than it is now, case wise, and I don't really see the need, but open minded if the idea can be fleshed out properly. The bottom of the RAS page has some links to previous attempts 2012 and older. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I know Tony will be disappointed at me not supporting. Like {{U|Dennis Brown|Dennis}} above, I launched a [[WP:BARC|similar proposal]] just under a decade ago. There is still some work to do, and an alternative to Arbcom is sorely needed, but this isn't it. I have made a longer explanation in the comments section. I hope I will not have wasted anyone's time by asking them to read it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''', for now. I feel that in this case the worry about "what ifs" is warranted and one needs to think through the possible consequences of implementing this proposal more carefully. I would also still like to hear a stronger justification for why the proposal it is needed in the first place. A generalized sentiment that admins should be more accountable is, IMO, insufficienent as a justification here. The process described in the proposal is pretty brutal and arduous. The process may be necessary and I could support it, but I'd like to hear a more convincing explanation for why it is necessary (e.g. that the current arbcom desysop process is seriously deficient and fails to remove many admins who should be removed). In geneneral I can see less brutal and confrontational ways of increasing admin accountability, such as instituting admin term limits, with a mandatory reconfirmation RfA at the end of the term for those wishing to retain the sysop bit. Somebody in the support column mentioned that the lack of a community desysop process makes people more reluctant to support RfA candidates. A much much much bigger problem at RfA now is the lack of RfA candidates and the difficulty in recruiting them. As stressful and unpleasant as RfAs can be now, these desysop RfAs will be 100 times more contentious. It is likely that the prospect of potentially facing such a gory public spectacle will make the job of recruiting RfA candidates even harder. I am also concerned about the interactions of the proposed process with the existing ArbCom desysop process. It is naive to assume that the ArbCom desysop process will simply continue on its merry way, completely unaffected. It may well happen that the ArbCom will become much more reluctant to accept desysop cases, preferring/waiting for the community desysop to take place. ArbCom often looks to the community for guidance on important policy issues. IMO, a successful version of this proposal needs to explicitly state something to the effect that the two procesess are strictly independent and complementary, and, moreover, that, in the opinion of the community, the ArbCom should never consider the lack of a prior community desysop attempt as a reason to decline a desysop request. It is a more complicated question as to what is supposed to happen if a commputity desysop RfA fails and then a desysop case is filed at ArbCom. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 11:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
# Somewhat torn here. I support a community desysop procedure in principle, and I like the outlines of this one. I appreciate the steps taken to prevent the "howling mob", as others have called it; but I'm a little concerned about the specifics. First, is this going to turn any AN discussion about an admin into a "howling mob" situation? As things stand, all AN can do is to rap an admin on the knuckles; now the consensus of an ANI discussion is a necessary step to a desysop; it seems to me AN discussions are going to become much more of an ordeal as a consequence. I don't necessarily think that's a fatal flaw, but worth thinking about. Second, I understand that the three admins are meant to act as a sanity-check, but disputes among admins are not uncommon, and it's not unlikely that for any long-standing admin, three others who think they ought to be desysopped can be found. Admins are humans too; we have feuds just like other editors. Arbitrators are expected to recuse from cases where they're too close to the parties; ideally, I'd like to see the same safeguard here. That said, I'm not sure these are sufficient reason to oppose, so I'm going to park here for the moment and read what my colleagues have to say. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
#:{{U|TonyBallioni|Tony}}, is there a reason the proposal reads "that closed within the last 6 months where the closing statement indicates that there was consensus" rather than simply "reached a consensus"? I do not in any way think this is intentional, but as written, this doesn't actually require a consensus, and therefore opens the door to further acrimony. I saw only because I was going over the wording in detail to see if my concerns were warranted, and had the thought that an uninvolved admin closure would help considerably. I know it's too far along for that sort of amendment, but worth noting, I think. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 17:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::It was trying to require a formal close so people couldn’t just point to a thread being all “look! A complaint!” Basically having an objective standard here, which as I mentioned in my reply to Hut 8.5, I see the current ArbCom process as lacking. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''[[Consensus_decision-making#Dissent_options|Stand aside]]''' I'm suspicious of the proposal, largely per Vanamonde and Beeblebrox, but have no intent to prevent its adoption. While I view direct democracy as an advantage, my impression from [[WP:DESYSOP2019]] was that [[meatball:CommunityDoesNotAgree|the community does not agree]] on whether direct democracy is a positive or negative. That fundamental disagreement cannot be resolved structurally which is why proposals, no matter how well we design the safeguards, repeatedly fail. Personally, I didn't follow up on the 2019 discussion because I came to the conclusion that any solution that would gain consensus would not differ substantially from ArbCom, so we may as well just work on reforming the structure and culture of ArbCom. That's not to say I oppose direct recall--quite the opposite--but it means that I would like some tangible benefit beyond direct recall. Put another way, direct recall is a major rift in the community, and bridging that gap requires some superordinate goal that we all agree would be helped by a resurrected RFC/U. Absent that broader, unifying goal, I doubt the community can agree on a recall system for the sake of a recall system. I would be happy if I were wrong in this case. I want to see a direct recall system, but that desire isn't enough for me to overlook the real problems editors in opposition raise. There are sufficient concerns with this proposal that I am not comfortable supporting, but I have no desire to block the proposal, so I stand aside. — [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]] 01:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#I have long been in favor of a community-driven de-sysopping process, but I find this proposal overly bureaucratic. If I believe an admin has been grossly uncivil, for example, why should I have to look through six months of AN/ANI archives to dig up dirt on said admin or start a new thread just to rehash the same discussion at a separate venue? [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 02:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#:How is an AN thread endorsing a re-RfA overly bureaucratic? Searching the AN archives takes like a minute or two. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::Having a discussion just to have a second (really a third if you include the endorsement period) seems to be the epitome of bureaucracy. [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#::I'd also like to add that making AN/ANI a prerequisite for any desysop requests will only add to the battlefield mentality seen there, as any attempt to discuss an administrator could be seen as a pre-reverse RFA. My concerns about this proposal go beyond that, however. The group of users who would be able to initiate the process is too restricted; 48 hours is too short of a time for the endorsement period; requiring that any of the endorsers be admins is contrary to [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]; and admins should be desysopped if more than half the community no longer trusts them with their tools, not 60%. [[User:Calidum|'''-- ''Calidum''''']] 18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I'm in favor of a community desysop process, and don't think this one is terribly far from what we need. But I have enough specific reservations that I can't quite get myself to supporting it. Specifically (in order of how things are mentioned in the proposal):
#*Get rid of the "at least 25 edits in the last 6 months" requirement. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it both disenfranchises people who have been hounded into retirement, and is too easy to game by bad actors. So it adds complexity with no value.
#*Get rid of the dependency on closing statements. Lots of discussions never get formally closed. Also, making a negative close a trigger for this process will change both how people close discussions, and when/how people bring problems up for discussion. [[WP:ARBGUIDE]] says, {{tq|The filing user is also expected to show that prior dispute resolution has already been attempted}}. Similar wording would work here.
#*Get rid of the "at least three administrators" required to endorse. This is supposed to be a community process. Rules like this just enforce the impression that admins carry more weight in forming community consensus.
#*This one's a bit of a nit, but the 48 hour endorsement window is too short. Lots of people would miss it entirely because they don't edit more than a couple times a week.
#*I really don't like the "must" in {{tq|the administrator being discussed must transclude the request }}. That seems cruel. It's like being forced to carry your own cross to your crucifixion. Change it to something like, "may initiate the discussion by transcluding the request at a time of their own choosing in the next 14 days". It's the same thing, but sounds less spiteful.
#*Once the discussion is started, it should be up to the managing crat to place the required notices. You really want to make sure that's done correctly. The last thing you want is for a process like this to get derailed because of a defective notice.
#:Finally, I'll just echo the sentiment others have noted. The gist of this is if I can't get 40% of the community to agree that that I still deserve a mop, I must have been doing some really bad shit and clearly need to find a new hobby. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Neutral''' leaning oppose. The item #3 "Once certified, the administrator being discussed must transclude the request for desysop at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within 14 days or resign as an administrator." is a non-starter for me. There's entirely too much shaming coming from a [[Cancel culture]] in wikipedia as is (not to mention online in general). Remove #3, and you might get a support from me. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 19:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
# '''Neutral''' Admins should definitely be held to account when using the admin tools (I've subscribed to [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall]] since I got the tools), but this seems like an overly complex set of rules to start the process. I'd prefer something more along the lines of 'N editors in good standing' (where N editors could be quite a low number) + someone reasonable checking that it is a sensible request + a desysop process that is separate from RfA (since it should be a review rather than a request from scratch - but then if the editor is desysop'd then they would have to go through RfA to get the tools back). But that's the ideal, steps to improve the desysop (and the sysop) process need to be taken, hence this neutral vote. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#'''[[Consensus_decision-making#Dissent_options|Declare reservations]]''': I'll keep this short. RoySmith and Ched above me state numerous, and, in my view, well-articulated concerns about the proposal. I wish to reiterate the concerns regarding requiring an administrator to personally start a discussion regarding their removal, the 60% threshold (which I find is too low a bar to allow for removal of any administrator), the short time window, and the question of administrator endorsement (especially given long-standing feuds). All of these are enough for me to withhold a support vote, but, conversely, my personal views and circumstances are simply not enough to sway me to disagree with this proposal altogether. — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]]) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Comments==
<s>You might say it is implicit, but the the words "or resign as an admin" need to be in point 3.</s> ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:I meant to add that myself. Added. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|Ϣere]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|Spiel]]Chequers'' 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Why does the admin being discussed need to transclude the request for desysop? That should be the 'crat imho. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**That was added to give people the flexibility as to when they want to present their case if they are contesting the desysop. I'm sure they could as a crat to do it for them and no one would mind. The goal is not to force them into a discussion when they don't have time to respond because of real world commitments. I'm open to tweaks in the language around that, but it seemed to be the easiest way to address that criticism that has been raised previously during desysop reform proposals. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Why 60%? Why not 50%? Why not 75%? Why not [[WP:NOTAVOTE]]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**RFA has numeric thresholds, as do other projects, and this seems to be the norm for these type of discussions. Our process typically requires consensus to sanction, not consensus to keep the status quo. 60% to me appears as a number that is in line with this concept, but is also not impossible to reach, which 75% arguably would be in most cases. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**:Shouldn't the threshold then be the same as for a successful RFA? Seems weird that you would need less support to remove someone than to appoint them in the first place. Instead of putting in a strict percentage, how about just pointing to the one's already in place for RFA? Also, RFA does have thresholds but they are not strict. You can fail an RFA with 70% and pass with 65%. DeRFA should have similar rules. Regards [[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]] 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I'm undecided on the general proposal, but two technical questions:
*# What forum should the request-for-desysop be filed at?
*# Why 48 hours? That seems like it could be awkward over weekends and holidays - it seems like the critical mass of people needs to be assembled before filing the paperwork, which may or may not be the intention.
*: [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::Re: 1, the way I picture it would be something along the lines of [[Wikipedia:Requests for desysop/Example]]. This would be linked to at BN, AN, and WT:RFA (just like this RfC). It'd contain the complaint and an endorsement section, and a section for a response.
*::Re: 2, it seemed like a reasonable amount of time to allow for endorsements without being something that hangs around forever. I'd be open to something like 72 hours so it would always have a weekday, and actually debated that. I ended up with 48 because I thought that if a frivolous request is filed, you don't really need it there for 3 days. If a serious request is filed where the community agrees, you should be able to get 10 comments supporting it within 48 hours (see: most ANI or ARC threads.) There's also nothing preventing it being re-filed if someone misses the cutoff and would have endorsed to get it to 10. That being said, I'm very open to that number being adjusted. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|OhKayeSierra}}, I'll address your point here since I assume others might have it. Currently, it requires endorsement from 6-8 admins/functionaries (i.e. arbs) to initiate a desysop request. What I was concerned about specifically dealt with issues arising from nationalists disputes. I can think of some admins where you could probably find 10 editors on the other side of an ethnic dispute to endorse a request, but you couldn't find a single admin who would.{{pb}}I agree it isn't perfect, but so long as we continue to have stuff like India-Pakistan, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Armenia-Azerbaijan this is going to be an issue. The other option to combat that would be to up the endorsement requirements from 10, but that might be too big of a burden to lift. This felt like the easiest compromise on the point. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Two questions about the endorsement stage: (1) Where will it be appropriate to link the desysop request during this stage? (We want to strike a balance between allowing canvassing and having it be totally hidden.) (2) What should people who oppose the dedysop be expected to do during this stage? Just sit it out since it's only for gathering affirmative endorsements, or comment their opposition, which seems like it would make the stage just a slightly less well-advertised version of the actual RfC? Also, if the goal is to allow the respondent to choose the timing of the RfC, comments after an endorsement has succeeded but before the RfC begins should be disallowed. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 21:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**The proposal states AN, BN, and WT:RFA during the endorsement phase. My thoughts would be there, and if there's an active ANI or the like, I also think it would be reasonable to link to as a part of that thread. The standard canvassing rules would apply, in my view.{{pb}}On 2, I think having a comments section is reasonable underneath the endorsements so that people can discuss. I also agree once certified there shouldn't be comments until transclusion. Basically we'd need to create a template along the lines of the RfA or AE templates, but these are details in implementation that can be worked out once we get a policy. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 21:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**:Ah, thanks for clarifying on (1); I got a little turned around. We'll have to come up with good shortcuts, as WP:RFD is already taken. {{u|[[User:Sdkb|'''Sdkb''']]}} [[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']] 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

*I have, in the past, strongly argued for a community-based desysop process, and have written such a proposal myself, and have been a "hawk" when it comes to removing problematic admins. However, I cannot support this proposal in its current form. One single thread in which it is concluded that an admin made ''one'' mistake is simply too low of a threshold. There are very few things an admin can do that are so bad that they should have admin tools yanked over a single instance, and in those rare cases, arbcom is actually equipped to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions|act considerably faster]] than this process. In short, I feel that, as currently structured, this is still too open to gaming and use for harassment. Frivolous requests may not go forward, but after enough of them people will start to argue "there's been five request to desysop, the ''must'' be doing something wrong" and we'll lose good admins. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*: It's "one single thread" that's required before opening a process where many users must endorse proceeding before it is then listed for voting. That's quite a lot of hoops to jump through, even before the RFA. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amory|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::My concern is that it will be end up being used to harass admins, even if the cases don't move forward. People will just use it to further bickering, even when they know they won't get a desysop out of it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::Had a lot of edit conflicts, but Amory captured what I was going to say more succinctly. I also worded in as "inappropriately" to make it so that it wasn't just a mistake i.e. community consensus to unblock someone isn't the same thing as saying it was an inappropriate action for the admin to block. Oddly, I designed the procedure not to harass admins. I think one of the things that's changed in the last 3 or so years is that case requests have become easier to game and use to harass people as well, and felt this would be an improvement in fairness to ''both'' sides of the dispute. {{u|Beeblebrox}}, something I considered adding was allowing the crat to delete it if certification fails if it was determined it was being used to harass admins or was frivolous because I really do share a lot of your concerns and this proposal was designed in part to fix some of those flaws in the current ArbCom system and both be less prone to harassment and easier to initiate if needed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Question: If this process is implemented, is it intended to replace the ArbCom desysop process? If not, how are the two processes expected to interact with each other? [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Nsk92}} ArbCom has the ability to impose binding sanctions, and a desysop is one of them, so this would not remove that (I don't think you could without amending ARBPOL, which takes forever.) I see as a benefit here that it provides guidance as to what the community wants to see before desysops. As an example, if there was an issue 10 months ago and now you're in a dispute with an admin, you couldn't argue for a desysop under this without getting consensus at AN that there was a current issue with conduct. Under the current system, you could run to ArbCom and depending on the topic, they could accept it. I think in an indirect way, this would help make that existing process more fair as well. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Hmmm. Some degree of concern I have is that if this community desysop process is implemented, ArbCom will be much more reluctant to act on desysop requests. In fact, I am certain that this will happen. In some cases that might be a good thing but it is necessary to think about the possible consequences now. There are situations where ArbCom can, and currently does, move quickly to perform a desysop. The process described in this RfC is rather lengthy. I feel that it is important not simply to devise a community desysop process but also include some language that expressly addresses the interaction with the Arbcom desysop process. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::::My personal concern is if the standards for ArbCom cases on administrator issues become higher as a result of this. Ideally this proposal is simply an alternate route, and nothing about the current ArbCom process, or the requirements arbs expect for cases, will change compared to whatever they are now. Any editor should be free to choose which process they want to use, imo. There are some advantages of Committee scrutiny, especially for multifaceted disputes. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Can this process be applied to current bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights or ArbCom members? Will it only remove the sysop flag?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:As proposed, I believe it will apply only to the sysop flag. Any admin who is also in one of the above groups would still be subject to this proposal regarding their admin actions. I don't think a community process regarding checkuser or oversight actions is possible given that by their nature the details of those actions are not able to be examined by most community members. Abuse of these permissions can be investigated by the arbitration committee and the [[m:Ombuds commission]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*: I think that either CU/OS holders should either be immune from the process (must go to ARBCOM due to the potential of private information), or those permissions should be removed automatically as well by this process. The bureaucrat flag should go away as well as the admin flag. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|π]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|ν]]) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|Power~enwiki}} As someone with the Oversight right, I'd say that if the issue is related to my actions with Oversight then the complaint should be addressed to arbcom for them to investigate. If the issue is related to normal admin work (say closing XfDs) then this process would be appropriate. If I was desysopped by the community I would expect ArbCom to be officially notified (by the crat who flipped the bit) and to investigate my continued suitability for the role. It would need to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for them to rule that I was, especially as a practical matter, oversight involves regularly deleting pages/revisions and viewing deleted pages/revisions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::I think only bureaucrat and interface admin should be addressed here (since ArbCom can handle CU/OS). And they probably should, at least for bureaucrat since only stewards can remove that one. We could wind up with a situation where the community has desysopped but ArbCom won't remove bureaucrat and neither will stewards, since policy doesn't explicitly state it and stewards won't act outside explicit policy, especially not on enwiki. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I have minor concerns regarding inactive users. The first would be easy to resolve by adding a requirement that no desysop request may be opened unless the admin has made at least one edit in the last 5 days. The other is for editors who are not available during the RFA period. I think the way to handle this would be something like allowing admins to declare this (publicly or privately to arcom or a crat) that they will not be available to give an RFA attention within the next 14 days. Such admins would not be allowed to take any admin actions (or make major edits?) until they do stand at RFA - with deysopping the penalty for not complying. If an editor thought they would be available for RFA but it turns out they don't then crats should have the discretion to pause the RFA on that admin's request until they return. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*In the last paragraph, should {{tq|successful remove}} be {{tq|successful and remove}}? [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**Done [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{replyto|TonyBallioni}} Please add a [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statement]] directly after the {{tlx|rfc}} tag. At over 2,600 bytes, the existing statement above (from the {{tlx|rfc}} tag to the first timestamp) is far too long for {{user|Legobot}} to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]]. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:It looks fine on that page to me, and this is how I format every major policy RfC I've proposed. If there's an easy fix, feel free to make it, but please do not change my writing. The presentation on this page is more important than on the page the bot updates. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::At [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] there is a link. That's all. Compare the other RfCs on that listing: with one exception, each one has a link; a statement; perhaps a signature; and a timestamp. The one exception is [[Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements#rfc D415B6E|Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements]], and that is also because it lacks a brief statement. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|TonyBallioni}} It's now more than 24 hours since I pointed out this problem, is it going to be fixed? --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*::::No. I don't consider it a problem. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::What, the fact that no statement is displayed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] is not a problem? Legobot cannot parse the statement because it is insufficiently brief, thus, it cannot process the RfC. This isn't some petty rule that I have made up - it is a fact. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::I’ve responded on your talk page since I think that’s a better place to have this discussion, but yes, I don’t see a problem there. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I think the community forums in point 1. would have to be ANI or AN (and nothing else) - i.e. major and highly visible forum. I think that you would also need to confirm that the ANI/AN discussion was closed by an admin (or even two admins), who concluded that there were problems - i.e. not an NAC (and probably not a single admin). [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Am I right in thinking that step 3 is in effect a "reverse RfA", needing 60% to '''oppose''' to desyop? That would make sense to me as a fair process. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* Could ArbCom use this process? E.g. instead of starting off a 2-month ArbCom investigation, ArbCom could just !vote to send the admin in question direct to step 3. (above)? Ultimately, step 3. might turn out to be a better system for ADMINACCT cases (e.g. general conduct vs. technical breeches/tool misuse)? thanks. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::Arbcom almost always desysops by motion, quickly, without opening a full case. It doesn't take them 2 months. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 23:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::: I don't think that was the case for the recent desyops of {{noping|BrownHairedGirl}} or {{noping|Kudpung}}, which were I think ADMINACCT cases? [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Britishfinance}}: to answer your questions, I agree, I was thinking AE might be another place in some circumstances so left some wiggle room. On point 2, yes, reverse RfA. I'm using 60%, but am fine with 65% as others here have suggested. That is the people who would need to support removal. On 3, I don't think arbs would open by motion, but all of them meet the requirements for initiating and endorsing a request, so they could do one as a community member if they felt it better than a full case. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::TonyBallioni, you could find that if step 1. was being contested amongst admins, that it could go ArbCom, who on confirming a valid close, would then send it direct to step 3. I have a feeling that step 3. would be an important tool for ArbCom to be able to send ADMINACCT-type cases to. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* I'm somewhat concerned that step 1 will make it more burdensome to close contentious dramaboard threads. — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* I feel that explicitly requiring notices at WP:AN, WP:BN, WT:RFA, and WP:CENT is verging on [[WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP]]. Perhaps just say "publicized at community noticeboards". — [[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]] ([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]]) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I think it's good to be explicit. Those boards are highly watchlisted, and the idea is probably to ensure it gains wide attention. FWIW, the BAG nominations process also enumerates each board to advertise to. BTW, Tony, I presume the "request for desysop", once transcluded, will be advertised on watchlists like normal RfAs are? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*::I intentionally avoided the watchlist suggestion, because I don't think it would contribute to meaningful discussion (i.e. it would overadvertise and people who aren't familiar with the situation would pile-on one side or the other.) That could be something discussed afterwards though if people felt it necessary. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::Understood, thanks for clarifying. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Per 'leaning oppose', I should note I ''strongly'' agree with the suggestions of a higher desysop-% required to lose the bit than the original 60% proposal, if this does go through. (I can see an argument for a higher percentage than needed to confirm an RfA in the first place.) [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] ([[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|talk]]) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*What happens if no bureaucrat reviews the endorsement thread? Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
**Presumably the filer or somebody else would make a post at BN. I think we have enough active bureaucrats at this point that a post there asking them to confirm the requirements have been met would result in action. They’d have a clear policy directive to follow, and I don’t think it’s likely all of the active ones would ignore a request to do something the community has requested they do. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Comment. Could somebody try to articulate ''why'' a community desysop procedure is needed now? I've read the 2019 RfC (in which I did not participate) but did not really find convincing answers there. People supporting the idea there mostly postulate their support axiomatically ("yes, we definitely need such a system"). Or they say something to the effect that what the community bestowed, the community should be able to take away. But is it actually the case that the current ArbCom desysop system is significantly deficient? Is it too difficult to desysop admins for cause there? [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:* The ArbCom system has always been deficient. ArbCom are able to shape cases to suit their own opinions on the subject of the case, they get to choose whether to accept the case, they already limit the amount of evidence and can refuse to hear further evidence, and then get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing. There's also extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals. It's like a more or less shitty version of a Presidential impeachment. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::*"''extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals"'' This has no basis in reality. Neither does "''get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing''" [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*Some thoughts: 1) would ArbCom still be able to desysop? I don't think that should be taken away entirely, especially for emergencies or private information-related ones. 2) The general categories of what is covered should probably be spelled out. Is this covering a) abuse of tools b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator c) inactivity? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:1) Of course it would; the proposed text addition does not replace anything and does not modify [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy]]. 2) The only required coverage limit is described in condition #1 of the proposal; this already excludes pure inactivity. There is no need for additional limitation. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 01:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} Re: 1), yes they would, as it’s a sanction and sometimes falls within private information. This would not remove their ability to desysop. I think that this would, however, greatly reduce desysop cases as it’d be another venue of community dispute resolution, and presumably the committee would defer to the community when possible, as has been their practice over the last few years for things like block reviews. 2) this was designed in place of cases, so mainly abuse of tools and conduct unbecoming. 3) I’m for stricter activity standards, but I think that’s a separate discussion and this would be unlikely to pass if they were bundled. This would create the opportunity to desysop someone who makes 1 edit a year and then makes an involved block, edit wars then protects the page, etc. that could be handled more easily this way if there was community consensus for it, which I suspect there probably would be in some cases.{{bcc|Rschen7754}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|TonyBallioni}}, a couple of questions on specific details - 1) is there a reason that such a long timescale from the Community discussion was selected (as it only needs to be the most recent case) - 3 months would seem to serve? 2) Is there any limitation to multiple requests for endorsements off the same thread? 3) Would it be beneficial to specifically include an option that allowed admins to just directly trigger the request for desysop stage - if this passes, I can see lots of individuals updating their voluntary recall standards or just choosing to do it in the event they feel they did act problematically but disagree it warrants resigning. Without a clear note that's possible, the first time someone would want to do it, would involve an additional discussion at what would presumably be a tense time. 4) Would normal canvassing restrictions apply to the endorsement stage? [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I also partially agree with Britishfinance - some specific listing of forums that area sufficiently considered would be beneficial. For example, a DRV thread saying an admin made an improper close, usually 5-7 individuals, probably shouldn't count (if someone is often making poor closes, it should then be taken to AN(I), then could count). [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Nosebagbear}} on point 1, the reason for all of these numbers is because I write my RfCs in a way that I’m comfortable can get enough people behind them on both sides even if they aren’t perfect. I personally would prefer 3 months, but I think 6 is sufficient and avoids the objection that 3 is too short. If people prefer 3, that can be tweaked as the process is worked out. 2) Not necessarily beyond the social limitation. I had envisioned this as “here’s a thread where consensus shows they’re acting inappropriately”, followed by another instance, which could trigger a request. If someone’s doing involved actions regularly within 6 months, I’m not sure we should limit the thread. At the same time, I feel there would be strong social incentive not to keep beating a dead horse, and the community could sanction people who did. 3) I think that’s a reasonable suggestion. I don’t want to add it now since there’s significant votes, but I think a footnote in the policy noting it’s allowed would be reasonable if this passes. 4) Yes. Hope that clarifies.{{pb}}Also, as a general note, having done a few of these major RfCs all the issues raised in the comments can be clarified when the proposal is merged into the policy page in line with the closing statement. These RfCs tend to bring forth a lot of complex issues, and getting a framework down and then tweaking to reflect the full consensus from the discussion usually works best. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*More on the {{tq|resign as an administrator}} clause - this appears to result in a "voluntary resignation", meaning there is a path to resysop via simple request that then late puts a responsibility on 'crats to determine if this is a disqualifier --- any reason that this can't just be codified? I suggest that this component, and the entire policy in general include verbiage that specifically calls out that a future restoration of access must follow the "standard" process (i.e. RFA). — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Policy already says they wouldn't get it back ([[Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship]].) I'd oppose adding it here since there's already a clear policy on the issue, and I think adding an explicit text saying so would undermine the usefulness of the existing wording. Don't feel that strongly opposed to it, but I think the policy as a whole works better if we don't repeat what's already there. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***{{re|TonyBallioni}} so that's just kicking the problem down the road, and assuming the "cloud" will be revealed later - generally with arbcom desysops the cloud is prescribed, preventing any drama at BN later. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
****No. It's expecting that bureaucrats will follow the already unambiguous policy that prevents this. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*On the IADMIN stuff, the [[Wikipedia:Interface administrators]] policy already has a simpler path to community removal, and already includes mandatory removal on -sysop for any reason; so suggest this is all removed instead of making a competing (harder) process. — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Rschen7754 suggested this above when dealing with the crat/int-admin question. Someone already pointed out on the talk page that there are already other ways to do this (actually, I think I might have suggested it at the time...) I don't see a need to change the proposal again, though. Nothing contradicts and it's just another venue for removal if people want something more structured for whatever reason. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***{{re|Rschen7754}} I really can't see why anyone would want to go through this huge process to argue -iadmin for someone, when the first step should already cover it - what scenarios are you envisioning? — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
****Bureaucrat was more what I was concerned about; each wiki has their own rules regarding interface admin and I'm not quite up to date as to the rules for it, just wanted to make sure it was considered. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 06:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**:This proposal requires that an AN thread be closed with something inappropriate, ''then'' the rest can begin. The IAdmin policy only requires the first part: {{tq|After misuse of the access by consensus (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard).}} That makes this, in my mind, an unnecessary complexity and simply confusing. I don't think this proposal should apply to IA, because we already have a weaker process to deal with such abuse. I agree with the idea that IA rights should be removed on desysop, but I believe that's current practice anyway (a non-admin cannot hold IA). So, the proposal should probably only apply to admins and crats. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 08:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*WT:RFA is for discussing the operations of WP:RFA, it shouldn't be a noticeboard for things - why is that needed? — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 04:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**Because some people still watchlist WP:RFA to check for transclusions of RfAs. Since this is a similar process, allowing people to know when it is initiated on a highly watched page they're already watching for those purposes makes sense. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Could I ask for some examples (say, three) of AN/ANI threads that would have qualified under step 1? I think that would be useful in evaluating this proposal. More broadly, I'm somewhat concerned that this would worsen the dramaboard tendencies of AN/ANI: the last thing we want is to turn the noticeboards into an "admin complaint box". That being said, I hope someone can assuage my fears, because I really do think that this is a very well-thought-out proposal. Cheers, [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 04:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*As I was reading this proposal, two suggestions came to mind. The first is that, out of respect for concerns of harassment, within a set time period (say 90 days, arbitrarily), another request for deadminship cannot be brought against the same admin by the same party. Perhaps require a different 11 (1 + 10) people to initiate it, for example. If whatever new incident is egregious enough that it would attract enough support for removing the flag, asking for 11 different initiators shouldn't be a big hurdle. The second suggestion may be moot, because it was a thought I had before scrolling down to see the overwhelming support this has so far. Nonetheless: since the last RfC closed without a clear consensus for how to implement, with various misgivings about this or that approach, perhaps it would be a good idea to say that this is a 12 month trial run. Given how hard it has been to come to consensus about this, that would make it easier to fix if this turns out to be a bad idea while allowing for proof of concept. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 04:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*I appreciate what TonyBallioni is trying to accomplish, and also that he is trying to allow a convenient time for the administrator under discussion. However, forcing the administrator to transclude his own desysop request seems.... cruel. I'm sure others will have better wording suggestions, but my feeble attempt is as follows: "Once certified, the administrator being discussed must indicate the starting time of the request for desysop, not to exceed 14 days subsequent to the certification. They may transclude the desysop discussion themselves, or indicate they would prefer a bureaucrat to do it on their behalf. If the administrator under discussion wishes to avoid the discussion, they may resign as administrator. If no indication regarding timing is recieved from the administrator under discussion, a bureaucrat will transclude the discussion at the end of 14 days." Thoughts? [[User:78.26|78.26]] ([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]]) 05:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**{{u|78.26}}, I think I mentioned this above, but it was my assumption that they could just ask a crat to do it and they would do it. I think I the specific wording could be tweaked if this policy passes without another RfC to allow that, or they could just ask. The reason I'm trying to avoid any more changes is that we've already had 30ish votes and I feel another mass ping would be disruptive. I've done several RfCs of similar scale before and when implemented, they're never tied to the exact wording of the proposal, but tend to be word smithed based on the close that reflects the full consensus of the discussion on points such as this. I don't think what you're suggesting would be out of line for that type of post-close tweak. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***I agree. This was intended as a point of discussion, and not intended to be a policy rewording requiring a separate vote. [[User:78.26|78.26]] ([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]]) 05:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*How do you deal with repeated requests being filed ''ad infinitum'' as a form of harassment? Any group of 10 people can easily meet the requirements to re-file the request as soon as the previous one is removed. Do we need a caveat saying the same person and/or endorsers can't repeatedly re-request? [[User:Tarl_N.|Tarl N.]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|discuss]]) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I don't think there's going to be any perfect system and that if we spelled stuff like that out, you'd probably get opposes for it being too complex. My view is that there would be a strong social pressure not to do that, and that the requirement that there be 3 current admins endorsing would also be a bit of a control: if they did this inappropriately, they could be desysoped for acting in a way inconsistent with adminship. The community can also sanction people for [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour. Basically I think it's the same reason why you don't see indefinitely repeated ArbCom requests: people's patience will wear thin. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
***Sure but blocking someone for their "good faith" filing of a desysop would be pretty bold ("show me the policy saying I can only start one desysop a month"). And the blocking admin would have to want to be a target for a group of people known to use desysops as a weapon. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
** [ec] I am cautiously in favour of the proposal, but like {{u|Tarl N.}} see potential for this becoming a tool for harassment, and would like it to be made clear that this would not be tolerated, possibly some specific consequences for inappropriate behaviour. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 05:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**:I feel like the community has very little tolerance for this type of gaming and am not concerned about editors being able to pull this off without consequences. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**::Agreed. I imagine the social pushback against someone abusing the system in this way would be rapid. And if it turns out to be a concern once implemented, additional measures could be put in place to specifically address how the system is being gamed -- something that we just can't know at this point. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*Questions: is this intended to effectively replace ArbCom as a method of first resort? In other words, will editors seeking arbitration be expected/de facto required to have tried this process first? Or is this just a secondary process, and an editor has the choice of whether they go via this or via arbitration? I support the idea that the community can take back what it gives, and has the right to decide which admins can mop on its behalf. Further, I get that there are some cases that arbs don't take up that the community still might want to act on. Still, I think I'd be opposed if this raises the bar to arbitration. There are ''some'' issues that community-based processes just cannot deal with, and if this proposal raises the bar for ArbCom intervention I think that'd be concerning. An explicit mention in the proposal along these lines would resolve this concern. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I also note the high bar to removal. An editor could retain their adminship with only 59% editors supporting removal, i.e. only 41% of editors in support of their adminship. If that were an RfA, it would be a clear failure. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*One area that does come to mind is that of avoiding double jeopardy - I would say that while a case request at ARBCOM is pending, the Community method can't also be used (in edge cases, it can always be tolled). I don't consider this to be an outlier, and if it doesn't add in now, then it won't even be considered for adding in until at least one person has had to deal with both trying to occur at the same time. I would note that while TB's proposal is decent, I am a little offput by them saying that they don't want to make certain changes because a number of people have !voted. Indeed, that's why voting shouldn't have been opened until further discussion had taken place. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 12:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
**I think that falls into the category of things we should deal with socially rather than with a specific policy. We could adjust this for many hypotheticals, but it would never be perfect and it’d become unwieldy very quickly. As for workshopping it for a week, I think that’d have been the quickest way to get it to fail as no kind would be able to create a perfect procedure, and it’d end up being opposed for imperfection after a specific minor issue wasn’t addressed. A lot of the things being discussed here are not substantive changes, such as who transcludes. Those are the type of things that in my experience are usually best cleaned up post-close by tweaking the policy page to be in line with the closing statement and fixing any glaring minor issues. That’s why I’d prefer to do it then rather than mass ping a bunch of people multiple times.{{bcc|Nosebagbear}} [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
----
*Some in opposition find this procedure too prone to an angry mob, while others in opposition find it too entrenched to matter due to the three-sysop requirement. I'm supporting, but I'm curious if anyone opposing (or leading that way) finds both facts to be concerning? I suppose that imagination would be: (1) the act of opening of a request for endorsements could be repeated to the point of abuse, and then (2) systematically opposed by trenchant sysops. Is that roughly right? Otherwise the two views seem largely mutually exclusive. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 15:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* From where I stand the problem isn't with removing a few errant admins, it's with keeping the majority of them accountable (in other words, giving [[WP:ADMINACCT]] teeth). Wikipedia admins receive lifetime appointments - a rare luxury in most other organizations, and for a reason. What we ought to have is limited terms - 2-3 years, after which the admin must face community review. This will force admins not only to "behave", but also to ''listen''.
: As for this proposal, it has two problems: the first is the requirement of supportive closing statement, which means admins would have to criticize one of their own loudly enough to merit a mention - a rare occasion; the second is the requirement to "transclude" something, which is a technical point and doesn't belong in a substantial discussion (cf. "law" vs "regulation"). [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::Remains to be tested, but I think we're ''more'' likely to see sysops openly and honestly share criticisms with such a policy. At the moment, there's little incentive for invective unless/until there's an ArbCom case, which, despite some recent(ish) examples, is fairly rare. ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 16:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
* I don't know where I stand on this yet, but one thing that immediately jumped out at me was the {{tq|at least 25 edits in the last 6 months}} requirement. I'd strongly suggest dropping that. I understand the desire to limit this to people who are contributing, but this is a poor way to do it. On the one hand, a bad actor who fails the 25-in-6 requirement can just make 25 junk edits, the same way people game [[WP:ACPERM]] now. On the other hand, if somebody is legitimately abused by an admin to the point that they quit the project, they may want to come back a year later and explain what said admin did to them which was so horrible. We disenfranchise those people. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I've done a bunch more reading, and I'm still not sure where I am. I will add another comment, however. There's general agreement that we need more admins. And I think there's also general agreement that the hazing atmosphere at RfA chases away reasonable candidates. So far, so good.
*:
*:One of the premises stated by several of the supporters is that by making it easier to remove bad admins, we'll make RfA more civilized. The consequences of making a wrong choice won't be as durable, so people won't be so nit-picky. With a kinder and gentler RfA, we'll attract more candidates. That's a plausible theory. But, another plausible theory is that RfA won't get any better, because it's in some people's nature to be nit-picky. And if that's the case, then we'll make it even less attractive. If we can't convince people to subject themselves to hell week on the chance of winning a mop for life, we certainly won't be able to convince them to try for a mop that's easier to take away. I honestly don't know which is more likely, but I certainly don't agree that this will necessarily attract more candidates. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
*I'm disappointed by the opposition tbh. Bunch of users saying "I would support this in theory, but there are too many concerns". When there are literally next to no specific, logical concerns even being articulated. The proposal contains protection after protection against a mob mentality, from an existing recent consensus that an admin breached the admin behavioral standards, to activity restrictions, to endorsement restrictions, to admin endorsement restrictions, to the requirement that the final re-RfA requires a supermajority of support for removal, and that you only have to hit 40% support to retain the bit. People are really saying that this is unleashing the mob? Really? I can be a real asshole. I can and have crossed the line way too many times. And even I don't have a single community discussion to my name with a consensus saying that I violated admin behavioral standards. Not in the past decade, much less in the past six months. This proposal literally bends over backwards to accomodate admin protection. If everything goes absolutely terrible for me, and I am forced to run a re-RfA, and I can't hit fucking 40% support, do you think I or anyone else could possibly claim that the process is unfair? That this RfA which is advertised on CENT and AN and BN and every watchlist is unfair to me? That it's unrepresentative of the community?? Obviously not. If 10 users including three admins request your removal, and you run an RfA and can't pull 40% support, do you really deserve to be an admin? Hell no. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I think that's as clear an articulation as any of several of the flaws in the proposal. By no means all of them, but it did capture a lot. FWIW, I've tried to be specific in my follow up comments. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] [[User talk:Ryk72|talk]] 10:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Swarm}} You're free to say the reasons provided by those opposing are insufficient, but it's completely inaccurate to say "next to no specific, logical concerns" - numerous ones have been provided. To give examples: no policy defence against multiple issuances based off the same threads; no coverage for what happens if pending ARBCOM cases and community desysops occur at the same time; 6 months is a very long time from the most recent problematic AN/ANI thread; no formal consideration of which forums count as sufficiently clear to be authorised to count for the purposes of hurdle 1; no clarification on whether timing starts six months before being passed or just on passing etc etc etc. Don't trade accuracy for rhetoric [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

*{{u|TonyBallioni}} and anyone else who's working hard on this, I have a few concerns.
*#Since hurdle 1 is linking matters to a single incident - how will we handle "double jeopardy" concerns? Would multiple petitions be able to be made regarding the same AN thread?
*#Would there be a central location to record these - which has it's upsides (transparency and ability to check history) and it's downsides (concerns of "no smoke without fire")?
*#If a petition is accepted, there is a potential 2 week window where the admin is effectively under a cloud. Should we be accepting their judgement as an admin in that time, or would it be a good idea to put in a clause that they should not take admin actions in that period?
*#What of the personal cost? Having been involved in many desysops (between my work on Arbcom and my involvement in [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests|recall requests]]) and when a user is desysopped, it is a difficult process for them on a personal level. Given that the individual would have been invested enough in Wikipedia to become an administrator, do you have any thoughts on how reduce the unpleasantness of the process, therefore increasing the likelihood of keeping them as an editor? [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::That No.4 is very interesting, {{U|Worm That Turned|Worm}} and deserves some quick calculation: How many desysoped admins ''have'' continued to edit? How many desysoped admins were indeed highly visible and/or totally engaged on Wikipedia? I know ''I've'' completely stopped doing any pro-active editing. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Very hard to judge {{u|Kudpung}}, but according to [[Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/for_cause|this table]], in the last 5 years, 11 admins have been removed for cause, and only 1 has stopped editing completely, 1 stopped about 4 years later, and 9 have edited in the last week. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's not that hard to judge, {{U|Worm That Turned|Worm}} . If one takes the trouble to load their edit counts, most of their editing patterns since they were desysoped are like mine: only a tiny, tiny fraction of what they used to do. Most of them had been fairly prolific editors. Speaks for itself - without predjudice for the actual reason for having their bits yanked. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Kudpung}}, indeed - but again edit counts don't tell the whole picture, as much of the count was tied up in admin actions. However, I don't disagree that there is a drop when an admin is desysopped for cause. Creating a new route to desysop for cause should acknowledge that. [[User:Worm That Turned|''Worm'']]TT([[User talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*IANATB, but while I too would prefer a "double jeopardy" clause, the time limit helps a bit in that regard. While not stated, I imagine it'd be quite hard to clear any of these steps for something already litigated. For item 2, we have [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests]], so I'd imagine so. On 3, it's not something typically done at ArbCom so why would it be here? ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:I was writing long enough in my support above, but I thought about a different form of double jeopardy: can an administrator be subject to both an ArbCom case and the community process? Realistically I think it's not likely that ArbCom would accept a case where the community had gone through the process and not removed sysop (but there would be ''lots'' of pressure in the insufficient majority situation I discussed above so certainly possible). But what about the reverse? A person goes to ArbCom, there's a case, ArbCom declines to remove sysop. Could the community still launch this process? I think yes and I think it also unlikely that the community would remove sysop (in other words I expect both the community and ArbCom to respect the decisions the other group reacheds) but it would be further unpleasantness for the specific admin. I think we can't remove this form of double jeopardy but I am definitely in favor of removing the double jeopardy that Worm outlines here. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:{{u|Amorymeltzer}}, What is "IANATB"? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::*::{{re|RoySmith}} Worm asked some questions of {{tq|TonyBallioni and anyone else who's working hard on this}}. I care about the issue, but I wouldn't presume to say I've been working hard on it. Certainly not to the degree Tony has in creating this, so when I answered, I wanted to clarify that I Am Not A TonyBallioni (it was light-hearted). ~ Amory ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])'' 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:I posted this as an addendum to my "support" comment, but what with all the multiple sub-discussions here, I'll comment on it again. Instead of simply requiring a past AN or ANI incident, I'd suggest that there also be diffs showing that the admin ''subsequently'' rejected or disregarded the consensus of that discussion. In other words, if the admin said that they didn't accept that they had done anything wrong and kept on doing it, then that would be reason to invoke the procedure proposed here – but if instead the admin had said that they would go along with the community's will and not do it again, and kept their word, then there would be no opportunity for desysop. I think that would remove much of the potential for misuse of the process, and the need to be looking over one's shoulder. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
::I agree in principle but disagree in practice. I think the criteria as it sits there now will cause enough angst and challenge for the crats. I don't want to layer another criteria, and one requiring even more subjective judgement, on top of the process. Instead I think we need to have faith that the community will reject a proposal where the admin has already been "I was wrong and I'll do better" for first time offenses. For second incidents and beyond it then does become a matter of judgement for the community to decide if they're going to stop or not. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

-------

*What would be in "request for de-sysop"? I apologise, but I don't understand. I mean, if an editor alleges admin XYZ is a meanie, and provides evidences, and if that RfC is supported by 10 ex-cons, including 3 admins. Then is that accused admin supposed to transclude request for de-sysop at RfA? And whats going to be that request? A defence statement? I think its going to be a standard RfA + a defence statement, am I right? —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

*Is "there was consensus that the administrator behaved inappropriately" meant to refer to any inappropriate behaviour, or behaviour in the role of an admin (using tools, closing discussions etc)? I would definitely be in favour if it were the latter, but think the former is open to abuse by editors with grudges. If it is meant to refer to the latter, could the wording be changed to "there was consensus that the administrator used their status or tools inappropriately". Cheers, [[User:Number 57|Number]] [[User talk:Number 57|5]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|7]] 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

=== On hypotheticals ===
Policy is never perfect on the first go. Governments employ armies of policy analysts and advisors whose entire job it is to revisit and revamp existing rules and procedures to meet changing landscapes and address unforeseen consequences. The work is considered to be iterative -- a policy is made, evaluated as time goes by, and modifications are made as necessary to accomplish the intent behind the policy. The standard for the first iteration is that it adequately takes into account potential risks while providing the intended benefit.

The process that Tony has proposed has ample safeguards against the process being used as harassment, double what most sister projects use as their standard before a desysop request. Rather than worry over every potential hypothetical scenario, I suggest that we focus on two things: first, the evidence, which is that on Meta/Commons/Wikidata (the three desysop processes I am familiar with) the desysop process is not abused as a form of harassment. Second, the fact that this proposal is ''good enough'', meaning that it will accomplish the desired benefit and has explicit thought placed into mitigating the risks. And if the process doesn't work as intended, we can change these rules once they are made.

We as a community have decided that there should be a community desysop process. Let's try to get one in place within a decade after that decision was made. -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 06:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*'''Some alternative system is clearly needed''' and as {{U|TonyBallioni}} is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=948695602&oldid=948694394 no friend of Arbitration Committees] this proposal comes as no surprise. [[WP:BARC]] launched by me with support from {{U|Worm That Turned}} almost a decade ago was an attempt at community desysoping without the ANI-style interference or uninvolved users and holders of superior rights jumping in with further threats and/or harassment without having first familiarised themselves with the background. While some suggested it might give the ‘crats something to do with their status and position, there is still plenty of resistance from the community to forcing tasks onto the ‘crats they have not signed up for; the 'crats themselves said little on the subject. One user appears to defend [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=1007800885&oldid=1007780695 both solutions]. We learned through our BARC that the ‘crats should first be asked if they would accept such an extension to their mandate.
:There are several very different reasons for a desysoping ‘for cause’. Some are clear cases of blatant misuse of the tools, wheel warring, using their tools for pay, etc, while there are other reasons that are more subjective and where the evidence is not necessarily clear , is circumstantial, is purely vindictive, or just plain railroading. Compared to the number of admins desysoped 'for cause' over the years, the Arbitration Commitees have a much, much higher record of impropriety among their own ranks and/or former members. Some Arbcom policies are already too vague and open to any interpretation one wants to make in order to make a case stick, especially in the well known Wiki culture of cherry-picking and taking things - deliberately and convincingly - out of context.
:Between this proposal and Arbcom, is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. As an already desysoped user, I ‘m not really bothered much about the outcome of this RfC, but as a retired user, I ''will'' come out of retirement to protest about any cases that might be leaning towards an unsafe verdict based on claims and ‘evidence', offered by uninvolved, wannabe Wikipolice - as some users here are already aware, and especially if an admin is standing in the dock and likely to receive a punishment for which the Arbcom policy allows no appeal.
:This means finding an alternative desysop procedure that limits the participation of the peanut gallery rather than giving them even more scope and power. In recent times, various compositions of Arbcom have shown that while the Committee might not be corrupt, it does favor the claims of highly vociferous, non involved users as well as those of its own members, and although it is jury, judge, and executioner all rolled into one, it tends to simply read and execute a community consensus and it does fail to check the veracity of the accusers’ claims, choosing a solution which they think the community wants to hear rather than the good of the Wipipedia. Hence I’ll reprint {{U|Nick}}’s comment in its entirety: {{tq|The ArbCom system has always been deficient. ArbCom are able to shape cases to suit their own opinions on the subject of the case, they get to choose whether to accept the case, they already limit the amount of evidence and can refuse to hear further evidence, and then get to propose outcomes which suit their outlook on editing. There's also extensive behind the scenes horse-trading to secure support for proposals. It's like a more or less shitty version of a Presidential impeachment}},

:I won't repeat here all the various comments by {{U|Beeblebrox}}, {{u|Tarl N.}}, and {{U|Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood}}, but they are spot on and I certainly endorse them. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

:Regarding {{u|Kudpung}}{{'}}s comment about "{{xt|Arbcom has made an easy task of it for themselves in recent times - almost lining admins against the wall and shooting them in one session}}" - I beg to differ. In the case of RHaworth, it took ''years'' of multiple ANI threads, talk page notices, chats in the pub, and the final Arbcom case only happened because something egregiously wrong happened that tipped it over the edge. More to the point, it destroyed RHaworth the editor who's now just a bitter grump about being desysopped, as opposed to somebody I could work with writing about architecture in South London. And the desysop of Fram only happened because of a [[WP:FRAMGATE|deus ex machina]] (whatever your views on Fram, you cannot deny a significant amount of people opposed his adminship as demonstrated in the subsequent RfA - for the record, I think Fram has got better since and don't have strong views on him running an RfA now).
:I'm also really surprised to see {{u|Leaky caldron}} opposing this. I would have assumed he'd be strongly in favour of getting increased administrator accountability and improving the sanction mechanisms. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 10:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Ritchie333}}My oppose, I should have made clearer, is not about the proposition per se and on reflection guarded support or neutral would have been more appropriate. The primary concern I have is that requiring the advocacy of 3 fellow members of the admin. brigade will be insurmountable in the case of some high-profile individuals. 2 active Admins. supporting should be more than enough to back a community case. [[User:Leaky caldron|Leaky caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Leaky caldron}}, I viewed that as something that could easily be changed by the community if it isn’t working. Again, the requirement was put in place specifically to deal with ethnic dispute cases, where I could see there being two admins on one “side” of a dispute certifying a baseless case (there’s a lot of ethnic disputes and a lot of legacy admins.) Three felt like a safe number to deal with this. I think adjusting it downward is certainly possible, but my goal with this proposal was what Ajraddatz pointed out, to provide a framework that could be adjusted with experience, and I felt that 3 admins worked for those purposes since I knew a major concern would be harassment. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:[ec] I agree that policy is seldom, and should not be expected to be, perfect first time round. I have seen this in several iterations of Health and Safety policy that I have been involved in, but from that experience I have seen that a relatively gradual change generally causes less overall pain and astonishment than a revolutionary swing, which is often followed by a swing in the opposite direction as a reaction to the change when it is seen to be excessive. From an engineering viewpoint we want a heavily damped oscillation around where we think we want to be rather than overshooting and setting up an unstable positive feedback loop. A trial period with a specific time limit, and a date for the next review is probably a good idea, and is standard practice in OHS (OSH for some). I would like to see minimum pain inflicted on all involved in the early stages, as there will be some with their knives out, either for revenge or to further an unmentioned agenda. On the other hand, I also think that there are enough of us who will be watching the process that it would be foolhardy to try to get away with vindictiveness or political dirty work. There may still be unnecessarily unpleasant consequences, as some of our community do not seem to understand the policy on no personal attacks, which should be strictly enforced by clerks appointed for that specific purpose and who have demonstrated their competence in identifying the range of ad hominem arguments common in our disputes. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 13:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

2021-02-22T22:25:51Z

Pudeo: /* Discussion concerning Noteduck */ statement

<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 280
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44==
{{hat|Appeal declined. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 21:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)}}
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|NomanPK44}} – [[User:NomanPK44|NomanPK44]] ([[User talk:NomanPK44|talk]]) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]]

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El_C}}

; Notification of that administrator : ''https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185''

===Statement by NomanPK44===

I removed the edit from here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan_Liberation_Army&diff=1005068086&oldid=1004538012] because [[ThePrint]] is not a reliable source for [[Balochistan Liberation Army]] as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan_Liberation_Army&diff=1005393002&oldid=1005167788]. Now if you look to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smuggling_tunnel&type=revision&diff=1002443433&oldid=1002236926 Smuggling tunnel edit] I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&diff=1006085036&oldid=1006082702] I modified it by linking an closed [[WP:RFC]] [[Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory?]] while the other discussion [[Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_2#Result|here]] is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&type=revision&diff=1006185876&oldid=1002727967] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=1006219138&oldid=1005112626][[User:NomanPK44|NomanPK44]] ([[User talk:NomanPK44|talk]]) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by El_C===
The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): {{tq|Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan_Liberation_Army&diff=1005068086&oldid=1004538012 diff]). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be ''3rd-party sources.'' Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an {{tq|INDIAN WEBSITE}} in all-caps and the {{tq|LOL}}, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several.

Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week [[WP:PB|partial block]] from the [[Insurgency in Balochistan]] mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#India-Pakistan|WP:AEL#India-Pakistan]] for my log entry). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

:Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: [[User_talk:El_C#Casperti]]. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Srijanx22===

As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44 ===

===Result of the appeal by NomanPK44===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|話して下さい]]) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
*I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice [[WP:RS|identifying reliable sources]] and [[WP:DR|resolving disputes]] in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] or [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for [[WP:DUE|due weight]] and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in [[Special:Diff/1006082702]] is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating [[WP:1RR|1RR]] twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal.{{ping|NomanPK44}} I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the [[List of wars involving Pakistan]] article at [[Special:Diff/1007087462]] on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about [[India]]-, [[Pakistan]]-, or [[Afghanistan]]-related topics, [[WP:TBAN|broadly construed]], until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the [[WP:RS|reliable sources guideline]] and the [[WP:DR|guide to dispute resolution]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
*Hard decline. The user appears to genuinely believe that Indian sources are inherently unreliable simply because they're from India, to the extent that they're even basing this appeal on it. I mean they're literally here typing "INDIAN SOURCES" as if it's some type of appalling concept. No way. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)==
{{hat|Although some limited communication with {{noping|Mclarenfan17}} did occur at [[User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement]], they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at [[WP:RFPP]], noting specifically that this is an AE protection request. I can't speak for the other admins who participated, but users are free to ping me to any such requests. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)}}
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning Mclarenfan17===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tvx1}} 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Mclarenfan17}}{{ds/log|Mclarenfan17}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17]]


;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):

Not applicable

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I'm reporting {{userlinks|1.129.108.95}} per the instructions in the outcome of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17|the recent arbitration request]]. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: The user has now {{diff2|1006452294|directly reverted an edit of mine}} (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

One remark to {{u|Robert McClenon}}'s statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

{{re|Black Kite}} what concerns me the most is that {{diff2|1006452294|the first of}} the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{diff2|1006446315|12 February 23:02 (UTC)}}




===Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by Mclarenfan17====
I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1006441140 this edit] at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the [[Talk:2021 World Rally Championship|article talk page]]. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to ''any'' edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes.

Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. [[Special:Contributions/1.129.108.95|1.129.108.95]] ([[User talk:1.129.108.95|talk]]) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Robert McClenon====
I don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that [[User:Tvx1]] has edited.

I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply [[Occam's Razor]], which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]] by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to [[WP:GAME|game the system]] and evade the [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]].

Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a [[handwave]] to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account.

I think that the human who has been [[User:Prisonermonkeys]] and [[User:Mclarenfan17]] should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at [[WP:AE|AE]] or the ArbCom or the community should [[WP:BAN|ban]] the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user.

That's my opinion. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

::[[User:GoodDay]] - They aren't being ''allowed'' to edit logged out. They are editing logged out. The last time that this happened, they said it was because they had lost their password. Either they have lost their password again, or they are choosing to edit logged out. One of the key aspects of this case is how to restrict them from editing logged out. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::If the block evasion is to particular articles, why don't you semi-protect them instead. I have tagged the World Rally Championship 2021 article for indefinite semi-protection. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Is there a reason why the accounts are not [[WP:BAN|banned]]? Yes, this may be a silly question because they will evade the ban. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::[[User:El_C]] - I haven't identified a list of pages at this time, but I can provide you with a list within less than 12 hours. It's basically any pages being edited by either Tvx1 or by Mclarenfan17, but the tedious part is identifying the pages being edited by Mclarenfan17, because the whole thing about this case is that they are improperly bouncing around on IP blocks. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:[[User:El_C]] - I suggest that you start by semiprotecting the following pages:
*{{pagelinks|2021 Formula One World Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2021 World Rally Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2020 World Rally Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One}}
*{{pagelinks|Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom}}
*{{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport}}
*{{pagelinks|2022 Formula One World Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2007 Formula One World Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2021 FIA Formula 3 Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2021 Arctic Rally}}
*{{pagelinks|2021 Formula 2 Championship}}
*{{pagelinks|2021 World Rally Championship-3}}
*{{pagelinks|Draft:2021 Australian Grand Prix}}

Unfortunately, it's a [[Whac-a-mole]] exercise.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

====Comment by GoodDay====
Clarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit ''signed-out'', when they have a registered account? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====


===Result concerning Mclarenfan17===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*{{u|Tvx1}}, a lot of IPs edit those high-traffic pages. Is there a way that you're able to better connect the IP to the original account? Because I don't feel that I have that much to go on here, though possibly other admins are able to see what I'm missing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Never mind, it is them — self identified, see: [[User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement]]. But seeing as communication has began, perhaps there will be a simple resolution that will spare any possible whac-a-mole worst case scenario. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
::*{{u|Guerillero}}, for what it's worth, I've already insisted on that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*{{u|Robert McClenon}}, I'm happy to apply semiprotection to multiple affected pages. Is there a list of these that you are able to compile? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::*{{u|Robert McClenon}}, thanks. Sounds like a plan. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::*{{u|Robert McClenon}}, thanks. All {{rfpp|do}}. Do you think there's any more, or can we close this report now? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::* {{u|El_C}} My temptation here is to just indef the original account anyway since they're not interested in replying, and then any edits can simply be reverted. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::*{{u|Black Kite}}, I have done this. {{u|Robert McClenon}}, never mind, I overlooked your final sentence. Will close with a suitable summary momentarily. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
* I'm very tempted to ask arbcom for an explicit one account restriction. --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] [[User_talk:Guerillero|Parlez Moi]] 01:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
* I am completely in agreement with Robert McClenon. There's no point in an interaction ban if it is to be gamed like this. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:* And now he's edit-warring on [[2021 World Rally Championship]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_World_Rally_Championship&action=history history]), currently up to 3RR. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:*:{{re|Black Kite}} I wonder if we should range block 1.129.108.0/24 --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] [[User_talk:Guerillero|Parlez Moi]] 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
:::* I've partial-blocked the /24 from Article and Talk namespaces for a week. He can still come and discuss the issue here then. Didn't want to make it much longer than that because there is a (small) amount of collateral. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
::::* {{u|Guerillero}} Back on a different range? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.144.105.189 1.144.105.189]? It's impossible to block Telstra, it's a massive range and there's so much collateral. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Uhhibi ==
{{hat|Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)}}
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning Uhhibi===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Newslinger}} 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Uhhibi}}{{ds/log|Uhhibi}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions]]


; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :

''Before alert''
#[[Special:Diff/1007349552|17:51, 17 February 2021]]: Personal attack on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."}}
#[[Special:Diff/1007349552|17:53, 17 February 2021]]: Personal attack on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion..."}}
#[[Special:Diff/1007350167|17:55, 17 February 2021]]: Personal attack on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"I mean just look at newlinger's history and previous talks/discussions and its very clear that he/she has extremist, racist and discriminatory views!"}}

''After alert''
#[[Special:Diff/1007357708|18:43, 17 February 2021]]: [[WP:ASPERSIONS|Casting aspersions]] on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"You talk about neutrality and censorship, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY DISCUSSION AS SOON AS YOU'RE PROPAGANDA WAS BEING REVEALED? I wrote a lengthy answer citing academic sources and links to provide proof for my arguement, which you conveniently deleted, this is CYBERBULLYING!"}} A check of [[Special:Contributions/Uhhibi]] shows that Uhhibi has not added any {{!xt|"academic sources"}} or {{!xt|"links"}} to their comments, and a check of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Jihad&action=history page history of Talk:Love Jihad] shows that I have never deleted any of Uhhibi's comments.
#[[Special:Diff/1007358012|18:45, 17 February 2021]]: Casting aspersions on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"The fact that you had to delete my discussion takes away my right to free speech! And that you were guilty conscious!"}} See #1.
#[[Special:Diff/1007362257|19:10, 17 February 2021]]: Casting aspersions on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"I listed numerous arguements, citations and links to show how you're sweing hatred and propaganda to hurt religious sentiments of a religion while spreading misinformation and a biased opinion, while i gave many examples for the same! Which obviously you deleted so you wouldn't have to face the consequences!"}} See #1.
#[[Special:Diff/1007371945|20:06, 17 February 2021]]: Personal attack and casting aspersions on [[Talk:Love Jihad]] – {{!xt|"Hey look, you're clearly not one person, an organization or bot of some kind, so I'm gonna stop arguing now since you're obviously paid to spread false propaganda and hatred, so please go ahead, but just for the record to any human who reads this, I had an entire another discussion that NEWSLINGER had removed. In which, i cited academic proofs, links, examples and arguments."}} See #1.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):

*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

* [[Special:Diff/1007374377]]



===Discussion concerning Uhhibi===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by Uhhibi====

====Statement by (username)====


===Result concerning Uhhibi===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*
{{hab}}

==My very best wishes==
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning My very best wishes===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Mhorg}} 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|My very best wishes}}{{ds/log|My very best wishes}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe]]


; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician [[Alexei Navalny]] (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist '''facts and political views''' from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Did_he_back_the_Russian_war_in_Georgia_or_not?][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#The_Movement_Against_Illegal_Immigration_is_a_supremacist_organization][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Wrong_narrative][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Recent_changes] mainly in this way: "'''the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography'''",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006199338&oldid=1006169070] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "'''Undue weight'''". Or "'''his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant'''",[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1005827595&oldid=1005823524] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn. I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]), released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope), always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules.

#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&type=revision&diff=1005728638&oldid=1005690544 03:51, 9 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "'''Undue weight'''" (RS [https://www.politico.eu/article/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-alexei-navalny/] [http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2103203-2,00.html] [https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/jan/15/alexei-navalny-profile-vladimir-putin])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006386178 16:51, 12 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Not collaborating}}''': He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006083709&oldid=1006082883] I gave him the archived website.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006346901] His answer: "'''This is internet garbage'''".
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Georgian_sentiment&type=revision&diff=1005874867&oldid=1003732697 21:29, 9 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of references to Navalny on [[Anti-Georgian sentiment]] (RS [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/30/why-does-alexei-navalny-rattle-the-kremlin] [https://www.rollingstone.it/politica/chi-e-alexei-navalny-loppositore-di-putin-avvelenato-e-ancora-in-coma/530336/]) for "'''Undue focus'''". Read the answer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Georgian_sentiment&type=revision&diff=1006239364&oldid=1006227837] from [[User: Kober]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=prev&oldid=1006973944 20:40, 15 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-aleksei-navalny-a-liberal-or-a-nationalist/278186/] [https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3118991/united-states-condemns-russias-arrests-more-1800] [https://www.politico.eu/article/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-alexei-navalny/] [https://www.rollingstone.it/politica/chi-e-alexei-navalny-loppositore-di-putin-avvelenato-e-ancora-in-coma/530336/] [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/30/why-does-alexei-navalny-rattle-the-kremlin]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/12/16/the-death-of-the-russian-far-right] [http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-navalny-nationalist-fears/25059277.html]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1007102745&oldid=1007065276]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1007144981 00:57, 17 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Not accepting consensus}}''', changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1007065276&oldid=1007034394]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006117432 04:24, 11 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Deliberate distortion}}''' of the RS, to '''omit''' that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as [[User:RenatUK]] reported [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006146827]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006119210 04:27, 11 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of controversial content on the support to [[2013 Biryulyovo riots|2013 ethnic riots]] for "'''Undue weight'''" (RS [https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-russian-nationalism-fuels-race-riots/] [https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=prev&oldid=1006117432 04:06, 11 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "'''Undue weight'''" (RS [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15596400] [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/alexei-navalny-on-his-poisoning-i-assert-that-putin-was-behind-the-crime-a-ae5923d5-20f3-4117-80bd-39a99b5b86f4] [https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2011/11/06/russian-march-resists-navalny-a10629] [https://www.svoboda.org/a/24367290.html])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006427974&oldid=1006427234 21:01, 12 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/jan/15/alexei-navalny-profile-vladimir-putin] Telegraph,[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/29/alexei-navlany-profile-man-taking-vladimir-putin/] NYTimes,[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/world/europe/the-saturday-profile-blogger-aleksei-navalny-rouses-russia.html] FinancialTimes,[https://www.ft.com/content/c3adf28c-07d0-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd] Politico [https://www.politico.eu/article/alexei-navalny-the-man-who-would-beat-vladimir-putin-russia-election/] having produced "'''defamatory content'''".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006482203&oldid=1006457884]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&type=revision&diff=1006633802&oldid=1006632498 23:06, 13 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Removal}}''' of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-navalny-nationalist-fears/25059277.html]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1007149882&oldid=1007138238 18:25, 16 February 2021] '''{{!xt|Coincidences}}''': supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006200363&oldid=1006193783] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Apollo_The_Logician&diff=1006812245&oldid=1006792811] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides?
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&type=revision&diff=1006131155&oldid=1004851137 06:21, 11 February 2021] '''{{!xt|wikihounding?}}''': reverts my old edits of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&diff=prev&oldid=958740199 25 May 2020]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006939793&oldid=1006639016 17:15, 15 February 2021] '''{{!xt|wikihounding/defaming?}}''': takes one of my first edits in 2015 and accuses me of '''sponsoring terrorism'''.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalii_Markiv&diff=1006985043&oldid=1006199948 21:49, 15 February 2021] '''{{!xt|wikihounding?}}''': he reverts my old edits of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalii_Markiv&type=revision&diff=981347627&oldid=981293497 1 October 2020] with RS (controversial content) for "'''Undue weight'''".
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&type=revision&diff=1007120693&oldid=1007119692 15:37, 16 February 2021] '''{{!xt|wikihounding?}}''': he reverts my old edits of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&type=revision&diff=982643528&oldid=982627573 9 October 2020] (controversial content) and warns me that I used an "extremist" source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrotvorets&diff=1007125855&oldid=857200699] (actually a Security Service of Ukraine website)

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
Not applicable

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me '''again'''. In this diff[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007685008&oldid=1007680148] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicoljaus#No_wikihounding] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007895144&oldid=1007894790] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

{{collapse top|My last answers (I hope) to MVBW's statements; collapsed to follow word limit}}
The user now says [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1008021231&oldid=1008017550] he did some self-reverts too ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006638334&oldid=1006637479 23:39, 13 February 2021]), but '''coincidentally''' happened once he got to know the report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article] I was doing about him, about '''1 hour later'''.([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006629134&oldid=1006437050 22:34, 13 February 2021]). He also claims that the article continues today to have those controversial parts; Yes, they are there not thanks to him, but to those who tried to defend them. If no one had intervened, there would have been a 7-year gap of pro-Nationalist views and facts in the politician's career.--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What I think MVBW has proven is that he acts, at least for the cases that have been reported, in an aggressive manner with content removals even in fields that are not his competence. [[User:Bob not snob]] statement, in this AE request, reported the example of removals of contents on articles related to Poland that MVBW doesn't even know about (by his own admission).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007671366&oldid=1007607088] '''The same thing happened''' on the [[Myrotvorets]] article (he knows a little about the subject, in fact he ended up on the article only for [[Wikipedia:FOLLOW]]\[[Wikipedia:HOUNDING]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&type=revision&diff=1007120693&oldid=1007119692]), where the user intervenes to remove some content (always controversial, coincidentally) warning me that I am using an extremist website as source,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrotvorets&diff=1007125855&oldid=857200699] '''not knowing that the website is managed by the Security Service of Ukraine''': for the more inexperienced, ''there is even written in the article's lede!'' Not even a small commitment to read what Myrotvorets is.

Going back to the Navalny issue, the user wants to make it appear that he disagrees with me on only one topic: clearly the user don't want to click on the diffs which show that he has removed practically every controversial part of the article. This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "'''Undue weight'''" and engulfs them, always remaining vague (I don't know if there is already a Wikipedian term to describe this behavior). I know that the discussions are long, but I invite the admins to scroll through them carefully, the user always tries not to get to the point.

About the Consensus: it has been reached (not only about the RS-reliability, but also about the content to insert) at least on the Georgian issue, but the user simply won't accept this. He talks about contextualizing (I'm always in favour of contextualizing), but his proposals are smoky, it never gets to the point.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Recent_changes] He simply wants to remove this fact. In a normal discussion, something like this would have ended quickly:
:✓ [[User:Jurisdicta]]: "''Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia.''"
:✓ [[User:PailSimon]]: "''Its evident through the sources provided above that the '''sources support the content''', lets not whitewash''"
:✓ [[User:Darkcloud2222]]: "''Those five reliable sources are sufficient to '''consider the text previously entered valid'''. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules.''"
:✓ [[User:Ohnoitsjamie]]: "''Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the '''material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources''' that easily meet WP:RS''"
:✓ [[User:Alaexis]]: "'''''WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way''', it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: '''this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section'''''"
:✓ [[User:Mhorg]]: "''I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, '''combining the primary source with the RS'''.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlexei_Navalny&type=revision&diff=1007065276&oldid=1007034394 08:23, 16 February 2021]

Among the users against it there is the same user suspected of being a sockpuppet and that MVBW himself contributed to unblock (a disinterested action, of course), and that user was blocked at that time of the summary about the Georgian issue (unblocked the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeanom&type=revision&diff=1007168741&oldid=1007155691 20:10, 16 February 2021], so he couldn't be counted as one of the 3 users against he talks about. On the Georgian issue, the contrary users are MVBW and Nicoljaus only. Distortion of reality, again.

Finally, since MVBW is making controversy about this thing, if I have violated any of the Follow\Wikihounding reporting rules, I deserve the penalty. I just want to specify that I did not know the rule, and that I promptly substantiated in the following comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1007659376&oldid=1007603915] the diffs that show that he and Nicoljaus, both involved in the discussion, have targeted my old edits on purpose.--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=1007460670&oldid=1007330246]



===Discussion concerning My very best wishes===

''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

====Statement by My very best wishes====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1006639016&oldid=1006638433] - This is a typical accusation by Mhorg in response to my self-revert on the page to restore "his" version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006638334&oldid=1006637479], a subject of further editing of course. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006637188&oldid=1006636575 a typical edit summary] by Mhorg. He say that I want to remove all "controversial issues", but I never proposed or tried it. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny#Political_views of this section]. I did not remove it, and I did not try. The diffs by Mhorg only reflect my attempts to properly summarize multiple RS, use neutral wording and exclude ''duplicate or arguably undue'' content from the very large page. But in the end, there is only a ''single content disagreement'' between Mhorg and me on page Navalny (see below).

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006600942 Here], on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: ''I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet [[User:LauraWilliamson]] and [[User:Nicoljaus]], and now I'm continuing with [[User:Nicoljaus]] and [[User:My very best wishes]].'' "Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? As responded below, we actually agree with Mhorg about almost everything except only the following point. He wants to include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&type=revision&diff=1006427234&oldid=1006420212 this text] about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Wrong_narrative here] - Mhorg himself marked '''bold''' all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to make an undue emphasis on the page to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist.
:There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He did started a thread on the talk page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Did_he_back_the_Russian_war_in_Georgia_or_not? here]. (note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006177276&oldid=1006172892 this edit] by another user which makes a part of this thread to appear as something started by me. No, I did not start it). Looking at this thread, does it looks like consensus to support anything that Mhorg suggested? I did start [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Recent_changes this thread] to clarify what consensus could actually emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on text to be included (I think a scholarly source [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3156845] should be used, rather than a bunch of polemic journalistic sources). Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC.

*Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg):
#We actually ''agreed'' with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" ''long before he submitted this AE request'', i.e. I self-reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006638334&oldid=1006637479], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&type=revision&diff=1006867077&oldid=1006639409]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006884926&oldid=1006882867]. This is not a disagreement with me.
#Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=next&oldid=1006346901 here] if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links.
#Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Georgian_sentiment#Navalny_as_the_only_Russian_with_anti-Georgian_sentiments]. This is a typical content disagreement, and I think it was already resolved.
#Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets. Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalii_Markiv&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&action=history], including full agreement on talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myrotvorets here, on the bottom]). Why bring this here? I checked these pages again though.
#No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1006925919&oldid=1006640706 That] was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. ''That was not about terrorism at all''. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1007100405&oldid=1007061777], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP.
#"a banned user accused of sockpuppetry". That user was actually unblocked by admin. See discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beanom#Explaining_why_I_am_not_a_sock here]. I hope they will contribute constructively. If not, they will be re-blocked.
#"Wikihounding". Mhorg and me edited a few common pages (there is an interest overlap), but in all such cases that was a ''productive collaboration'', i.e. we quickly came to a better version of the page and consensus, excluding only a single remaining content disagreement on page Navalny (see above). There was no wikihounding. These diffs are just a few examples of my edits on these pages. For example on page Myrotvorets, Mhorg reverted my edit after 8 minutes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&diff=1007122308&oldid=1007120693], but that was totally OK. We had a friendly discussion on talk and came to consensus that only one link needs to be removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&diff=1007138806&oldid=1007122308]. End of story. Page improved. I do have a habit of (re)visiting pages if they appear in discussions on ANI and AE. This is all.
#Collapsed insert by Mhorg ("My last answers"). This is a misrepresentation by Mhorg using citation out of context. For example, he cites Alaexis, but Alaexis does not support it if one reads their whole statements. In the last/latest thread on the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Recent_changes] Alaexis responded specifically to the "summary" by Mhorg (same as he now posted to AE) and said this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1007303728&oldid=1007213839]. Also, what exactly all these people are (dis)agreeing about? I am afraid Mhorg uses the same approach to disparage Navalny by selectively citing the worst claims one can possibly find in polemic journalistic sources.

*Brief summary of my discussion with Mhorg during this AE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=1007795078&oldid=1007784690].

*@Mhorg. Yes, I saw your comment on talk page of El_C and decided I should try better to collaborate with you. Hence my comment: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006629134&oldid=1006437050]. But I was 100% sure you are NOT going to submit any AE request (as mentioned in response by El_C) because there was no justification for that. I thought you are going to follow WP:DR procedures (RfC), exactly as you was trying to do at that time. This is something I would do in your place.

:@El_C. I assume [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006209753&oldid=1006209388 that] was his edit which triggered the warning? Perhaps admins know better, but I think his citation of [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/29/alexei-navalny-on-putins-russia-all-autocratic-regimes-come-to-an-end the article] from [[The Guardian]] was on the subject.
::@El_C. OK, I now see the part of discussion you refer to, but I do not think that comments by Nicoljaus on that talk page deserve a topic ban. In fact, Nicoljaus was the most knowledgeable contributor on the subject during this discussion.

====Statement by Nicoljaus====
I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Mhorg] and the VoxKomm main page [https://voxkomm.noblogs.org/] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just [[WP:NOTHERE]].--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{tq|What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it}} -- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as [[WP:NOTHERE|Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing]].--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by GizzyCatBella====
It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:@MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1007715855&oldid=1007714271&diffmode=source] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Robert McClenon===
The filing editor filed a request at [[WP:DRN|the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]]. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Bob not snob===
Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witold_Pilecki&diff=1005493718&oldid=1005491961 this recent edit] in which he restored information sourced to '''Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza'''. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on [https://web.archive.org/web/20120511075317/http://www.asme.pl/108568087951913.shtml the archived source itself] there is an [https://web.archive.org/web/20120511075317im_/http://www.asme.pl/grafika/tusk_wyborczy2005.jpg image] of [[Donald Tusk]] with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20120501075337/http://www.asme.pl/koresp.shtml about page] describes how this website was initially the website of the [[Masovian Voivodeship|Masovian]] district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak.

When I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=prev&oldid=1005550453 pointed this out to] My very best wishes, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1005602896&oldid=1005550453 first reverted my post] and then later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bob_not_snob&diff=prev&oldid=1005610093 posted on my talk page]: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment".

Moments before placing this extremist source, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witold_Pilecki&diff=1005491961&oldid=1005467233 removed] content from an academic source.

If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witold_Pilecki&diff=1005401842&oldid=1005401428 removed] with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? [[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

===Result concerning My very best wishes===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly ([[User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article]]), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm {{u|Mhorg}}'s citation of what I said to {{u|My very best wishes}} a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine ''not'' setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhorg&type=revision&diff=1006939793&oldid=1006639016 diff]). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their [[United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations]]. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued {{u|Nicoljaus}} with in the course of this dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&type=revision&diff=1006900579&oldid=1006600733 diff]). Their extremely ''terse'' accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. What is that ''VoxKomm'' link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus.

:That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:My_very_best_wishes/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1007397363 diff]). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page ''before'' them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

:*{{u|My very best wishes}}, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like [[WP:ARBAA2]], etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we ''necessarily'' are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

::*{{u|Nicoljaus}}, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

:::*{{u|My very best wishes}}, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to [[Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

::::*Noting for the record that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on {{noping|Nicoljaus}} from the EE/Balkans topic area, broadly construed. Obviously, the previous AE sanctions that I had imposed on them in the past did not produce the desired effect. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::*{{u|My very best wishes}}, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted [[User_talk:Nicoljaus#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction|here]]. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus==

''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – [[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : Indefinite topic ban from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed. It was imposed at [[User talk:Nicoljaus#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction]], logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe]]

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El_C}}

; Notification of that administrator : {{diff2|1007679944||I notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal}}

===Statement by Nicoljaus===

The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page {{diff2|1007602957}}, is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" {{diff2|1007603915}}. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions.

The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of {{noping|Mhorg}} some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes|AE request]] to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request {{diff2|1007473248}}. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message {{diff2|1007533825}} (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule [[WP:NOTHERE]] I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the [[WP:NOTHERE]] rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this.

As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive|Crovata]] or [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umertan/Archive|Umertan]]. (With {{u|Mikola22}}, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like [[Dmitry Krasny]], [[Battle of Belyov]], [[Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive]], [[Alexander Bubnov]], [[15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism]] (except for my poor English, of course)?--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:I made my statements in "terse way" just in attempt to follow the demand "dial it back" and not to BLUDGEON the discussion. I gave only references, indicated what I paid attention to, and the corresponding rule.--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
{{collapse top|The language issue; collapsed to follow word limit}}
::I don't think that the expression "tone down rhetoric" should definitely be perceived as "dial it back". Now I no longer understand what you were asking me to do - to stop pointing out any behavioral issues associated with the user Mhorg? I doubt that this is in your right, there are other non-involved administrators here, to whom the links I have given might be useful (as I thought, maybe I'm wrong).--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, so I was surprised by the new claim about "tone down rhetoric". In fact, stupid Google translate give it exactly as "reduce the rhetoric" (I'm not sure that this link will display correctly: [https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=ru&text=He%20said%20%22tone%20down%20your%20rhetoric%22.&op=translate]). I didn't really understand your phrase about "dial it back", when I saw it for the first time, but I took it as a requirement not to say too much (I admit that this was the case in the topic you referred to). --[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

@Levivich I don't understand why I can't mention that almost all the users I had problems with, were sockpuppets? I was blocked based on the results of the interaction with {{u|Themanhascome}} and {{u|Ctvaughn555}} (as well as many other user and IPs that attacked me), who were sockpuppets of {{u|Umertan}} aka {{u|UkrainianSavior}}. {{u|Miki Filigranski}} was a sockpuppet of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive|Crovata]]. The latter, unfortunately, involved the then-inexperienced user Mikola22 in the conflict. I didn't mean that the Mhorg is a sockpuppet, and I didn't make any hints about it (and, moreover, twice), I just want people not to be afraid of my block log.--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:@Levivich: Thank you for the clarification. But now I can't figure out what I did wrong. What is the rule that forbids someone to cite links, and to assume that they indicate certain behavioral problems, with a direct reference to the rule? And, I think, I did it exactly in the place where the administrator {{diff2|1006900579||sent me in his warning of 15.02}}.--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Swarm}} Your accusation is seriously disappointing. I strongly reject the accusations of [[WP:HOUNDING]], and it is rather my life that has turned into hell, as it is my edits adding valuable information from the book of a leading historian that have been irrevocably deleted: {{diff2|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&oldid=1007518664}}, {{diff2|1007521213}}. And after that, I get accusations that I edit articles in order to annoy someone, and not to fix an obvious [[WP:Content forking]]. I politely (as I could) pointed out to the Mhorg the problems with his belligerent behavior, that's all. A valid attemptе "to smooth things over" on the part of the Mhorg would be to withdraw the request against the colleague My Very Best Wishes and help to recover the information from the book of Khlevnyuk or otherwise resolve the problem of content forking, rather than continue personal attacks by playing the victim.--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 07:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Swarm}} Please don't misrepresent the situation. It is not "Nico's repeated insistence", it was Mhorg who explicitly stated in his ''attempt to smooth things over'' that I was "removing or editing articles just to annoy him": {{diff2|1007559109}}.--[[User:Nicoljaus|Nicoljaus]] ([[User talk:Nicoljaus|talk]]) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by El_C===
*Unfortunately, the appellant barely touches on the main reason that immediately prompted the sanction in question, but goes on at length on the ancillary one, devoting nearly the entire length of their appeal for that purpose, despite my previous explanations about that on their talk page. Well, I am here to set the record straight. On the 15th, I had warned them, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down their rhetoric, or the likelihood that they would face AE sanctions again is high ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&type=revision&diff=1006900579&oldid=1006600733 diff]).

:Then, yesterday, they had accused the filer of an AE request of being NOTHERE by drawing a parallel between their editing focus to items on some non-English external website, and doing so in extremely ''terse'' way ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007473248&oldid=1007460894 diff]). So, I had the warned them about that, too, also asking (in part): {{tq|What is that ''VoxKomm'' link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007533825&oldid=1007488220 diff]).

:As a response, instead of providing any substance whatsoever so as to clarify the matter as was requested, the appellant rather astonishingly doubled-down on more of the same by simply refactoring the very same terse reply a second time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1007557209&oldid=1007556801 diff]). Needless to say, I found that to have been highly inappropriate.

:As for the more ancillary reason immediately prompting the sanction, after the filer of said AE complaint (Mhorg) accused Nicoljaus of HOUNDING them —notably, without evidence, for which I have also warned them against ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=prev&oldid=1007603915 diff])— instead of responding with something like ''no, I am not hounding you'', Nicoljaus hinted that they may well be doing so, but ostensibly not to "annoy" them as that user had claimed, but in the interest of the project or whatever ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&diff=prev&oldid=1007562834 diff]). I found this also to have been inappropriate, though not as egregious as the violation noted in the paragraph above.

:Beyond all this, long since I had originally imposed a sanction on the appellant, exactly one year minus a day ago ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe_2|2020 log entry]]), I have noticed a return to problematic editing on their part in the topic area, though the volume of their editing was initially very low for this to be too noticeable. But now that it was right in my face, I felt compelled to warn them, then warn them again, then sanction them (this time with a sanction which was not set to expire). I don't recall what last year's sanction was about exactly. Possibly, something about medieval Balkans stuff...? In any case, I think it's well time that Nicoljaus proves that they are able to edit in other topic areas productively and without incident. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:*I should also note that Mhorg may well be deserving of sanctions, as well. I'm not sure. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to parse what they're saying, overall (including directly below). Their writings are just not coming across as coherent and cogent enough for me to able to make that determination at this time. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

::*Nicoljaus, to "tone down rhetoric" means to dial it back, not to ''trim'' it. That was made clear in my warning to you about the VoxKomm aspersion (that it needed substantiation, rather than merely refactoring!), so this explanation which you are now suddenly providing — that is something which I find rather puzzling. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:::*Nicoljaus, I'm not asking you to do anything. The sanction has already been imposed. You're appealing it here. I just pointed out that "tone down the rhetoric" ''does'' translate to "dial it back." That you think it can mean other things, that isn't on me. Not to be harsh, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

::::*Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicoljaus&type=revision&diff=1006900579&oldid=1006600733 diff]), I actually ''did'' say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part): {{tq| If you contend that there are violations, the [[WP:AE|Arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances.}} Weird. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::*My very best wishes, when an inexperienced user comes to me to ask that I investigate something EE ([[User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article|direct link]]), but I tell them that I don't have the time and that if they have a solid case they should take it to AE, what are they supposed to do? Regardless of whether their AE complaint has merit or not (again, I'm not sure about that at this time), you painting them as some topic area regular who is using AE to win a content dispute — that is an unfair charge, I challenge. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::*My very best wishes, I never mentioned you having said anything "improper" about me because I know you didn't (in all the years of me having known you, in fact). I submit to you that you have misread. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::*My very best wishes, from my perspective, I'm not sure all of your [[WP:NOTTHEM]] points are that conducive to the success of this appeal. I, for one, think that if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing, as well, these should be attended to separately, in their own right. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Mhorg===
My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes]]. [[User:Nicoljaus]] was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&type=revision&diff=1007479351&oldid=1007367103] to contest an old edit of mine of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&diff=prev&oldid=958740199 25 May 2020], then '''accidentally removed''' all my edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&type=revision&diff=1007522921&oldid=1007522664] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...). The accusation that I made to him (actually asking him to limit the conflict to a certain area and basically to leave me in quiet because I'm really exausted),[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicoljaus#No_wikihounding] does not come from nothing, because in '''the same days this thing happened''' with [[User:My very best wishes]] (they are defending each other in the AE request)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes], who made '''the same deletion''' of the same edit of mine[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulag&type=revision&diff=1006131155&oldid=1004851137] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalii_Markiv&diff=1006985043&oldid=1006199948] my old edit of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalii_Markiv&type=revision&diff=981347627&oldid=981293497 1 October 2020], and again he removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&type=revision&diff=1007120693&oldid=1007119692] my old edit of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&type=revision&diff=982643528&oldid=982627573 9 October 2020]. I think there is a connection to all of this. I think that I, unlike you, have tried to question your actions by remaining on a very specific topic (and my edit history confirms it).--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|El_C}} sorry for my bad english, I tried to explain at the best what pushed me to make those accusations. I didn't know the rule of how to report a wikihounding case (I don't know how to do 99% of the things on the English Wikipedia, as you can see). Seeing the same deletions of the same old content, from the same two users I'm having trouble with, seemed like a good reason to ask them be left in peace. Sorry.--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|My very best wishes}} I didn't understand what you want to imply that I'm an "experienced user who edited 6 years in Italian WP". We have different rules and in 6 years I don't remember ever needing to call an admin, not even to know if a user was right or not to delete all the controversial content of a politician.--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|My very best wishes}} You keep mystifying everything, everything. '''My edits are public''' I can't nor want to hide anything, everyone can see the topics I deal with. When you talk about the banner, I don't know what you mean, Ymblanter was the only admin I met in a thread. The banner is this,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYmblanter&type=revision&diff=1006426320&oldid=1006333485] and it refers to his health conditions. I met El C when he stopped the sockpuppet LauraWilliamson, so I asked him how to deal with this issue. What are you implying? Regarding the Voxkomm channel, you talk about things you don't know, it may seem like a blog but in Italy it was a point of reference for the war in the Donbass, it was also quoted sometimes by RS such as "IlManifesto" [https://ilmanifesto.it/mozgovoy-il-fantasma-di-lugansk/]. But what does this have to do with it? Explain it to me, please... Why don't you answer for your actions instead of talking about others users?--[[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg|talk]]) 17:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by involved editor My very best wishes===

We have had a discussion with El_C about it on the [[User_talk:Nicoljaus#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction|talk page of Nicoljaus]]. Yes, I know: admins have discretion. Sure, El_C had a reason for issuing the topic ban.

But I do not think Nicoljaus behave so badly to deserve the topic ban. For example,
#the "last straw" comment by Nicoljaus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&diff=prev&oldid=1007562834]. My reading of this is different from that by El_C. <s>I think Nicoljaus just said he edits pages to improve them.</s>. Mhorg tells: "Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?" Nicoljaus clumsy responds, yes, in the "passive aggressive" manner which obviously support the existence of the conflict between them. But it takes two to tango.
#In his comment on this noticeboard, N. gives a couple of links and claims an "intersection of topics" (hence "NOTHERE"). Sure, this is not a proof of anything, and it is hard to say what exactly N. means in their statement. This is just a very clumsy comment, obviously with intention to "help" me, although I did not ask. He went as far as asking Mhorg to submit also an AE request about him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1007473669&oldid=1007150034]. Sure, this is not helpful, but a reason for a topic ban?
#In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicoljaus#Warning their warning] El_C did not provide any diff to clarify what it was about. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006894447&oldid=1006892404 Here is it] (diff to to last of the comments by N.). A reason for a topic ban? I do not know. I am not an admin. Please look at all these diffs and decide.

*However, I can tell one thing. N. is a ''highly knowledgeable contributor'', at least on the subjects related to Russia, and ''he did work to actually improve the content'' in this subject area. Ultimately, this should be all about improvement of content, and I think N. does just that.

:@El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a ''content dispute''. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No.
:EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHyxQxjO1beZKiOCicRrmHg VOXKOMM International], apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=645589996],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_forces_of_the_war_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=644554903] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=1006600942]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::@Mhorg. I thought you were talking about the banner of Che Guevara on talk page of El_C (which would make perfect sense in such context). My apology. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]]

*@El_C. "if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing" Reporting Mhorg to AE? Oh no, my point was precisely the opposite: I am not going to report anyone to AE just for making bad comments, unless they also do something more serious, and Mhorg did not do anything more serious, at least until he submitted his report to AE about me. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

*@Swarm. Yes, the comment by Nicoljaus does not look good. But consider this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhorg&diff=1006639016&oldid=1006638433] or this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006637188&oldid=1006636575 edit summary] by Mhorg. Is it better? During editing in such subject areas I saw a lot of such comments and worse. I just ignored all them unless the contributor was doing real and significant damage to content in my opinion. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:*@Swarm. Yes, Mhorg provided a link to the policy. But did Nicoljaus actually harass Mhorg? If he did, such sanction would be completely appropriate. But I do not see any evidence of that in the conversation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&oldid=1007608093#No_wikihounding], just a bare claim by Mhorg, which can be even regarded as a violation by Mhorg (making an accusation without providing any evidence), plus reminding that "hey, we are in a conflict!" ("Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?"). Hence the angry denial by Nic, and the sanction for Nic. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by Mikola22===
As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 4)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus ===
*Cutting through the TLDR, these diffs are sanctionable conduct [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1007460894&diff=1007473248] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1007556801&diff=1007557209] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicoljaus&diff=prev&oldid=1007562834]. It's not OK to casually accuse people of socking in an AE thread (and then double down on it) and the third one is an admission and justification of [[WP:HOUNDING]], and IMO it borders on [[WP:GASLIGHTING]] or [[DARVO]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*:@Nico: I wrote "socking" but I meant it more broadly, to include [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]ing, [[WP:PROXY]]ing, [[WP:POVPUSH]]ing, generally [[WP:NOTHERE]], etc. I should have just said "disruption" or "policy violation". There was a warning [[Special:Diff/1006900579|on Feb 15]] about this and those three diffs are a continuation of that pattern. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*I agree with Levi's assessment above and I think all the context provided by El C demonstrates that this user was on thin ice for a long time and he eventually had to draw a line. The hounding responses read to me like outright trolling and bullying, it's really painful to read. Mhorg comes across as a completely sincere and good faith user trying to smooth things over, and Nico's replies come across as mean-spirited and passive-aggressive. I don't buy for one second that that's a good faith denial that is being misread. If someone comes up to you and says "please stop stalking me, you're making my time on Wikipedia a living hell", in no way does a good faith reply ever phrase their response as "are you accusing me of trying to annoy you? That's a serious accusation." No, this isn't a misunderstanding, El C picked up on obvious passive aggressive trolling and now the user's trying to misrepresent the situation. Good call by El C. Decline. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::Nico's repeated insistence that "hounding" means "annoying someone" is bizarre and disingenuous. He was literally linked to the harassment policy that explained the meaning of "hounding" right off the bat. There is absolutely no reason that he should be claiming that he wasn't trying to "annoy" someone. Harassment isn't an "annoyance", it's a severe safety threat that is prohibited by the ToS. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==KidAd==
{{hat|Withdrawn by filer (without prejudice). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)}}
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning KidAd===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tartan357}} 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KidAd}}{{ds/log|KidAd}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)]]


; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :

#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luke_Letlow&diff=997259233&oldid=997259076 30 December 2020] Accuses me of "scrubbing" the article [[Luke Letlow]] for switching the infobox template from {{tlx|Infobox officeholder}} to {{tlx|Infobox person}}.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luke_Letlow&diff=997299415&oldid=997298780 30 December 2020] Repeats the "scrubbing" accusation and argues I'm trying to declare the election void because Letlow died.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuke_Letlow&type=revision&diff=997300977&oldid=997300418 30 December 2020] Doubles down when I call them out at [[Talk:Luke Letlow]], and accuses me of condescending to them.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&diff=1003903328&oldid=1003903264 31 January 2021] Accuses me of Wikilawyering for pushing back on their argument that {{tq|readers don't care what year a picture was taken}} in an RfC at [[Talk:Joe Biden]] on whether to include a caption on the infobox image.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=1004465696&oldid=1004464868 2 February 2021] Calls me a stalker for commenting at [[User talk:KidAd#Captions]], which concerned a matter I was directly involved in.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=1007823469&oldid=1007817632 20 February 2021] KidAd agrees to self-revert after I inform them they have violated the 24-hour BRD cycle remedy at [[Hillary Clinton]]. However, they tell me they do not plan on engaging with me and intend to simply repeat their edit later.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=1007824956&oldid=1007824566 20 February 2021] After I inform them on their talk page that they are required to discuss content disputes on the article talk page per [[WP:DR]], they respond to me at [[Talk:Hillary Clinton]]. The response, however, is uncivil (alleging that I don't know that the year 2020 came after 2013).
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=next&oldid=1007825125 20 February 2021] KidAd states that I'm arguing {{tq|time passes non-linearly}}.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=next&oldid=1007826467 20 February 2021] After I implore KidAd on their talk page to be nice, they once again claim that I'm arguing time runs non-linearly, and call me insane: {{tq|It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that}} (twisting my description of the ridiculous claim that I don't know how time works as insane to repeat that I believe that and am therefore insane).

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&direction=prev&oldid=871196230 29 November 2018] 3-month AP2 topic ban (expired)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=871282466&oldid=871279047 30 November 2018] 1-week block for violation of topic ban
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=872588415&oldid=872578551 7 December 2018] 1-month block for violation of topic ban
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=880177602&oldid=880163666 25 January 2019] 3-month block for violation of topic ban
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KidAd&diff=893779442&oldid=893725692 23 April 2019] talk page access revoked for 3 months for violation of topic ban

;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):

*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

KidAd and I share an interest in AP2, and often run into each other. I've noticed a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors, myself included. Often, it takes the form of rude and/or sarcastic responses to others' arguments. Additionally, KidAd often chooses, sometimes defiantly, not to engage in talk page discussion. I've remained collegial and civil, and had been hoping that KidAd and I would come to get along. After a tense discussion at [[User talk:KidAd#Captions]] ended in KidAd agreeing to work together with me on an RfC, I'd hoped that this was behind us. Unfortunately, after interacting with them today regarding Hillary Clinton's infobox, that does not appear to be the case. They first flat-out told me they intended to force their change in without discussion, and when they did engage me in discussion, they responded to my argument by suggesting it reflects that I don't know how time works. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKidAd&type=revision&diff=1007827003&oldid=1007825864 implored] them to stop on their talk page. However, they repeated their insulting comment immediately after I did so. I'm at the point where I feel I can either give KidAd their way when I disagree with them, or ruin a fun day of editing by interacting with them. That just doesn't feel right to me. ― [[User:Tartan357|'''''Tartan357''''']] [[User talk:Tartan357|'''Talk''']] 05:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKidAd&type=revision&diff=1007838672&oldid=1007827003]


===Discussion concerning KidAd===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by KidAd====
Especially when compiling a recent log of interactions between myself and Tartan, it becomes clear that our exchanges have been largely negative, though I object to the statement {{tq|a pattern of incivility from KidAd that often arises when they have disagreements with other editors}}. When Tartan and I have disagreed, the topics have been '''formatting, not content-related'''. As for the recent dispute at [[Hillary Clinton]], please note that I self-reverted my most recent edit as soon as Tartan made me aware of the [[WP:DS]] violation. This was an oversight on my part. My comment to Tartan, {{tq|For issues like this, where there is no clear policy to support changes either way, a discussion will only provide unnecessary frustration}} was meant to ''prevent'' conflict, a decision directly based on our last negative interaction. Reviewing the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Ordering_of_offices_in_infobox Clinton discussion], I see no harsh language, only disagreement. The statement {{tq|The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013}} was not written to convey sarcasm. It was written to convey my point that dates should go in linear order. Given that sarcasm is usually communicated using inflection, deriving a particular meaning from text is highly subjective. Responding to Tartan's 9th point in particular, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=next&oldid=1007826467 this dif] does '''not''' include a personal attack or accusation of insanity. I am fully willing to comply with an [[WP:IBAN]] between myself and Tartan. [[User:KidAd|KidAd]] [[User talk:KidAd|talk]] 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====


===Result concerning KidAd===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*Just a quick observation. Though the article subjects are all clearly and unambiguously [[WP:AP2]] ones, these series of disputes do not seem to involve AP2 so much as infoboxes, infoboxes and more infoboxes. My sense, then, is that this is an [[WP:ARBINFOBOX2]] rather than AP2 matter. In any case, I have attached the relevant DS alert to both users, just to be on the safe side. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Krao212==
{{hat|Krao212 is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed ([[WP:ARBIPA]]). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)}}
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning Krao212===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vanamonde93}} 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Krao212}}{{ds/log|Krao212}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions]]

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_religion&diff=prev&oldid=1007581928 18 February 2021] adds egregious original research. The cited source does not at any point state that the INC is responsible for "playing minority appeasement politics"; the attributed opinion in the source makes a related accusation, but does not relate it to freedom of religion; and the cited source, in any case, is an opinion piece, and therefore unreliable for statements of fact. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
No previous sanctions.
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
*<s>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krao212&oldid=1003325068 alerted] by Doug Weller in January.</s> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=970673229 notified] by Doug Weller in August 2020 (amended diff per Newslinger below). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
A lengthy string of warnings and notices on their talk page, including for original research. This editor has been on thin ice for some time. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Newslinger}} Thanks for the correction; I don't think it changes the substance of my report, though. Indeed, it makes edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1000096956 this] (use of partisan sources, some OR) more concerning. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKrao212&type=revision&diff=1008158127&oldid=1004048814 diff].

===Discussion concerning Krao212===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by Krao212====
{{ping|El C}} I agree with the complaint that the content had nothing to do with "Freedom of religion" and that's why it was my bad that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_religion&diff=prev&oldid=1007581928 added this WP:SYNTH]/WP:OR. I am a new editor who happened to jump into controversial areas maybe this is why I had enough warnings on talk page but I have continuously improved my edits and will work on them further and avoid controversial topics unless I can totally justify the edit with highly reliable sources. [[User:Krao212|Krao212]] ([[User talk:Krao212|talk]]) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Newslinger====
{{ping|Vanamonde93}} Actually, Krao212 was alerted at [[Special:Diff/970673229]] on 1 August 2020 about the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. The 28 January 2021 warning at [[Special:Diff/1003325068]] was for post–1992 American politics. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====

*
===Result concerning Krao212===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*Hah, ''one'' diff! How spartan of you, {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Respect. Anyway, agreed, it looks bad. And then there's the {{tq|nonsensical claims from right wing muslim supremacists}} edit summary provocation from 3 weeks ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonal_Shah_(economist)&diff=prev&oldid=1003972735 diff]). Talk page littered with unheeded warnings. Recommend indef BROADLY IPA TBAN. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Noteduck==
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning Noteduck===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Springee}} 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Noteduck}}{{ds/log|Noteduck}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Final_decision]]


; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :

'''Edit warring'''
Reverted editors include myself, {{u|Conan The Librarian}}, {{u|Shrike}}, {{U|Visite fortuitement prolongée}}, {{u|Mcrt007}}, {{u|Pincrete}}, {{u|Kyohyi}}. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.
*Andy Ngo, violating 1RR
**Original text[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=1004703650]], revision 1 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1006281056&oldid=1006261274]], reverted [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1006287564&oldid=1006281056]], revision 2 less than 24hr later [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1006291578&oldid=1006287564]]

*The PragerU:
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998385452&oldid=998383701]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998590843&oldid=998589326]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998619002&oldid=998617050]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998784735&oldid=998735203]]

*At Douglas Murray:
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=1005480335&oldid=1005429809]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=1005286026&oldid=1005280425]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=995339398&oldid=995335209]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=995828238&oldid=995605399]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=995888910&oldid=995832377]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=997848979&oldid=997843874]]
**Removal of OpEd [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_%28author%29&type=revision&diff=998265626&oldid=998240217]] restoration [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=998359998&oldid=998334192]]
**Multi-part removal [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_%28author%29&type=revision&diff=998487502&oldid=998463094]] restoration [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=998533929&oldid=998487502]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=998790666&oldid=998723182]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=998797327&oldid=998790782]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=998858409&oldid=998857053]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=999183573&oldid=999115470]]

*Edit warring on editor's talk page
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=998765740&oldid=998761585]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=998528957&oldid=998442401]]
**[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=998537638&oldid=998536815]]

'''Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning'''
*Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Georgetown_University_Bridge_Initiative_-_academic_research_project_intended_to_discuss_Islamophobia]]. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=999963937]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1000166427]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1000896811]]

'''Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors'''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=prev&oldid=998619002]] "''Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"''

*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=998173641]] "''a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion''"
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=997938409]] "''I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Kimball&diff=prev&oldid=1005494903]] "''changed whitewashing''"
{{collapsetop|Additional Examples}}
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=1002745527]] "''Please refrain from unwarranted reverts of material that needs attribution. Pay closer attention to editorial policy''"
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=997755698]] "''as I have just indicated to you there is no requirement for unanimity with edits, and your repeated but unconvincing objections have been rejected both by myself and other editors . You have an extensive history of accusations of NPOV issues and personal advocacy on controversial topics on your talk page. Absent further evidence please refrain from deleting these edits again, thank you"''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=998359998]] "''MEE source is the only one for which the reliability has been questioned so I will pitch it to Wiki reliable sources noticeboard - other sources were removed without justification. Editor gave no warning in talk page. Warning will be given for vandalism if this material is removed again''"
{{collapsebottom}}

'''Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments''':
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=1005481917&oldid=1005479544]] ''If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PragerU&diff=prev&oldid=1003267213]] ''In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1002565277]] Antagonistic comment unrelated to the article complaining about user talk page edit warring.
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1002563185]] Inappropriate criticism of other editors on article talk page.
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PragerU&diff=prev&oldid=1002552767]] "''have a look at [[WP:ROWN]] when considering whether to discard this edit''"
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=1001787682]] An entire talk page section to accuse editors of whitewashing.
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PragerU&diff=prev&oldid=998788210]] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page"
{{collapsetop|Additional Examples}}
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Ngo&diff=1007407495&oldid=1007360390]] ''I know this material (...) is likely to be questioned and I know who will object to this material...''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Kimball&diff=prev&oldid=1005566309]] ''I maintain (supported by other users who've made similar contentions in their talk page history) that their editing raises serious NPOV and partisanship problems.''
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=1005478914&oldid=1005478320]] ''Although [[editor]] has been on Wikipedia for a very long time and is very capable of weaponizing Wiki policies where it suits them, they frequently misunderstand Wiki policy. Furthermore [[editor]], as can be seen in your talk page history (since you tend to delete unflattering material from your talk page) you have a history of NPOV and partisanship problems, and it's hard to see this desire to remove the material on Murray's extremely well-documented ideological links to the far-right as anything other than partisan whitewashing.''

{{collapsebottom}}

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

NA

;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Discretionary_Sanctions_for_American_Politics]]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account {{u|Spungo93}} from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Murray_content]], {{u|Callanecc}} (uninvolved) commenting[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#A_lengthy_welcome]][[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Similarities]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Your_comment_on_my_talk_page]].
Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Block_reversions_without_adequate_justification,_warnings_ignored_-_what's_the_next_step?]].

Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include [[PragerU]], [[Roger Kimball]], [[Douglas Murray (author)]] and [[Andy Ngo]].

Edited for length [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 

====Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs====
If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU/Archive_3]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for ''any'' of the edits you cited?[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1008318714&oldid=1008312121]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Reply to El_C====
{{u|El_C}}, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Your_comment_on_my_talk_page]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus. In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Springee/sandbox#Possible_remove]]. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noteduck&diff=1008214829&oldid=1007671126]]




===Discussion concerning Noteduck===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by Noteduck====

I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as {{u|LokitheLiar}} said.

Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the [[Douglas Murray (author)]] page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.

A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend {{u|Springee}} is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=974398382&oldid=974397778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=967148862&oldid=967148838][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=924716338&oldid=924715319][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=918124552&oldid=918124511][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=864687323&oldid=864645921] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Springee#Advocacy_concerns_at_AR-15_style_rifle] behavioral problems,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=977717927&oldid=977717136][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=916219539&oldid=916209586] edit-warring,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=870625090&oldid=870616890] vandalism,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=893861972&oldid=893861933] and canvassing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=916368567&oldid=916366872][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=883822748&oldid=883822066] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=963439650&oldid=963435473][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=963913526&oldid=963913434] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Allan_(professor)&oldid=1001430907][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Kimball&oldid=1005500536] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.

I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=998536815&oldid=998528957][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=1002560766&oldid=1002559840]

As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck|talk]]) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck|talk]]) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by LokiTheLiar====
As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that {{u|Springee}}'s above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&offset=20210121214013%7C1001893543&action=history| the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th]. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being {{u|Noteduck}} and the other being Springee and {{u|Shinealittlelight}}, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by {{u|Callanecc}} and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits| the starting of this RfC] a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.

I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on [[PragerU]] is incorrect. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1006281056&oldid=1006261274| This edit], which Springee characterizes as a revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=1004703650| this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page], is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to [[WP:3RR]] is an {{tq|edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part}}. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=1006291578&oldid=1006287564| this one], in accordance with 1RR.

I'm less familiar with the situation on [[Douglas Murray]] but a cursory glance at the page history reveals [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&action=history| a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in]. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&diff=1006066918&oldid=1006065618| Springee themself at one point]. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.

Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.

E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the {{tq|appropriate forums}} for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.

E2: Because both {{u|Springee}} and {{u|Shinealittlelight}} again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on [[PragerU]] (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):

{{Collapse top|title=Timeline}}
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998379368&oldid=998310043| 03:15 on Jan 5th]: Noteduck adds some material to the Critiques of Videos section about a video on Robert E. Lee, and points people to the talk page in the edit summary.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=next&oldid=998379368| 03:49 on Jan 5th]: Springee reverts Noteduck's edit, asserting existing consensus on the talk page was against inclusion.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=next&oldid=998383701| 04:04 on Jan 5th]: Noteduck reverts Springee's revert, again directing Springee to the talk page and asserting previous removal of the material was based on poor sources.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998389644&oldid=998386439| 04:38 on Jan 5th]: Noteduck adds more material to the Critiques of Videos section, this time significantly expanding a paragraph about a video narrated by Douglas Murphy.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998474065&oldid=998389644| 15:09 on Jan 5th]: Shine reverts Noteduck's older addition about Robert E. Lee, and points to talk page consensus as the reason.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998589326&oldid=998585489| 02:42 on Jan 6th]: Springee significantly cuts down the material Noteduck added about Douglas Murphy, again pointing to discussion on the talk page.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998590843&oldid=998589326| 02:53 on Jan 6th]: Noteduck reverts Springee's partial manual revert, claiming it is "totally unjustified".
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998617050&oldid=998615075| 06:28 on Jan 6th]: Shine completely reverts Noteduck's addition to the Douglas Murphy paragraph, again pointing to the talk page.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998619002&oldid=998617050| 06:43 on Jan 6th]: Noteduck reverts the revert and accuses Shine of edit warring and POV-pushing in the edit summary.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&type=revision&diff=998654078&oldid=998631359| 08:43-11:45 on Jan 6th]: Noteduck adds a bunch of material to the Reception and Critiques of Videos sections.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998691541&oldid=998654078| 16:04 on Jan 6th]: Springee makes a small edit adding context to Noteduck's new material but does not remove it. They also explicitly say they do not endorse the new material.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998702825&oldid=998696397| 17:07 on Jan 6th]: Another user named {{u|Hipal}} comes in and manually reverts all Noteduck's edits up to this point.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998784735&oldid=998735203| 01:05 on Jan 7th]: Noteduck reverts Hipal's manual revert and asks them to be more specific about what exactly they object to.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998805486&oldid=998784735| 03:10 on Jan 7th]: Hipal reverts Noteduck's revert.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998871195&oldid=998805486| 11:41 on Jan 7th]: {{u|Callanecc}} full-protects the page.

Also for full context, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits| this RfC] about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page.

{{Collapse bottom}}

In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.

====Statement by Shadybabs====

Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.

====Statement by Shinealittlelight====
Noteduck admits to being {{tq|sometimes ignorant of policy}} and states that Noteduck {{tq|edit-warred on several occasions}}. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: [[WP:HOUND]] says {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy}}. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says {{tq|Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms}}. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], {{tq|An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence.}} LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.

{{ping|LokiTheLiar}} accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998474065&oldid=998389644 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998617050&oldid=998615075 here]. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, {{u|Hipal}}, removed the material, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998805486&oldid=998784735 here]. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.

{{ping|Shadybabs}} do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more [[WP:ASPERSIONS]].

Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|LokiTheLiar}} The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Hipal====
Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Pudeo====
Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after [[User:Spungo93|Spungo93]] was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck [[Special:Diff/998768157|explained]]: {{tq|I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it}}. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=107377130 log entry]), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is {{u|Perspex03}} based on their timecard, though).

Noteduck has used self-published / [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources to make contentious claims: 1) [[Special:Diff/998863463|Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change]] 2) [[Special:Diff/996405147|Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud]], then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they [[Special:Diff/005494903|changed]] that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once [[Special:Diff/1005502128|reverted]] the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in ''[[The Epoch Times]]'' which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) [[Special:Diff/997310739|Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change]] 4) [[Special:Diff/995508895|Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance]]. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were [[WP:OR]] claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.

They also [[Special:Diff/998855636|initiated]] a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: [[Special:Diff/998788210|"partisan politicking"]], [[Special:Diff/998624366|"problem with partisan bias"]], [[Special:Diff/1001787682|problem with politically partisan editing"]] [[Special:Diff/1005302395|"ideologically motivated -- sabotage"]] etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 201#PragerU|PragerU DRN thread]] due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Username====


===Result concerning Noteduck===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*{{u|Springee}}, your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:*I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Krao212|Spartans!]]), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A [[WP:AEL|logged]] warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions|ARCA]])? An un-logged warning?

::Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to ''significantly'' trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

::*{{u|Springee}}, I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions ([[WP:CRP|CR]] or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

:::*{{u|Springee}}, I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

==Rtr315==
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

===Request concerning Rtr315===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Chariotrider555}} 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rtr315}}{{ds/log|Rtr315}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:GS/CASTE]]


; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :

#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyagi&diff=1007718633&oldid=1007708273] User removed [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] content and replaced it with [[WP:OR|original research]].
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyagi&diff=1008220864&oldid=1007918801] User removed [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] content and replaced it with poorly sourced content such as caste association websites and Hindi Wikipedia pages.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyagi&diff=1008231970&oldid=1008220864] User added info sourced to the Hindi Wikipedia and a website about a television show.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyagi&diff=1008287076&oldid=1008282095] Same actions as above, but this time with assumption of bad faith and a personal attack in the edit summary.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):

*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
User continues to remove reliably sourced content and replace it with original research and poorly sourced content from Hindi Wikipedia, caste association websites, and other poor sources. Sanctions against this user must be placed in order to enforce the ruling of [[WP:GS/CASTE]] due to this user's disruptive edits in the topic area. User was warned several times but did not heed them, as seen on [[User talk:Rtr315]].

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARtr315&type=revision&diff=1008292934&oldid=1008289426]


===Discussion concerning Rtr315===
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''
====Statement by Rtr315====

====Statement by (username)====


===Result concerning Rtr315===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*Looking at their rather sparse contribution history, this user seems quite inexperienced, having made very few edits, so I don't think AE sanctions (or even a [[WP:AEL|logged]] warning), are due at this time (unless there's something egregious that I missed). I'll try to impress upon them the need to observe [[WP:ONUS]], [[WP:RS]] and to avoid [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:CIRCULAR]] referencing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

2021-02-07T17:48:25Z

Pudeo: /* February 7 */ Add RD George Shultz

{{short description|Page for discussions regarding potential items for "In the news"}}
{{notice|<big>Welcome to ''In the news''. Please '''[[Wikipedia:In the news|read the guidelines]]'''. Admin instructions are '''[[Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions|here]]'''.</big>}}{{Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header}}
{{Skip to top and bottom}}

== Archives ==
{{Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Archives}}
{{Anchor|Suggestions}}

== February 7 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 7]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 7}}
{{cob}}
----

==== RD: George Schultz ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = George Shultz
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.hoover.org/press-releases/distinguished-american-statesman-60th-us-secretary-state-george-p-shultz-dies-100 Hoover Institution]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Pudeo 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = Article seems to be OK, no unsourced claims.
| sign = [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 17:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}

==== 2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood
| image = 
| blurb = Dozens of people are missing and feared dead after a glacier crashed into a dam and triggered a '''[[2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood|huge flood]]''' in northern India.
| recent deaths = no 
| ongoing = no 
| ITNR = no 
| altblurb = Dozens of people are missing and feared dead after a glacier crashed into a dam and triggered a '''[[2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood|flood]]''' in [[Uttarakhand]], [[India]].
| altblurb2 = 
| sources = [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55969669 BBC], [https://apnews.com/article/mountains-floods-india-glaciers-asia-pacific-5c42b2adb9437d4120fdf9de344b198f AP], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/07/150-feared-dead-as-glacier-crashes-into-dam-in-northern-india Guardian]
| updated = 
| nominator = Sherenk1 
| creator = Kashmorwiki
| updaters = John B123
| nom cmt = Developing. Maybe 150 dead.
| sign = [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 10:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' - Hundreds feared dead. --[[Special:Contributions/180.151.227.65|180.151.227.65]] ([[User talk:180.151.227.65|talk]]) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Tentative support''' - this is <s>almost certainly gonna be</s> already being covered by major international news sites <s>in an hour or two (I don't have the time to check if BBC already has this disaster on their front page but they'll probably have it since it's just before noon UTC right now)</s> (whoopsies, I was looking at the [[Times of India|ToI]] reference in the article instead of the BBC link here). It needs more info, however... And I added an alternate blurb since only [[Uttarakhand]] is affected as of now. [[Special:Contributions/45.251.33.177|45.251.33.177]] ([[User talk:45.251.33.177|talk]]) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' it's a two-sentence stub with the majority of its significance yet to be confirmed. Expand and wait. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' disaster stub. No [[WP:LASTING]] impact. No such thing as [[WP:MINIMUMDEATHS]] --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
::I'm curious as to why you linked to a nonexistent guideline that you know does not exist. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
::While it does make sense to oppose on quality and the fact that there is no "minimum deaths" guildeline, the [[2015 South India floods]] and [[2018 Kerala floods]] had no lasting impact but were still ITN. Besides, what we know about this disaster is still developing. [[Special:Contributions/45.251.33.177|45.251.33.177]] ([[User talk:45.251.33.177|talk]]) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Those were mistakes, I opposed the Kerala floods as well, and [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is hardly a justification to repeat a mistake. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 11:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A glacier didn't "crash into a dam" a [[Glacial lake outburst flood|glacial dam burst]] the blurbs are misleading. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 12:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|LaserLegs}} If you consider [[BBC]] to be a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], 'crash into a dam' comes right off the BBC headline [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55969669 here] [[Special:Contributions/180.151.227.65|180.151.227.65]] ([[User talk:180.151.227.65|talk]]) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
::Except 1) That's not what a [[Glacial lake outburst flood]] is and 2) [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uttarakhand-glacier-burst-in-chamoli-damages-hydropower-plant-rescue-operations-underway/articleshow/80732809.cms Times of India] disagrees. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 12:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|LaserLegs}} Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with what you said - just pointing out the origin of that line. [[Special:Contributions/180.151.227.65|180.151.227.65]] ([[User talk:180.151.227.65|talk]]) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08oxrhtbf0 Several villages washed away]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - "Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page" per [[WP:ITNCRIT]]. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Wait''' – Details developing. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 13:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The event is a natural disaster that should be notable enough to appear on ITN, but first we need a decent article to put up. What is there is not it. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Support on the importance of the event but the article needs expansion before posting, there is sufficient coverage in Western sources that should help. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 6 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 6]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 6}}
{{cob}}
----
====RD: Robert C. Jones====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Robert C. Jones
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-02-06/robert-c-jones-film-editor-oscar-winning-screenwriter-coming-home-dies-at-84 ''Los Angeles Times'']; [https://deadline.com/2021/02/robert-c-jones-dies-oscar-winning-coming-home-scribe-was-84-1234689053/ ''Deadline Hollywood'']; [https://variety.com/2021/film/people-news/robert-jones-dead-oscar-winning-coming-home-screenwriter-1234902487/ ''Variety'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt = Only announced and reported today (February 6).
| sign = —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Surprised to finally see a fully sourced filmography. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Ezra Moseley====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Ezra Moseley
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/55966577 BBC News]; [https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ezra-moseley-former-west-indies-fast-bowler-dies-in-accident-aged-63-1250571 ESPN]; [https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/12211075/ezra-moseley-former-west-indies-and-glamorgan-bowler-dies-aged-63 Sky Sports]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' would prefer to fix those bare URLs (and reuse) but otherwise it's probably satis for RD. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Thanks – done. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 11:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Pretty short but all around fine. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Barry Pashak====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Barry Pashak
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/barry-pashak-two-term-ndp-mla-in-calgary-dies-at-83 ''Calgary Herald'']; [https://edmontonjournal.remembering.ca/obituary/leonard-barry-pashak-1081571797 ''Edmonton Journal'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt = Only announced and reported today (February 6).
| sign = —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 04:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Weak oppose''' a lot (and I mean a ''lot'') about his election results, but not much else. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Santiago García (Uruguayan footballer)====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Santiago García (Uruguayan footballer)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.espn.com/soccer/uruguay-uru/story/4308808/uruguayan-player-santiago-garcia-found-deadsays-club-godoy-cruz ESPN], [https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/santiago-morro-garcia-godoy-cruz-23454881 Mirror], [https://www.beinsports.com/au/football/news/godoy-cruz-santiago-garcia-striker-dead-at-30/1632257 BeInSports]
| updated = yes
| nominator = SirEdimon
| updater =
| nom cmt =
| sign = --[[User:SirEdimon|SirEdimon]] [[User_talk:SirEdimon|Dimmi!!!]] 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Oppose''' literally no prose on the last decade of his career. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Ready) RD: Bansi Kaul====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Bansi Kaul
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/master-of-stagecraft-explorer-of-humour-7177898/ Indian Express]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updater = Ktin
| nom cmt = Indian theater director. [[Sangeet Natak Akademi Award]] and [[Padma Shri]] recipient. Article has shaped up to a compact C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 02:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' Article is pretty good all around, pretty short but adequate. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 03:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Bruce Taylor (New Zealand cricketer)====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Bruce Taylor (New Zealand cricketer)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/cricket-former-new-zealand-test-standout-bruce-taylor-passes-away-at-age-77/TRQHWF647YMNHDXEJBKVM5U2L4/ ''The New Zealand Herald'']; [https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/300223822/new-zealand-cricket-genius-bruce-taylor-dies-in-hospital-aged-77 Stuff]; [https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/former-new-zealand-record-holding-allrounder-bruce-taylor-dies-1250452 ESPN]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' No obvious problems, well sourced and mid sized. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - No issues. Good to go.[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 5 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 5]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 5}}
{{cob}}
----
==== (Posted) RD: Ruth Dayan ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Ruth Dayan
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.timesofisrael.com/ruth-dayan-storied-social-activist-and-1st-wife-of-moshe-dayan-dead-at-103/ Times of Israel]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updaters = Ktin, Cocoruff, Gilabrand
| nom cmt = Israeli social activist and businesswoman. <s>Article should be ready soon.</s> Edits done. Article has shaped into a nice C-B class biography. Meets expectations for homepage / RD.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' Surprised to see one of these nominator comments actually being realistic. Article is just about passing. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' well referenced and complete. [[User:MurielMary|MurielMary]] ([[User talk:MurielMary|talk]]) 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' fix the bare URL and this is good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

==== RD: Leon Spinks ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Leon Spinks
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.ktnv.com/sports/former-world-heavyweight-champion-leon-spinks-jr-has-died-at-67 KNTV], [https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/30848782/leon-spinks-ex-heavyweight-champ-upset-muhammad-ali-dies-67 ESPN]
| updated = yes
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| updaters = PCN02WPS, Dunedin239
| nom cmt = American boxer, death reported today but he died Friday night.
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Comment''' <s>I am currently working on cleaning up the article's sourcing.</s> [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Sourcing has been updated. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 03:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' where is the table of fights referenced? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

==== RD: Butch Reed ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Butch Reed
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2929993-wwe-wcw-legend-butch-reed-dies-at-age-66-due-to-heart-complications Bleacher Report]
| updated = 
| nominator = The Rambling Man 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = 
| sign = [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 10:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Weak support''' Great wrestler, alleged football player, but that article quality... [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There are reference gaps all over the article and some sections such as [[Butch Reed#NWA Central States (1986)|this one]] have no citations at all.--[[User:Kiril Simeonovski|Kiril Simeonovski]] ([[User talk:Kiril Simeonovski|talk]]) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::That section's also missing seven years of relevant material. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 12:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Huge body paragraphs that read on like lists remain unsourced. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

==== Blurb/RD: Christopher Plummer ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Christopher Plummer
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/feb/05/christopher-plummer-sound-of-music-star-and-oldest-actor-to-win-an-oscar-dies-aged-91 ''The Guardian'']
| updated = yes
| blurb = Canadian actor '''[[Christopher Plummer]]''' dies at the age of 91.
| nominator = KTC 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = 
| sign = [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*<s>'''Strong support''' I'd actually consider giving this one a '''blurb'''. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''' I looked over the article and had no choice but to tag it. Lacking references here and there, writing issues left and right, this needs to be fixed before we think about even posting it to RD. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 21:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' - the article is not ready yet and still needs to be improved. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' when ready. [[User:Davey2116|Davey2116]] ([[User talk:Davey2116|talk]]) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now''' Tons of uncited paragraphs. '''Neutral on blurb''' if that becomes a point of discussion once the article is in better shape. [[User:Mlb96|Mlb96]] ([[User talk:Mlb96|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose blurb'''. Let's be serious here. Just because someone was in big films, and maybr lots of people have heard of them, it doesn't make them transformative to the level required here. See Kirk Douglas et al.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' on quality. I would think we're talking potential blurb territory but sourcing is a long way from even an RD posting at this point, that should be figured out first and then we can kibitz on a blurb. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - A major actor and ''far'' more notable to the film industry than Sean Connery. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' when the sourcing issues are fixed up. Plummer achieved the [[Triple Crown of Acting]] among other major accomplishments and honors. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' article needs serious work before RD is a possibility. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Lots of work needed on referencing.-- [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose blurb''', and '''oppose on quality''' for the moment. A great actor, but I see no evidence of his being transformative in his field. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' now everyone has to go to blurb? [[User:Alsoriano97|Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Not at all, I think a lot of people are in opposition to that. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose blurb, Support RD only''' He has little known contribution in global film industry, so i don't see it can be posted as blurb unlike Tom Cruise, Kristen Stewart, etc. But due to fact that needs to be posted as RD, the article needs for fixing many issues regarding grammar and others. [[Special:Contributions/36.68.194.127|36.68.194.127]] ([[User talk:36.68.194.127|talk]]) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::"''He has little known contribution in global film industry''" Seriously? Sometimes I see things here that make me wonder which rock the writer has been living under for the past 60 years. My guess is that the person wasn't even living for the first 40 of them. I am totally confused about the rules for whether dead people get a blurb or not. (Do we actually have any rules?) So I won't bother with a comment on that. Just fix the article and post him as an RD. Quickly! [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose blurb, oppose RD for now''' He was a well-known and highly accomplished actor, but he was not the Mandela or the Thatcher of the acting field, so I don't believe he is blurb worthy. He may have come close, but I think he falls short of being a "transformative world leader in his field." [[User:NorthernFalcon|NorthernFalcon]] ([[User talk:NorthernFalcon|talk]]) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Blurb''' Not quite top of the field in my opinion, and still needs more referencing for RD [[User:Joseywales1961|''JW 1961'']] [[User talk:Joseywales1961|''Talk'']] 23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Blurb''' I hate to say it, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Blurb''' close but no. Support RD when ready. [[User:Rhino131|Rhino131]] ([[User talk:Rhino131|talk]]) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support RD''' - While fixing the refs. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 01:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Blurb''' for all the usual reasons. Article is getting there but has quite a ways to go. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support RD''' while fixing refs, though even then not sure he's quite "blurb-worthy." He was very prolific, supremely talented, and has global recognition, but I wouldn't say he's a superstar or a major figure in the history or evolution of film or anything like that. Definitely RD worthy though. --[[User:ThylekShran|ThylekShran]] ([[User talk:ThylekShran|talk]]) 04:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support RD''', neutral on blurb --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''No Blurb''', nor one for the prolific, supremely talented and globally recognized superstar of wrestling, [[Butch Reed]]. Nor for Kristen Stewart. ''Maybe'' Tom Cruise, but not if he's 91. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 09:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''RD only''' – Per ''Vanamonde, Amakuru''. Famous, but transformative? – Not really. — [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 13:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support RD''', neutral on blurb. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. Is someone working on this article? If referencing is all that is pending, can someone go take a pass at adding {{cn}} tags, I (and perhaps a few others here) can help adding references. Cheers. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::Looks like everything that needs to be tagged is tagged, but there are 20 in total so reffing could take a while. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support RD only''' His contribution in global film history is unknown outside English-speaking countries and is ineligible to be posted as blurb. [[Special:Contributions/120.188.64.200|120.188.64.200]] ([[User talk:120.188.64.200|talk]]) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 4 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 4]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 4}}
{{cob}}
----
====RD: Charles McGee (painter)====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Charles McGee (painter)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/02/05/charles-mcgee-dean-detroit-art-dies/6637298002/ ''Detroit Free Press'']; [https://www.detroitnews.com/story/life/2021/02/05/revered-and-preeminent-detroit-artist-charles-mcgee-96-has-died/4408210001/ ''The Detroit News'']; [https://www.michiganradio.org/post/beloved-detroit-artist-charles-mcgee-has-died Michigan Radio]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 11:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' Decent article, but really only has 1-2 sentences about his artwork itself (''The artwork he produced afterwards centered more on fundamental elements and less on subject matter, and he abandoned the realism that had dominated his early drawings''). A quick search reveals that nature was an important piece of his art, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Thus, there's limited depth of coverage and could use a full paragraph on that, which seems pretty doable, as it looks like there are multiple available sources with more information: [https://www.lscgallery.com/charles-mcgee-still-searching] [https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/02/05/charles-mcgee-dean-detroit-art-dies/6637298002/] [https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/artist-charles-mcgee-a-central-figure-in-detroit-s-art-scene-has-died-aged-96] [https://www.tbdmag.com/charles-mcgee-detroit-artist/]. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: D. N. Jha====
{{ITN candidate
| article = D. N. Jha
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/d-n-jha-historian-7175160/ Indian Express]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updater = Ktin
| nom cmt = Indian historian. Good amount of edits done. Meets homepage hygiene.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 05:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' Article is a bit short but pretty good all around. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 15:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one. Article is ready for homepage / RD. Also, if there is an Admin online / reading, the backlog is growing, and this might be a good idea to send a couple of articles to homepage / RD, to prevent a large batch. Thanks. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Hy Cohen====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Hy Cohen
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschool/story/2021-02-04/former-birmingham-baseball-coach-hy-cohen-dies-at-age-90 ''Los Angeles Times'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - seems to meet requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Neat article, well referenced [[User:Joseywales1961|''JW 1961'']] [[User talk:Joseywales1961|''Talk'']] 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Well referenced, mid sized and written well. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 01:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Robert Dean (Canadian politician)====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Robert Dean (Canadian politician)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/former-quebec-minister-robert-dean-dies ''Montreal Gazette'' / Canadian Press]; [https://www.journaldequebec.com/2021/02/04/deces-de-lancien-ministre-pequiste-robert-dean ''Le Journal de Québec'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| creator = Jmanlucas
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 09:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' it seems a little brief but once again, we can't expect all recently deceased to have had epically transformative lives, there's a spectrum between being non-[[WP:N|notable]] and getting a blurb. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' looks fine for a RD, well sourced. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Pretty good article, a couple writing issues but seems just about fine. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strong support blurb''' Most notable person in history. Very influential on planet Earth. Totally have heard of him before. ;) ;) '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' RD only, nice neat little article but nowhere near blurb worthy in my opinion I'm afraid [[User:Joseywales1961|''JW 1961'']] [[User talk:Joseywales1961|''Talk'']] 13:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Mathoor Govindan Kutty ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Mathoor Govindan Kutty
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2021/feb/05/kathakali-doyen-mathoor-govindankutty-passes-away-2259774.html New Indian Express] [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kathakali-maestro-mathoor-govindan-kutty-dead/article33753605.ece The Hindu]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updaters = Ktin
| nom cmt = Indian [[Kathakali]] artist. [[Sangeet Natak Akademi Award]] winner. Article has shaped to a good start-class biography.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 04:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - seems to meet requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Suppport''' good enough for RD. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' While referenced, there is limited depth of coverage for someone with a six-decade-long career. It appears as though he has just 4 named performances listed over that time period, with 2 additional opening ceremony performances--the equivalent of one performance per decade. Was there a response/reaction to his portrayal of female characters? '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Spencer}}, hi there. Updated the article with a few more performances, and also added reactions and a few reviews of his performance. Please have a look. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Pretty good [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good for RD [[User:Joseywales1961|''JW 1961'']] [[User talk:Joseywales1961|''Talk'']] 13:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* {{ping|Black Kite|Spencer|Stephen|Dumelow|Bagumba}} Pardon the intrusion. Please can I request you to have a look at this one. I believe this should be ready to go. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 23:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Closed) US Support for Saudi Arabian-led intervention in the Yemeni Civil War ====
{{archivetop|'''[[WP:SNOW]]''', obvious consensus to oppose. ([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]]) --[[User:RockinJack18|Rockin]] ([[User talk:RockinJack18|Talk]]) 15:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A good faith nomination but these types of incremental policy changes are rarely published at ITN and the consensus is that the updates are of insufficient quality to overcome the perceived lack of significance. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 15:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
| article = Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen
| article2 =
| image =
| blurb = The United States announces that it will end their support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
| recent deaths = no
| ongoing = no
| ITNR = no
| altblurb =
| altblurb2 =
| sources = [https://www.ft.com/content/b592364d-080e-4e30-a3dd-5910c0a12146 Financial Times]
| updated = no
| nominator = An IP editor
| creator = Kudzu1
| updaters =
| nom cmt = This has very important implications for the region and may signal a less proactive approach by the Biden administration in the Middle East. Article may need some work.
| sign = [[Special:Contributions/98.116.113.73|98.116.113.73]] ([[User talk:98.116.113.73|talk]]) 01:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Oppose''' Awful article, not updated, "announcements" as news.[[Special:Contributions/130.233.213.199|130.233.213.199]] ([[User talk:130.233.213.199|talk]]) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' who cares who the US "supports" in war efforts? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is not a US new site. A worldwide encyclopedia shouldn't publish every US policy and decision. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This was obviously going to happen, and we can't just post every single US decision, per above. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – We are not a detrumpification ticker. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

==== Removal of [[2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest]] from Ongoing ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest
| nom cmt = 
| sign =
The oldest item blurbed in the ITN template is [[2021 Russian protests]], which has updates up to Feburary 2. This is the benchmark I am using to assess for updates in the [[2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest]] article (are updates older than this). In the past 5 days, here are the recent updates in the farmer's protest article:
*A quote about farmers demands (Note: the list of farmers demands uses references that are all 2+ months old from early December, so it does not appear that the list of demands themselves has changed)
*Two sentences about placement of road barricades on the way to Delhi
*A journalist is granted bail
*Human Rights Watch issues a statement
*The most substantial update is with regards to a "social media war" that "erupted after a tweet by Rihanna"
Due to the lack of continuing substantial updates to the article that are more recent than the oldest item on ITN, this should not remain in Ongoing indefinitely and should be removed. The article can be renominated if future protests worsen and the article reflects such. While I am sure there is more recent news coverage of recent events, these events are not reflected in the article by substantial updates, which is a requirement for items to remain in the Ongoing section. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support Removal''' The most recent update was the Republic day protest over a week ago and it was a month between that and the one before. Article also suffers the usual pathologies of hyper-reporting, quote farm, and need for a copyedit. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 01:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' again as this event is still very much ongoing. It is getting active international attention per the nomination, and another example is [[Greta Thunberg]] became involved on February 3 (per the article). It has not resolved in any sufficient manner to justify removal at this time. The Russian protests can be added to ongoing in parallel without needing to remove this item. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 01:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': still in the news, especially after [[Rihanna]]'s tweet yesterday strangely effected a strong reaction from the Indian govt. Coverage of the event via [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55931894 BBC], [https://apnews.com/article/rihanna-tweet-india-farmer-protest-0da80165193bcace2ca3fde32c5900c6 Associated Press], [https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/dont-know-rihanna-greta-but-welcome-their-support-rakesh-tikait-947654.html Deccan Herald], [https://www.dw.com/en/india-slams-celebrities-for-supporting-protesting-farmers/a-56438270 Deutsche Welle], and [https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Greta-and-Rihanna-lend-support-to-plight-of-Indian-farmers Nikkei], among others. [[User:Bait30| Bait30 ]] [[User Talk:Bait30|''Talk 2 me pls''?]] 04:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
**As I noted in the nom, yes, this is still being reported in news articles, but Twitter drama involving Rihanna and Greta Thunberg is a pretty low bar with limited lasting notable impact, if any. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', as above; still making headlines; on the BBC homepage when I checked a short while ago. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]]) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' This was up for removal as recently as last week, and we were all assured that THE NEXT BIG PROTEST that weekend would finally provide the updates necessary to keep it in Ongoing. That never happened; it was CRYSTAL as I pointed out at the time, and the material updates to the article do not even rise to the level of police blotter (we're now in Twitter beef territory!).[[Special:Contributions/130.233.213.199|130.233.213.199]] ([[User talk:130.233.213.199|talk]]) 08:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
**There is an entire separate article about that here: [[2021 Farmers' Republic Day violence]]. It was split off from the main article and linked. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 17:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' article not being updated? Time to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support removal''' While protests are very much still ongoing, if noone is going to update the article I don't really see the point. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 13:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal''' – Per ''TRM'', and because the topic has long been hyped. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 13:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' to {{u|The Rambling Man}}, {{u|Gex4pls}}, {{u|Sca}}: if you are going to support because the article is not being updated, then please look at the article history and note that it is being updated, therefore you should oppose. By comparison, look at the recent history of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] article--[[2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest]] is being more actively updated! The last major content add to the pandemic article was on January 29. Are you saying that the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] should be removed from ongoing because it is no longer being actively updated? - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Of the new edits, though they are plentiful, many have been reverted or are reverts, and those that aren't are mostly either A: referencing or adding stuff from december/January or B: Adding info about social media controversies. These are still edits, hence my weak support, but none of these are about CURRENT protests or any substantial updates. About the COVID 19 pandemic article, you are right that the article should be updated more, and that is a seperate discussion in it's own right. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Even if there is a bit of edit warring going on (which indicates that it is an active topic), there are content edits as of yesterday (February 4). Again, compared to the last real content edit to [[COVID-19 pandemic]] being on January 29, nearly a week earlier. If this article is removed on the basis of updates, then I will nominate the pandemic article for removal on the same basis and it would be hypocritical to have a different outcome. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying it's not an active topic, it undeniably is, I'm saying the size of the updates doesn't reflect that. None of them relate to any substantial current events (save for some twitter tomfoolery). If the COVID-19 pandemic article is not receiving proper updates, then I may support nominating it for removal, if not simply to attract more editors. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LaserLegs/2021_Indian_farmers_protest_20210205 here are all the content edits since January 10th]. The rev links are broken because of a bug in my code dealing with apostrophies in article titles that I don't have time to fix right now. Please indicate the content edits adding "new, pertinent information" as stipulated in the [[WP:ITN#Ongoing_section]] guidelines. Seriously, what's the point of having criteria if we're just going to !vote count opposes which ignore them. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:::So similarly for [[COVID-19 pandemic]], what does that look like and are you going to support removal if it is similar? - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I can't run the tool against it just because of the number of edits and how big the articles are now (I could probably look back 90 days with a few hacks) but yes, if I had the same data and it showed the same level of staleness in the target article I'd absolutely support pulling it from ongoing. Start that discussion if you want. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Would have been support 2 days ago. But now Indian news is describing an insurrection component to this, which would suggest a change to more civil conflict than protests. [[User:Albertaont|Albertaont]] ([[User talk:Albertaont|talk]]) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
**The article has not been updated to reflect these recent updates. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:::1,200 words seems enough on this topic, for now anyway. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The farmers' protest is still going strong. ([https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754 BBC: "War-like fortification to protect Delhi"]) [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Lokman Slim ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Lokman Slim
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/4/lebanese-anti-hezbollah-activist-found-dead-in-this-car Al Jazeera]
| updated = yes
| nominator = TuckerGladden 
| updaters =
| nom cmt = Lebanese social activist who was assassinated. Article looks good.
| sign = '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Oppose''' citations missing, raw URLs, odd Germanic Capitalisation of Heading... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' some citations needed, and I have questions over NPOV. The heading on his death is labelled "assassination", with no clear evidence that he was assassinated (just speculation). [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*:He was a political activist who was shot dead, that's an assassination. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 12:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Opposers @[[User:The Rambling Man]], @[[User:Joseph2302]] Can you please look back over the article once more? '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the record, thanks to TuckerGladden for bringing it up to scratch. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Robert A. Altman ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Robert A. Altman
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://kotaku.com/zenimax-co-founder-ceo-robert-altman-has-died-1846194603 Kotaku]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Masem 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = Brief but well-sourced, co-founder of Zenimax/Bethesda game developers
| sign = [[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' Looks like a good one! '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article's pretty good, all sourced and whatnot [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Some of the BCCI trial section needs references, which I have tagged. I checked the WaPo and Times refs, which don't mention the tagged details. Rm "ready". '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article is well sourced and seems like a good candidate. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have resolved the remaining CNs, everything else looks good to go. But man, getting on the shitlists of then-Senator and later-Secretary of State John Kerry, the Federal Reserve AND the CIA? No wonder this guy's dead.[[Special:Contributions/130.233.213.199|130.233.213.199]] ([[User talk:130.233.213.199|talk]]) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' BCCI section now sourced. Great work. [[User:Spengouli|Spengouli]] ([[User talk:Spengouli|talk]]) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 3 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 3]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 3}}
{{cob}}
----
====(Posted) RD: Tony Trabert====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Tony Trabert
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/sports/tennis/Tony-Trabert-dead.html ''New York Times''], [https://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2021/02/tony-trabert-obituary-tennis-rip/92715/ ''Tennis.com''], [https://www.atptour.com/en/news/tony-trabert-obituary-2021 ''ATP''], [https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/university-of-cincinnati/2021/02/04/tony-trabert-tennis-hall-famer-uc-bearcat-standout-dies-90/4390978001/ ''Cincinnati.com'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Wolbo
| updater =
| nom cmt = Former US tennis player and TV commentator. Won five Grand Slam singles titles and was ranked world No.1 in 1955.
| sign = --[[User:Wolbo|Wolbo]] ([[User talk:Wolbo|talk]]) 00:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*<s>'''Oppose''' - looks mostly good but lacking references in a few spots. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
: {{u|Indefensible}}, I have added several references, can you have a look again if this is sufficient? --[[User:Wolbo|Wolbo]] ([[User talk:Wolbo|talk]]) 09:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – the "Major finals" and "Singles performance timeline" sections are unreferenced. See [[Ashley Cooper (tennis)]] (which was successfully nominated to ITNRD last May) as an example of what is expected. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 10:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per the above comment, those sections need sourcing- even if it's just from a stats website. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
: {{u|Bloom6132}}, {{u|Joseph2302}}, sources have now been added to these sections. The Ashley Cooper example was useful.--[[User:Wolbo|Wolbo]] ([[User talk:Wolbo|talk]]) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Glad you found the Cooper article helpful. The last sentence of the "Post-playing career" and "Awards and honors" sections are unreferenced. You may want to remove the Trabert Cup sentence, as even I found it difficult to find any reliable sources re its establishment in 2000. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::: {{u|Bloom6132}}, I temporarily removed both sentences. Will re-add the Kramer comment on the 21 best players after I have found the reference (I know it exists). Could find plenty of references to the Tony Trabert Cup but those were all to editions of the tournament and have not yet found any source to support that is was established in 2000. --[[User:Wolbo|Wolbo]] ([[User talk:Wolbo|talk]]) 13:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - article looks good now per improvements by {{u|Wolbo}}.
*'''Posted to RD'''. Referencing has improved. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Haya Harareet====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Haya Harareet
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-ben-hur-star-haya-harareet-dies-1.9508938 ''Haaretz'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Tunestoons
| updater =
| nom cmt = Only been slightly updated; filmography needs referencing and there is admittedly not much substantive information about her film roles
| sign = [[User:Tunestoons|Tunestoons]] ([[User talk:Tunestoons|talk]]) 11:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Oppose''' too much unreferenced. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' A whole section missing inline citations. ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|The Aafī on Mobile]] [[User talk:AafiOnMobile|(talk)]] 10:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Jim Weatherly====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Jim Weatherly
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2021/02/03/jim-weatherly-dies-midnight-train-to-georgia-ole-miss-football/4383102001/ ''The Tennessean'']; [https://www.djournal.com/lifestyle/jim-weatherly-pontotoc-native-and-hall-of-fame-songwriter-dies/article_3ef7b04d-fdc8-5f9f-b2a1-b2c4dd6013ce.html ''Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 10:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' Appropriate depth of coverage; referenced. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 18:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Well referenced; being a Mississippian is a plus. :) '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Wayne Terwilliger ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Wayne Terwilliger
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/mlb/texas-rangers/article248910134.html]
| updated = yes
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| updaters = PCN02WPS, Rcb1, Jkaharper
| nom cmt = American baseball player/coach. <s>Some referencing problems, I'll be working on those shortly.</s>
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 17:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Comment''' References have been added. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Seems like a good article. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 02:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 2 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 2]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 2}}
{{cob}}
----
==== (Posted) RD: Millie Hughes-Fulford ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Millie Hughes-Fulford
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/millie-hughes-fulford-nasas-first-female-payload-specialist-in-space-dies-at-75/ MSN]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Indefensible 
| updaters = Indefensible
| nom cmt = American scientist, NASA astronaut.
| sign = - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}

*'''Support''' Well-sourced and a reasonable length - this nom is eminently [[wikt:defensible|defensible]]. [[User:Joofjoof|Joofjoof]] ([[User talk:Joofjoof|talk]]) 06:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Libuše Domanínská====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Libuše Domanínská
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/zemrela-pevkyne-libuse-domaninska-emeritni-solistka-opery-nd/1991420 in Czech]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Gerda Arendt
| updater = Gerda Arendt
| nom cmt = Operatic soprano who made a great Czech composer known beyond their home country. Well described in various sources in various languages. Age 96. Expanded.
| sign = [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support'''. Short, but quite reasonable quality-wise. I am not sure how much an article of this kind could realistically be expected to grow. —''[[User:Brigade Piron|Brigade Piron]]'' ([[User talk:Brigade Piron|talk]]) 16:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' quite short, but fine for RD. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 16:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good enough. [[User:Grimes2|Grimes2]] ([[User talk:Grimes2|talk]]) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all of the above. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*: Thank you, all. I added roles (some operas and composers I never heard of), and the German Wikipedia now has an article, in case someone has time to get over more from there. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Rennie Davis====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Rennie Davis
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/politics/rennie-davis-dead.html ''The New York Times'']; [https://apnews.com/article/colorado-democratic-national-convention-chicago-tom-hayden-illinois-7381d8fcab9d56d77fd3c1d8fd783cad Associated Press]
| updated = yes
| nominator = GeoGreg
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt = Well-known American activist, member of the Chicago Seven, one of the subjects of a recent feature film.
| sign = [[User:GeoGreg|GeoGreg]] ([[User talk:GeoGreg|talk]]) 02:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - seems to meet requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 04:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' everything is in order.{{s|'''Oppose''' The outcome of the trial (which was not straightforward) is not discussed in this BLP. Arguably, the protest/riot/trial is the single event giving this subject WP:N.}}[[Special:Contributions/130.233.213.199|130.233.213.199]] ([[User talk:130.233.213.199|talk]]) 07:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Done. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 08:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Closed) Bump Alexei Navalny ====
{{atop|([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]]) Strong opposition to posting. Time to close.--[[User:Kiril Simeonovski|Kiril Simeonovski]] ([[User talk:Kiril Simeonovski|talk]]) 23:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
| article = Alexei Navalny
| image = File:Alexey Navalny 2017.jpg
| blurb = Russian politician '''[[Alexei Navalny]]''' is sentenced to imprisonment in a [[corrective labor colony]], prompting [[2021_Russian_protests#2_February|further public protests]]
| recent deaths = no
| ongoing = no
| ITNR = no
| altblurb = 
| altblurb2 = 
| sources = [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55913614 BBC] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed Guardian]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Modest Genius 
| creator = 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = This is an update to the existing blurb that's about to roll off, which was for the protests against Navalny's arrest. He's now been sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in a penal colony. Imprisonment of a leading opposition politician seems significant enough to merit a blurb on its own. It has also prompted a new round of public protests, mass arrests, and diplomatic condemnation. I suggest we replace with the new blurb and bump to the top. Article is updated and seems well referenced.
| sign = [[User:Modest Genius|Modest Genius]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|talk]] 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Weak oppose''' - agreed that this is in the news, but since we covered his arrest already, it seems slightly redundant to then cover his sentencing as a fresh item one week later. If the protests are major and ongoing, perhaps the "Ongoing" section would be a better fit?  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' remove the previous blurb and promote this one to top of the box. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' posting sentencing, per years of consensus around criminal proceedings, and completely expected. If this is still generating headlines and the article reflects that, then make an Ongoing nomination. Note: "roll-off" Ongoing posting was discussed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_72#(Closed)_Ongoing_Roll-off_Posting here], so please make a separate nomination.[[Special:Contributions/130.233.213.199|130.233.213.199]] ([[User talk:130.233.213.199|talk]]) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
**It's both conviction (of parole violation) and sentencing. Past practice has been to post at the time of conviction. [[User:Modest Genius|Modest Genius]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|talk]] 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per 130. Just a natural progression and suitable for ongoing should the main blurb roll off. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support Bump''' Article is pretty good, topic is in the news, it won't bump anything off the bottom and the Estonian election is getting pretty stale. '''Oppose Ongoing''' he's been sentenced to the gulag and that's the end of it. All that'll be ongoing from here on it whining on social media and strongly worded statements of concern from various governments. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I don't think anyone genuinely thought his trial would end in any way other than sentencing to a gulag.--'''[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]'''-''([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])'' 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Mention it in protests page, not ITN. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the conviction/sentence was fully expected; more than likely the protests will continue (into ongoing). --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – In the news [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/03/kremlin-tries-downplay-navalny-jailing-thousands-arrested-riot-police] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-navalny/kremlin-critic-alexei-navalny-jailed-declares-putin-the-underwear-poisoner-idUSKBN2A20N6] and likely to engender further protests. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 15:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' posting when Putin imprisons an opponent would be like posting when a earthquake doesn't happen. ''[[User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost|GreatCaesarsGhost]]'' 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Russia sends a putin opponent to jail! In other news, the sky is blue and fish are swimming in the sea. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==== (Posted) RD: Charan Gill ====
{{atop|{{nac}} Closing this nomination with a statement of protest against Admin actions. Details on the closing post. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 04:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
| article = Charan Gill
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://globalnews.ca/news/7616044/charan-gill-obit-bc/ Global News Canada]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin 
| updaters = Ktin
| nom cmt = Canadian social justice and human rights activist. Article has shaped up well to a compact C-class biography.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 06:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - article seems to meet requirements. Sounds like an interesting life. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 08:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Request to Admins'''. This article is now the last one (sixth) on the carousel and has stayed on the carousel for ~12 hours. When you post the next RD, please consider giving this article some more time on the carousel before bumping it off. Line #2 of the RD is currently 30-40% filled on most screen resolutions. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* {{ping|Stephen}} -- This article spent ~14 hours on RD before being bumped off the carousel. There is 50% of row #2 that is still available. I request you to consider bringing this article back on the RD carousel. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:*We already had this discussion on another item? [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 03:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:*:{{u|Stephen}}, I fail to see why we can not use the 50% of the remaining space on row #2 to reintroduce this article and allowing it to run 24 hours. Is there anything we stand to lose by doing this? Editors do spend a significant amount of time to bring articles up to homepage levels of hygiene. The least we can do is to allow the RDs to run, particularly when space is available on row #2. Not to mention that the COVID banner was removed to create space for a row #3 if needed. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 03:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::*As explained, there was no consensus for minimum durations or more than 6 RDs. Removing the COVID banner means we can now support 4 or 5 blurbs, as we used to before it was introduced. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 03:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::*:{{u|Stephen}}, But, there is 50% space remaining on row 2. How would we explain not wanting to use that? [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 03:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Statement of Protest'''. Adding my statement of protest here against the above Admin action. With 50% of space being available in row #2, the lack of flexibility shown to go on to retain this as RD7 on the carousel shows a deliberate lack of consideration to editors' efforts to work an article to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. While recourse available might be limited or even nil, there is nothing more this specific editor can do. This thread is being closed. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 04:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*:What you can do is start a discussion to see if there is community consensus to increase to 7, or even 8 RDs, under certain circumstances. This is better than asking repeatedly and complaining when you get the same answer that you don't like. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}

====(Posted) RD: Maureen Colquhoun ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Maureen Colquhoun
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/maureen-colquhoun-the-uks-first-openly-lesbian-mp-dies-aged-92 Guardian], [https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-politician-colquhoun/britains-first-openly-lesbian-mp-maureen-colquhoun-dies-at-92-idUSL8N2K869X Reuters]
| updated = yes
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| updaters = Sunshineisles2, MumphingSquirrel
| nom cmt = First openly lesbian British MP.
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 06:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' - article seems to meet requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak oppose'''</s> - few citations needed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|The Rambling Man}}, would you mind CN-tagging some of the places that need refs? [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_Colquhoun&diff=prev&oldid=1004573838 did] about 12 hours ago. Looks like they've been addressed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As per Indefensible. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Bob McCallister====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Bob McCallister
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.pgatour.com/news/2021/02/02/bob-mccallister-two-time-pga-tour-winner-dies-age-86.html PGA Tour]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt = Only announced and reported today (February 2).
| sign = —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - short but sourcing is adequate. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - This guy was known for being a golfer, right, so the "Career" section should be the most important shouldn't it? Yet our article has only six short sentences in that section, one of which is "He was sponsored by Lawrence Welk". Unmarking as Ready for now, because I think we can do better than this. I can see that his career didn't last that long, but give us a bit more detail on how it progressed please. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I thought that too, but then there are an awful lot of golfers out there who don't amount to much. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Amakuru}} done. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the Career section is only 3 lines long- this needs significant expansion. Also, the "Best results in major championships" don't seem to be sourced. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 12:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Joseph2302}} Fixed. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*:{{ping|Bloom6132}} I think this refers to the lines in the inbox with his best results in the Majors. It says that his best results were making the cut at the 1966 Masters, tying for 21st at the 1963 US Open, and that he never played in the Open Championship. That should be sourced. Otherwise I think your changes look good. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*{{re|Amakuru}} Missed that; thanks for explaining! —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Article missing out too much. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 13:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|WikiLove Goat}} done. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sourced and all that. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{re|Spencer|Stephen|Amakuru}} been ready for 9 hours now. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 23:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Grant Jackson====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Grant Jackson (baseball)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pirates/2021/02/02/Grant-Jackson-Pirates-Game-7-winner-in-1979-dies-at-age-78/stories/202102020103 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
| updated = 
| nominator = TuckerGladden 
| updaters = TuckerGladden, Gex4pls
| nom cmt = Baseball player who played for the Phillies, Pirates, Orioles, and more, and later a coach. Won the World Series with the Pirates. Article looks OK.
| sign = '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> plenty unreferenced. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*:@[[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]], all fixed along with some help. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*::'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' looks good. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 06:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Abu Salman Shahjahanpuri====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Abu Salman Shahjahanpuri
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = https://alert.com.pk/archives/27674
| updated = 
| nominator = TheAafi 
| updaters = TheAafi
| nom cmt = A known, notable scholar and historian, admired both in India and Pakistan. This deserves a main page mention. Though the news has not been widely covered. Ideas?
| sign = ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Neutral''' Eh. I don't know how to feel about this one. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 18:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
<s> *'''Neutral''' Part referanced, part not. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
*: I don't know if anything is left unreferenced? Could you please point out? ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|The Aafī on Mobile]] [[User talk:AafiOnMobile|(talk)]] 18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' no way enough time has passed to allow a sufficiently in-depth search for a free image. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|The Rambling Man}}, If that's the single issue, I've removed it. Image may be added later. What else stops the article from ITN/RD? Nothing? Article has a good shape. Good lede. Everything is referenced well. ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 05:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The legacy section could probably be dispersed throughout the article. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*: {{u|Gex4pls}}, Fixed few things and updated a bit more references. I've exams in the morning and would leave this as it is until I'm done with the exams. I'd appreciate sincere advises. [[Daily Jang]] has now reported his death as well. ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{u|TheAafi}} Nice work, I think I'll Support if there could be a better image, good luck on exams! [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 19:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article is better, I don't know about any wikimedia problems with the image, but the new one at least looks better than the old one. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Inadequate depth of coverage. Article has a huge gap in coverage between ~1960 and 2002, when he was presumably doing all of his writing. What did he write about/what was his research field? There is a single sentence stating that he was an "''authority on historical and political movements of the Indian subcontinent''", but this needs to be a whole section, or well fleshed-out paragraph at minimum. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*: {{u|Spencer}}, Allow me some time and I'll address this issue. I'll be back once I'm done with this. ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|The Aafī on Mobile]] [[User talk:AafiOnMobile|(talk)]] 03:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*::{{u|AafiOnMobile}}, focus on your exams. Do not worry about rushing to make these edits. You have at least 4-5 more days to get this article ready for homepage. Good luck. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 05:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Ktin}},Thank you for the supplement. I'm done with the exam and this is why I'm editing the article. I'll be expanding and updating it timely. :) ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Spencer}}, I've tried addressing this issue as much as I could. It is very hard at this moment to find much in-depth coverage, even offline. I guess the book [[Akhtarul Wasey]] has co-authored about him would be available here, but still idk when I'll have access to it.The {{tq|What did he write about/what was his research field?}} is addressed mostly. ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per TRM - too soon for a non-free image to be used. For all we know someone might have photographed him on Monday. Enough time needs to pass since his death to be certain that a free alternative cannot reasonably be found.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Amakuru}}, If the image is the only problem, let us not use it at all. A free alternative image may be added later. [[Muhammad Adil Khan]], that I wrote in October, is still without an image, and it featured in the ITN section on [[Special:Permalink/983617625|18 October 2020]]. I don't know any other problem? ─ [[User:TheAafi|The Aafī]] [[User talk:TheAafi|(talk)]] 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Captain Sir Tom Moore ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Captain Tom
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-55881753
| updated = 
| nominator = KTC 
| updaters = Joseph2302
| nom cmt = 
| sign = [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' and added myself as an updater. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' Did plenty for his community. May he rest in peace. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' Article is impeccably cited, no reason to wait. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Note: his misguided first marriage to "Billie" (which lasted 15 years), has now been expunged, as his autobiography is not considered a suitable source (Talk page discussion ongoing). [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' the medals section is mostly unreferenced, but I also don't care. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Was going to nominate this myself. His death should definitely be "In the news". [[User:REDMAN 2019|REDMAN 2019]] ([[User talk:REDMAN 2019|talk]]) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' ftr. In fact, the strongest I've ever given an ITN to date. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|TheSandDoctor]] [[User talk:TheSandDoctor|Talk]] 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Hal Holbrook====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Hal Holbrook
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/theater/hal-holbrook-dead.html ''The New York Times''], [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/feb/02/hal-holbrook-dies-aged-95-deep-throat-all-the-presidents-men-mark-twain Guardian]
| updated = yes
| nominator = TDKR Chicago 101
| updater =
| updater2 =
| nom cmt = Article well sourced. Death was announced today (a few minutes ago) despite his death being a week old.
| sign = --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 06:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' I was just coming here to nominate him. [[User:Johndavies837|Johndavies837]] ([[User talk:Johndavies837|talk]]) 06:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Deep Throat was Abraham Lincoln, the people need to know. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak neutral''' - the bio starts quite nicely, but then degenerates a bit into a series of one-line paragraphs. It's generally OK though, so I'll stay on the fence for now. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Amakuru}} Fixed it. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Writing problems are fixed and it's all cited well. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 13:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' - thanks TDKR for addressing the point I raised...  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

== February 1 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 February 1]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 February 1}}
{{cob}}
----
====(Posted) RD: Emil J. Freireich====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Emil J. Freireich
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Trailblazing-Houston-oncologist-Dr-Emil-15917718.php ''Houston Chronicle'']; [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/02/02/leukemia-dr-emil-freireich-giant-modern-medicine-dies-93/4353806001/ ''USA Today'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 08:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Weak oppose''' - the guy had a long career, but really the only thing we're covering is the chemotherapy developments which took place in the 1960s. Is there nothing else to say about his subsequent work? Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 12:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Amakuru}} I've added an additional paragraph that should suffice. Please note that every award listed is post-1960s. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Article really doesn't do his career justice, particularly his career in the 1950s at NCI. Ref 1 is a dead link for me (bare link url to the NIH site). Article should clarify when he started at MD Anderson. Possible additional sources:
**[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32163608/] Pop the DOI into [[Sci-Hub]] if you need to get around the paywall. Has more details about his personal life including family.
**[https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Legendary-oncologist-returns-to-the-limelight-6164234.php]
**[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/magazine/oncologist-improvisation.html]
**[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/tough-medicine]
--'''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Spencer}} Thanks for the sources! I've archived the deadlink and made use of the first one to address the last CN tag. The second source was already included (ref 9), but I've re-used it to verify his start at MD Anderson. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - sad to see this, remember reading about him a while back and he made significant contributions early in the oncology field. Article is understated and could use improvement but meets the minimum requirements I think. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's fine. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted to RD'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 15:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Jacqueline Shumiatcher ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Jacqueline Shumiatcher
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/jacqueline-shumiatcher-regina-obit-1.5897557 CBC]
| updated = yes
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| updaters = Yoshi876
| creator = Yoninah
| nom cmt = Canadian philanthropist.
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 06:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' - article seems to meet requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 10:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: John Sweeney (labor leader)====
{{ITN candidate
| article = John Sweeney (labor leader)
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/us/john-j-sweeney-dead.html NYT]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updater =
| nom cmt = American labor leader. Article is almost there. A few sections are unsourced and these would need to be sourced.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 23:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Oppose''' Almost nothing on his death, and although it starts out well sourced, by the end there are only ~1-2 sources per section. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Gex4pls}}, yup. Will require some work. I share your same concern, particularly the latter part. If you want to get to it before I do later tonight, go for it. Else, I will attempt later tonight. Cheers. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*::I'll try and get some sourcing and whatnot done in the next couple of hours, but I doubt it will be enough for the time being. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Gex4pls}}, I over-estimated my own ability to edit on a work-day night. This might have to wait until tomorrow. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - presumably some of the same references which cover the early sections also apply to the later sections which need improvement currently, but still have to be matched appropriately. This is perhaps a case of having too much content being inhibitory to posting, versus someone whose article has much less content which can more easily get approved. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Indefensible}}, Yes, partly agree. But, we can definitely improve the article. [[Ricky Powell]] was in a similar state, but, we were able to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. This one will take time, but, will be done soon. Cheers. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 07:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' too many unreferenced claims. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Ricky Powell====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Ricky Powell
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ricky-powell-photographer-beastie-boys-obit-tributes-1122319/ Rolling Stones]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Ktin
| updaters = Ktin, MarnetteD, Gex4pls
| nom cmt = American photographer. <s>Article requires some good amount of work including acting on removal of the yellow box. I will work on this one later this evening. If someone wants to get to this before, please feel free to. Thanks.</s> Thorough rewrite done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 23:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' - looks good to me. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' good to go. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Peter T. Fay====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Peter T. Fay
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/obituaries/article248919039.html ''Miami Herald'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Comment''' American attorney and judge. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' per [[WP:PROMO]]. There is a bit where the writer mentions things about Fay that sounds like a promotion. Otherwise it's ready. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' Meh, article is OK. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose'''. Added one [CN] tag for info not covered in a ref. Incomplete depth of coverage: as with other judges nominated at RD I would really like to see specific information on cases he saw, rather than vague obit-style quotes about his career. Article could also use an update, as St. Thomas will only be naming it's Moot Courtroom after Fay, not the whole school [https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2019/02/21/st-thomas-law-school-renamed-for-u-s-court-of-appeals-judge-peter-fay/?slreturn=20210102191623 (source)]. Other gaps appear in his career, such as him serving on the Special Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel from 1994-2006 [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180427005032/en/Judge-Peter-T.-Fay-to-Receive-the-2018-American-Inns-of-Court-Professionalism-Award-for-the-Eleventh-Circuit] [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BGGZ0nSb-W4J:https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/judges/hon-peter-t-fay+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]. [https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-07-26-8703020589-story.html Another source of information]. Per [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Third_Branch/rD4ODVpfPckC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Peter+T.+Fay&pg=RA11-PA3&printsec=frontcover this source], Judge Fay was noteworthy for "unique and innovative [judicial] procedures" related to an airline disaster case, highlighted more in depth [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147638557.pdf here]. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Jack Palladino====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Jack Palladino
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/jack-palladino-dead.html ''The New York Times'']; [https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-music-political-scandals-celebrity-courtney-love-f5b399d711c194aec54bc04c7b3bfa26 Associated Press]; [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Jack-Palladino-famed-S-F-private-detective-15915183.php ''San Francisco Chronicle'']
| updated = yes
| nominator = Bloom6132
| updater = Bloom6132
| updater2 = Pkeets
| nom cmt =
| sign = [[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 04:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' American private investigator and attorney. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 13:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) RD: Andrew Brooks ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Andrew Brooks
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/science/andrew-brooks-dead.html NYT]
| updated = 
| nominator = Ktin
| updaters = Indefensible
| creator = Drew Dupont
| nom cmt = COVID-19 researcher. Article is being fleshed out. <s>Not ready yet for mainpage but, I will work on it later this evening in case others do not.</s> Gave this a quick break into segments and added some basic content. But, article is ready as it stands right now to get in within the 7 day marker. Thanks {{u|Indefensible}} first for the catch and {{u|Amakuru}} for the second catch.
| sign = [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Comment''' - deserves to be posted but may be too late already, as he died on January 23 and an announcement came out on the 26th. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 21:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Indefensible}}, Eikes. My bad -- I missed this. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*::If the earliest announcement was on 26 Jan then you should be OK. You have up to 7 days to get it ready.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::Pretty close then, let's get this one ready {{u|Ktin}}. Looks pretty good already. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' A bit short but says everything it needs to. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' A shade too brief on his academic/research career; he has 70 publications--what were they about? '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Spencer}}, thanks Spencer. This is done.Please have a look at your convenience. [[User:Ktin|Ktin]] ([[User talk:Ktin|talk]]) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 07:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Simeon Nyachae ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Simeon Nyachae
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/61715-life-times-simeon-nyachae Kenyans.co.ke]
| updated = 
| nominator = Indefensible 
| updaters = PCN02WPS
| nom cmt = Kenyan businessman & politician.
| sign = - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 19:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*<s>'''Support'''</s> satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:'''Weak oppose''' AleatoryPonderings' point is spot on, some of the tone needs adjustment, let's stick with biography, not hagiography. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 21:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' Full of satis. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
*<s>:'''Oppose''' Thank you, [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]]. Article needs tone fix. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 04:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
*<del>'''Oppose''' per [[WP:PROMO]]. Reads like a bio you'd find on his personal website. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)</del>
** '''Support'''. Nice job {{u|PCN02WPS}} in cleaning up the prose. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As per Aleatory above. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Pinging oppose votes: {{ping|The Rambling Man|TuckerGladden|AleatoryPonderings|WikiLove Goat}} - I have gone through the article and done my best to remove the promotional tone and bring the article back in line with [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]. I'd appreciate if you'd give the article another look. Thanks, [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 05:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Thanks for updating the article PCN02WPS. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Sweet, '''support'''. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
<s>*'''Comment''' TuckerGladden and WikiLove Goat are the same user and have been blocked for sockpuppetry. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 21:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
:Hi, [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]]. Hope you are doing well. I was falsely blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet of Valkyried. I'm back now. Just wanted to clear the air. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 00:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::Ah, ok, I will strike - sorry about that. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article improved, I don't see any issues now. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Dustin Diamond====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Dustin Diamond
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/dustin-diamond-dead-saved-by-the-bell-screech-1234897484/ Variety]
| updated = 
| nominator = Muboshgu 
| updaters = JasonH1978, TropicAces, PCN02WPS
| nom cmt = 
| sign = – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Oppose''' - needs referencing improvement still. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' tagged. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''{{strike|Oppose}}Support''' Article is now just about fine.{{strike|Very poor referencing, and some writing issues too.}} [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Very poorly written and has very bad referencing. Filmography is tagged; issues need to be resolved before we think about posting this. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''{{strike|Oppose}}''' {{strike|Maintenance tag in section.}} Post posting '''support'''. Kudos to {{ping|PCN02WPS}} for the improvements. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb'''. No, I'm just kidding. [[User:BD2412|'''''BD2412''''']] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' No joke, it's better now. Adequate, anyway, by my eye. I don't consider filmography sections, though. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 05:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Unsourced filmography.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' filmography completely unsourced, multiple other places need a cite too. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 10:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::Not completely unsourced, ''Screeched: Saved by the Smell'' has ''two''. Granted, that just makes the rest look worse. But hey, at least the filmography doesn't imply he stabbed a guy, like the sourced section does. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 11:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Well in fairness, sources do actually say he was sentenced for stabbing someone![https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/us/dustin-diamond-sentenced/]  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 12:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::They only got him for disorderly conduct and possession, they ''tried to'' prove more (and couldn't). [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 12:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::But yes, CNN ''did'' actually say what you say it did there, ''your'' point is fair enough. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 12:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
<s>*'''Oppose''' Horrible article. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)</s> Blocked sock. [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I [[WP:BOLD]]ly commented out the filmography (not the first time this has happened) because honestly, Diamond was known as one character and that's covered well in the career section. Seems good enough for me. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
** That is not an appropriate action; as an actor, I would fully expect a filmography section to be present, so commenting it out to sweep it under the rug is not acceptable. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*** Seems to fit the spirit of [[WP:V|verification, not truth]] to me. Not sure why the films/shows themselves are not considered reliable sources; no difference in editorial oversight between a textual and visual medium, but that's not my hill to die on. - '''[[User:Floydian|Floydian]]''' [[User_talk:Floydian|τ]] [[Special:Contributions/Floydian|¢]] 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
****Some of the films don't even have articles. [[WP:V]] is policy. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*****As TRM states, if these were all main roles easily checked by the lede of the target article, this likely won't be a problem. But most of these are guest spots, which require more detailed sourcing, which should have been added when they were added to the article per BLP sourcing requirements. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*** IDK what the problem his, he had one role that mattered: saved by the bell, listing every guest appearance in a table adds nothing of value for our readers, but I also don't care that much at this point. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I don't guarantee results, but I am making an attempt to clean up the article (writing and sourcing) in order to try to get this on the main page. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Pinging oppose votes: {{ping|Indefensible|The Rambling Man|Gex4pls|TuckerGladden|NoonIcarus|BD2412|Amakuru|Joseph2302|WikiLove Goat}} I have done my best to improve the quality of the article and its sourcing. I'd appreciate any feedback or re-evaluation of the nomination. Thanks, [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*::Much closer, but still has a few too many items that need references I think. Good work on the improvements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 06:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Indefensible}}, if it's not too much trouble, could you CN-tag some of the places that need refs? [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*::::Yes, have done so in the article in a few places where statements seem to be lacking a ref. Chances are they are covered by one of the existing refs and just need to be tagged. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 07:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{u|Indefensible}}, all CN tags have been taken care of. [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Referencing now sorted.-- [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''. Referencing looks in good shape now. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

====(Posted) RD: Jamie Tarses====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Jamie Tarses
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://deadline.com/2021/02/jamie-tarses-dead-tv-executive-producer-abc-friends-frasier-1234684624/ Deadline]
| updated = yes
| nominator = TuckerGladden
| updater = Bloom6132
| nom cmt = First woman president of ABC Entertainment. Article looks good.
| sign = '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*<s>'''Oppose''' - needs referencing improvement currently. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)</s>
:*{{re|Indefensible}} done. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' tagged. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|The Rambling Man}} tags now addressed. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''{{strike|Oppose}}''' {{strike|Entire filmography section unsourced.}} All fixed up, nice job Bloom. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{re|Gex4pls}} filmography all sourced now. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::*Sweet, changing to a support. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per improvement by Bloom6132, article now looks good. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

====RD: Percy Tucker====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Percy Tucker
| recent deaths = y00000000000000000

| sources = [https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/computicket-founder-percy-tucker-passes-away-covid/ The South African]
| updated = yes
| nominator = Abishe
| updater = Abishe
| nom cmt = introduced the first electronic theatre booking system in the world.
| sign = [[User:Abishe|Abishe]] ([[User talk:Abishe|talk]]) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
*'''Support''' Good little article, needs referencing though. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm surprised that if [[Computicket]] "drastically changed the fortunes in the global entertainment industry" that (a) it doesn't have an article and (b) I've never 'eard of it... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As per Tucker above. '''[[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove]]''' [[User_talk:WikiLove Goat|'''Goat''']] [[Special:Contribs/WikiLove Goat|🐐]] 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - article seems to meet RD requirements. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' - we're told that he founded Computicket and pioneered the use of electronic tickets (via a "source" which makes you click Next 18 times in order to view one of text!) and that he was CEO of the company for the next 23 years, but nothing beyond that. How did the company do during those years? Did it remain at the forefront of that business? And how was the product globalised? Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' per Amakuru. Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject. '''[[User:Spencer|Spencer]]'''[[User talk:Spencer|T•]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|C]] 16:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

==== (Posted) Aung San Suu Kyi detained in potential coup ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2021 Myanmar coup d'état attempt
| article2 = Aung San Suu Kyi
| image =
| blurb = [[State Counsellor of Myanmar]] '''[[Aung San Suu Kyi]]''' is '''[[2021 Myanmar coup d'état attempt|detained by the military]]''' in a potential coup.
| recent deaths = no
| ongoing = no
| ITNR = no
| altblurb =
| altblurb2 =
| sources = [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55882489 BBC], [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/world/asia/myanmar-coup-suu-kyi.html NYT], [https://apnews.com/article/aung-san-suu-kyi-myanmar-dda3d013897e14d5d0bd44d19eac9cd1 AP], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/01/aung-san-suu-kyi-and-other-figures-detained-in-myanmar-raids-says-ruling-party Guardian], [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-politics/myanmar-military-seizes-power-detains-elected-leader-aung-san-suu-kyi-idUSKBN2A00VC Reuters]
| updated = no
| nominator = Davey2116
| creator =
| updaters =
| nom cmt = Story still developing. I'd be okay with waiting to write a better blurb.
| sign = [[User:Davey2116|Davey2116]] ([[User talk:Davey2116|talk]]) 00:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
* '''Support''' but there should be a link to [[2021 Myanmar coup d'état attempt]]. [[User:Johndavies837|Johndavies837]] ([[User talk:Johndavies837|talk]]) 00:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

* '''Support''' We should use this article instead [[2021 Myanmar coup d%27%C3%A9tat attempt]] and also change it to 1 February, considering this happened at 1 February local time. [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]] ([[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 00:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::Done, thanks. [[User:Davey2116|Davey2116]] ([[User talk:Davey2116|talk]]) 00:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' the article sucks. Detained where? How? No statement from the military? If you take out the filler "background" section there is no meat on the article. Also can someone confirm if we like Aung San Suu Kyi or not? If we do, it's a coup, but if we don't, it's an "[[2019 Venezuelan coup attempt|uprising]]" --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:You can support a coup or a not, but it's a coup. The article is written in an encyclopedic and neutral tone. [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]] ([[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 00:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::Right but Maduro Derangement Syndrome compelled us to call the [[2019 Venezuelan coup attempt]] an "uprising". Anyway I think we "like" Aung San Suu Kyi because we blurbed her nobel prize, blurbed her getting out of prison, blurbed her election, so I expect "coup" is the correct nomenclature here but I just wanted someone to double check me. Article still sucks. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 00:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::: No, we (and, indeed, many others) don't like her anymore ([[Aung_San_Suu_Kyi#Response_to_violence_against_Rohingya_Muslims_and_refugees]]). Regardless, though, this is just a military coup. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Exactly. We incorrectly called the Venezuela one an uprising, but I don't think calling this one an uprising too would right that wrong. [[User:Davey2116|Davey2116]] ([[User talk:Davey2116|talk]]) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but the article does need a little work. [[User:Wowzers122|Wowzers122]] ([[User talk:Wowzers122|talk]]) 00:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - the paucity of information in the article is just because not much information is available right now. However, what's there is clear and well-cited and no doubt will continue to improve as more information is reported. [[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:'''Update needed''' - as the military has now confirmed this is a coup, the blurb should be changed to reflect that when it is posted. [[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' - the article is essentially a stub, Wikipedia is not a newspaper but rather an encyclopedia. It would be better not to rush but to wait until there is more information and the article is improved. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 01:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Wait''': The claim has not yet been independently verified. All sources are currently only referencing what the party says. [[User:AllegedlyHuman|AllegedlyHuman]] ([[User talk:AllegedlyHuman|talk]]) 01:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:The Military's own media has declared a 1 year state of emergency [https://twitter.com/waiwainu/status/1356063349310631937 tweet journalist source] [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]] ([[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 02:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' military confirms, then it's legit. Article is short but good enough given this development. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 02:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
**Though could we ''please'' not have the wall of reactions? No reasonable country is going to endorse the uprising. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 02:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' military confirms.--[[User:Namnguyenvn|Namnguyenvn]] ([[User talk:Namnguyenvn|talk]]) 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Bio article is good, other is meh. A major coup, could have ramifications throughout SE Asia. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 03:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{Posted}} The coup article has a statement by the military which I believe is the bare minimum to post, although I agree that it's currently a bit short. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
**@[[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]]: Shouldn't it say "coup d'état" instead of "potential coup"? The blurb with "potential coup" was written when the situation was still unclear. [[User:Johndavies837|Johndavies837]] ([[User talk:Johndavies837|talk]]) 03:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
***{{ping|Johndavies837}} I wanted to be cautious, but as it appears that the coup has been (for now) successful, it seems appropriate to duly change the blurb. (Also, FYI, use {{tl|ping}} to get the effect you wanted.) – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== January 31 ==
{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/2021 January 31]]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2021 January 31}}
{{cob}}
----
==== (Posted) RD: Michel Murr ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Michel Murr
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/veteran-politician-michel-murr-dies-from-covid-19/ar-BB1dfZzB MSN]
| updated = 
| nominator = Indefensible 
| updaters = 
| nom cmt = Lebanese deputy prime minister, interior minister. COVID-19.
| sign = - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Support''' satis. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Really nice article. [[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove Goat]] ([[User talk:WikiLove Goat|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article is good, all sourced and very well written. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==== 2021 World Men's Handball Championship ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2021 World Men's Handball Championship
| image = 
| blurb = [[Denmark men's national handball team|Denmark]] wins '''the [[2021 World Men's Handball Championship|World Men's Handball Championship]]'''.
| recent deaths = no 
| ongoing = no 
| ITNR = yes
| altblurb = 
| altblurb2 = 
| sources = [https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/denmark-retains-mens-handball-world-title-ahead-of-olympics/ Seattle Times]
| updated = no
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| creator = Kante4
| updaters = Ekkemannen, Kante4
| nom cmt = 
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Oppose''' a data dump. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!]]) 08:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per TRM. Needs some serious tidy up - there are far too many tables, and far too little prose. Including any commentary at all on Denmark's performances and matches which led to their win.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Hire a mechanic or something, cause this needs serious repairs. [[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove Goat]] ([[User talk:WikiLove Goat|talk]]) 13:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*:::''Say what?'' – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' almost no text about the tournament, not even a summary of the final. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph]][[User talk:Joseph2302|2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

==== RD: Abraham J. Twerski ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Abraham J. Twerski
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/abraham-twerski-famed-rabbi-and-psychiatrist-dies-at-age-90-657363], [https://triblive.com/local/regional/rabbi-dr-abraham-twerski-founder-of-gateway-rehab-dies-from-covid-at-90/]
| updated = yes
| nominator = PCN02WPS 
| updaters = DaringDonna, Pwslaw
| creator = Diament
| nom cmt = American rabbi and psychiatrist, died of COVID-19.
| sign = [[User:PCN02WPS|'''PCN02WPS''']] ([[User talk:PCN02WPS|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|contribs]]) 03:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC) 
}}
*'''Oppose'''. Vast swathes of the article are large block-quotes of a single scholar's take on his work. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|'''???''']]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|'''!!!''']]) 03:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per AleatoryPonderings. '''[[User:TuckerGladden|Tucker]]''' [[User_talk:TuckerGladden|'''Gladden''']] [[Special:Contribs/TuckerGladden|👑]] 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Seems like a nice guy, but I agree with AleatoryPonderings. Also, his works have almost no referances at all. [[User:WikiLove Goat|WikiLove Goat]] ([[User talk:WikiLove Goat|talk]]) 13:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Only two of his bajillion works are referenced, as well as the problems mentioned above. [[User:Gex4pls|Gex4pls]] ([[User talk:Gex4pls|talk]]) 13:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

==References==
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the [[WP:External Links#How to link|inline URL syntax]] <code><nowiki>[http://example.com]</nowiki></code> rather than using [[WP:CITE#How to format inline citations|<code><nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki></code> tags]], because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <code><nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki></code> tags are being used, here are their contents:
{{Reflist}}{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{Main Page topics|state=collapsed}}
[[Category:Wikipedia In the news]]
[[Category:Main Page discussions]]
</noinclude>

User talk:Pudeo

2021-02-07T16:23:17Z

Pudeo: Undid revision 1005417780 by Zindor (talk) Message has been read, though I disagree with the advice ('moving on' but striking 2 weeks old comments).

{{Archive box|{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-break}}[[User_talk:Pudeo/Archive1|April 2006–June 2018]]{{col-end}}}}
{| style="margin:1em left; {{Round corners}}; font-family:Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; border: 3px solid Brown; padding: 6px; background: Tan;"
| [[File:Edmund Blair Leighton - Old Times.jpg|200px|left]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: x-large;" | The talk page <big><big><big>💌📫</big></big></big>
|}

== [[Neo-nationalism]] ==

Please review [[WP:BRD]]. When your '''''B'''''old edit has been '''''R'''''everted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to '''''D'''''iscuss it on the article talk page, '''''not''''' to re-revert it, which is the first step to [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. During the discussion, the article remains in the ''status quo ante''.

You've been here long enough to know this. '''''No''''' edit on Wikipedia, with the exception of BLP-violations and pro=pedophilia, are immune from having to be discussed. [[WP:V]] does '''''not''''' require that every piece of information be '''''verfied''''', it requires that every piece of information be '''''verifiable'''''. The information you removed was certainly verifiable, the question now id" should it be in the article. '''''That''''' requires discussion, and '''''you''''' are required to start that discussion when asked to. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} reverting an unsourced IP addition is not a bold edit. Or should we talk which came first, the egg or the chicken? Besides being unsourced, it doesn't fit the lead, in my opinion, because the other descriptions are mostly policies like opposition to immigration, protectionism, anti-globalization whereas Nazism is an ideology and on a whole different level (although right-wing populism is also an ideology). --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 09:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
::In what way does it being made by an IP have any relevance? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
::I'm going to revert myself on that edit until I can take a closer (and more clear-eyed) look at it tomorrow. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} Alright. I don't even feel that strongly about it, I just think it comes as off. And no problem about the ANI thread, admittedly messing up with the font size would be a pretty clever way to troll people, if you wanted to cause disruption. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
::::Just FYI, you were correct. Since there's no mention of Nazism or nao-Nazism in the rest of the article, it should not be in the lede. My apologies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

== Talk page unreadable ==

Is something wrong with your talk page? he print appears to be completely unreadable. Please respond [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk_page_unreadable here] because I will not be able to read any response you pst here. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:Hi Puedo, regarding archives - provided you keep your archive(s) intact and just cut and paste from your main talk page there would be little strength to any argument you were trying to hide anything; leaving a archive box right at the top of your page would also make it very clear that old talks can be found. Your page isn't so large to be "disruptive", but it could be difficult for some editors to use if they are on mobile browsers, etc. Best regards, — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 16:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|Xaosflux}} Alright, I've done my first archive ever. I just found it somewhat amusing to have some embarassing talk page messages from 2006 visible and I guess I took some pride in never having removed any criticism or warnings from my talk page, given how sensitive some people are with their talk pages. But it's true 270 000 bytes is quite massive so it's better for others. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 16:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::Thank you and best wishes! — [[User:Xaosflux|xaosflux]] [[User talk:Xaosflux|Talk]] 18:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

== ANI post ==

Hi, Just in reply to your post at ANI, I'm a bit startled to see you called me a "SPA for Australian military history" (do multiple FAs on topics with no relationship at all with Australian military history count for nothing?) and compared me to someone who you acknowledge uses Holocaust denial language. You're entirely welcome to take a different view to me on whether the editor should remain active on Wikipedia, but that kind of insult is really uncalled for. I'd suggest that you avoid the personal abuse in future, and I'd be grateful if you could apologise. Regards, [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 04:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Nick-D}} I can sincerely apologize to you, and I do so: sorry for that. That wasn't needed for the point I was making. Mind you, the real reason I jabbed like that was mostly my annoyance from the ArbCom case. You have written many detailed articles about Australian military history, which I applaud you for, but you were far too defensive to the conduct of KEC in the evidence section. How come, someone who writes articles about detailed military history, not protest removal of "intricate detail" from German military articles? Certainly I don't expect any "MilHist project camaraderie" (btw - although I was called a MilHist 'regular' a couple of times, I've never done anything in the project except join it a decade ago), but still it irked me to see that from an experienced editor in the field. Of course I shouldn't carry on grievances like that, and that's why I apologize. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you for that. Regarding the ArbCom case, I largely agree with KEC's edits, though I think they went over the top at times and should have made more use of centralised discussions. Many of the biography articles of German war heroes are hagiographies, which present their subjects without context and are based in a rather disreputable literature which exaggerates the achievements of the German military while ignoring its central role in the Nazi regime and its crimes. The articles on World War II people developed by editors such as Peacemaker67 and Ian Rose are much better models IMO: they're too the point and place their subjects in proper context. There can be a tendency among people interested in military history (and Wikipedia editors in particular, I suspect) to focus on purely military details and loose sight of the bigger picture on the grounds that it's somehow 'political'. Regards, [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

== Canvassing ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AK.e.coffman%2FMy_allegedly_problematic_behaviour&type=revision&diff=853288090&oldid=853287914 This] is [[WP:VOTESTACKING]]. Please don't do it again. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
:{{replyto|MrX}} How come? I've never interacted with any of them, I don't know their opinions. If K.e.coffman's page is humour like you say, they'll probably say they're not bothered by the page and I can withdraw it. Besides, it's courtesy to let editors know about a deletion discuss of a page that they are the contents of. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
::You pinged them and posted a non-neutral message because you hope they will vote with you. You can't do that.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
:::I don't see it as a non-neutral message in any way, to be honest. I asked a neutral question. If they think it's humour, my argument is void. But I understand the concern, obviously the closing admin will have to take into account the fact opinions were asked from the people who the page is about, if they decide to respond. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

==Unconstructive edits==

Yes, offering free information is never constructive. Better to offer garbage content in sub-professional English like almost everyone else. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:589:4b00:7ab:15de:358c:bf9b:59aa|2601:589:4b00:7ab:15de:358c:bf9b:59aa]] ([[User talk:2601:589:4b00:7ab:15de:358c:bf9b:59aa#top|talk]]) 02:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort]] closed ==

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

#For engaging in harassment of other users, {{noping|LargelyRecyclable}} is [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Site_ban|indefinitely banned]] from the English Wikipedia under any account.
#{{noping|Cinderella157}} is [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
#{{noping|Auntieruth55}} is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
#Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus|local consensus]] in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
#While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
:-[[User:Cameron11598|Cameron11598]][[User talk:Cameron11598|(Talk)]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


== Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open ==

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018|here]] by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coord team]]. Cheers, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


== Brazilian military dictatorship ==
I recommend that you read the talk page for the portuguese article for the ''[[:pt:Ditadura militar no Brasil (1964–1985)|Brazilian military dictatorship]]'' article. [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuss%C3%A3o:Ditadura_militar_no_Brasil_(1964%E2%80%931985) There is a FAQ] there that might be of interest. Use Google translater if you will.

But i'll translate for you the first part:

"''Why this article was published as Fifth Brazilian Republic is classified as a dictatorship?''"

:Answer: "''It is an academic consensus that this period was a dictatorship. Basic characteristics of a democracy, such as the right to oppose the government, did not exist. Any political dissident was arrested and tortured, typical characteristics of a dictatorship. All this was accentuated by the institution of the [[AI-5]], which gave the president the power to suspend for 10 years the political rights of any citizen and to dissolve federal, state and municipal elective mandates.''"

All the sources in the article, both articles really, name that regime a dictatorship. If the sources say that, then it is. '''[[WP:V]]: ''all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.'''''

Hope this is clear now. If you want to change it, use the article's talk page. But engage in [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Coltsfan|Coltsfan]] ([[User talk:Coltsfan|talk]]) 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Coltsfan}} the 1993 (someone's been going through the archives!) New York Times article has him saying he's favouring a dictatorship, but the others sources don't mention it. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-01-19/brazils-controversial-congressman-jair-bolsonaro-eyes-the-presidency US News] "H''e is a far-right candidate representing a certain segment of the electorate who favor a return to a military government''." You realize we need pretty good sources for saying someone supports dictatorship?
:Current name of the article is [[Brazilian military government]]. And the military rule had more authoritarian periods than others. It was an authoritarian junta. Whether to call it a dictatorship is a further POV question. For instance, when [[Fidel Castro]] died there was an extensive debate here whether he should be called a dictator (Cuban regime killed atleast 4000 dissidents, offer no political rights for non-party members etc.) That's the deal. You might want to propose moving the article if you think there are bullet-proof sources for unequivocally calling it a dictatorship. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's basicly a [[Duck test]]. If it looks like a dictatorship, swims like a dictatorship, and quacks like a dictatorship, then it probably is a dictatorship. Most of the academic, historical and jornalistic sources name that government a ''dictatorship'', simply because it fells under the characteristics of a typical [[dictatorship]]. According to the sources, there was no real democracy, the president had the power to overrule both the legislative and judicial branches and there was only one oposition party, the [[:pt:Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (1966)|Brazilian Democratic Movement]], that was sanctioned by the government but had no real power (it's not uncomon for dictatorships to have puppet oposition parties to give an idea of democracy. North Korea and Syria do that, for instance). And Bolsonaro's support for the 1964-85 dictatorship is also not even in question: [https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/25/weekinreview/conversations-jair-bolsonaro-soldier-turned-politician-wants-give-brazil-back.html 1], [https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/06/1779759-pre-candidato-bolsonaro-tenta-criar-a-extrema-direita-light.shtml 2], [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/11/the-danger-posed-by-jair-bolsonaro 3], [https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/631952886/dictatorship-was-a-very-good-period-says-brazil-s-aspiring-president 4], [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-bolsonaro-interview/far-right-presidential-hopeful-aims-to-be-brazils-trump-idUSKCN1C2384 5], [https://noticias.r7.com/brasil/bolsonaro-chama-ditadura-militar-brasileira-de-intervencao-democratica-31032015 6], etc.

The problem is definently not the lack of sources ([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-bolsonaro/brazilian-right-wing-candidate-bolsonaro-picks-army-general-as-running-mate-idUSKBN1KQ0OU Reuters], [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/world/americas/brazils-election-military.html The New York Times], [https://www.dw.com/en/german-firms-in-brazil-shouldnt-treat-democracy-and-dictatorship-lightly/a-45249856 DW], [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/far-right-presidential-bid-gets-less-play-from-brazil-media-10587980 Channel News Asia], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-brazil-nostalgia-grows-for-the-dictatorship--not-the-brutality-but-the-law-and-order/2018/03/14/bc58ded2-1cdd-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.d7f945f4c279 The Washington Post], [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-08-06/brazilian-evangelicals-support-a-trump-like-populist US News], etc...).

There are sources in portuguese, if you can read them: [http://jovempanfm.uol.com.br/panico/defensor-da-ditadura-jair-bolsonaro-reforca-frase-polemica-o-erro-foi-torturar-e-nao-matar.html 1], [http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/politica/2014-03-29/golpe-de-1964-so-deu-certo-porque-militares-tiveram-apoio-da-sociedade-civil.html 2], [https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/em-documento-forcas-armadas-admitem-pela-primeira-vez-tortura-mortes-durante-ditadura-13998824 3], [http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/politica/2013-09-25/construcao-de-rodovias-no-governo-militar-matou-cerca-de-8-mil-indios.html 4], [http://amazoniareal.com.br/comissao-da-verdade-ao-menos-83-mil-indios-foram-mortos-na-ditadura-militar/ 5], [http://www.uel.br/editora/portal/pages/arquivos/ditadura%20militar.pdf 6]. If you want, i can also list books here.

I'll propose the change in the name of the other article, after the election cycle ends over there in Brazil. But, according to the sources at hand, and plenty more to choose from, that government was a military dictatorship. At least among historians and scholars (and even journalist), there is no debate. It supressed personal freedoms, non authorized oposition was persecuted, dissidents were tortured, exiled or killed and the presidents had full power and ruled above the law.

PS: Brazil had two juntas during the 1964-1985 period, true. But, all the 5 generals that ruled, ruled alone. Again, if you want more sources, i can provide'm. [[User:Coltsfan|Coltsfan]] ([[User talk:Coltsfan|talk]]) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

== Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced ==

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


== Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced ==

G'day everyone, voting for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018|the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche]] is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.


== Have your say! ==

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2018|here]]''' before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


==DYK for Soviet partisans in Finland==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#12 November 2018|12 November 2018]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Soviet partisans in Finland]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the attacks on civilian villages by '''[[Soviet partisans in Finland]]''' were a suppressed topic until the 1990s?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet partisans in Finland]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-11-02&end=2018-11-22&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Soviet_partisans_in_Finland Soviet partisans in Finland]), and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
}} [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Pudeo. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|2018 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}


== Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards ==

Nominations for our annual [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2018_now_open!|'''Military historian of the year''']] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_history_newcomer_of_the_year_for_2018_now_open!|'''Military history newcomer of the year''']] awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


== Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards ==

Voting for our annual [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2018_now_open!|'''Military historian of the year''']] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_history_newcomer_of_the_year_for_2018_now_open!|'''Military history newcomer of the year''']] awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


== POV Tag at Abortion and Mental Health ==

Hi. You recently reverted an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&action=history] at the Abortion and Mental Health article. Please consider adding more regarding your reasoning on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health#Notice_that_this_Article_Lacks_Balanced_POV_per_reliable_peer_reviewed_literature_reviews talk page] where there is an active discussion regarding the question of whether there are POV problems with this article. I feel comments from more editors would be helpful.––[[User:Saranoon|Saranoon]] ([[User talk:Saranoon|talk]]) 16:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Saranoon}} No, sorry, I don't think I'll do that since it looks like to be a waste of time since you are dealing with well-connected editors who are entrenched to oppose the source on ideological grounds. There's no compromise in sight, so it's useless to contribute in my opinion, and that would be time-consuming. You could try [[WP:NPOVN]] or [[WP:DRN]] noticeboards, but chances are you would be piled on by watchdogs, despite having a strong case for the inclusion of this strong source. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
::Yes. Well, those well connected editors have, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_and_mental_health&type=revision&diff=875076782&oldid=874529275 threats by MastCell to have me banned] for putting a POV tag on the article, have placed me under a 3 month ban[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saranoon#Arbitration_Enforcement] against editing anything to do with abortion. I had thought that your voice in support of the POV notice and giving some weight to good sources would have helped to demonstrate that their "consensus" is not as complete as they claim and that other editors do have a right to follow policy in regard to inclusion of other sources. Please reconsider at some future date. Your voice can surely make a difference.–[[User:Saranoon|Saranoon]] ([[User talk:Saranoon|talk]]) 05:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
:::This page is on my watchlist. Your post here brought this matter to my attention, not any backchannel communication. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 05:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

== Good one ==

Irrespective of whether I agree with your stand at Enterprisey's RfA or not, I love a good discussion; and I came here to say that I appreciate frank views and I appreciate great conversations. And you've started quite a good one. I also appreciate the way you've been responding. So, in my opinion, well done. If there's anything you might need my assistance in, in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Warmly, [[User talk:Lourdes|Lourdes]] 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Lourdes}} thanks. I remember when I was studying German in secondary school, my teacher asked "why do you always have to be the contrarian?" in class. So I guess it's a trait, but I don't participate in discussions just to stir things up or to troll, I think it's reasonable to oppose on the grounds that someone's "CV" is brilliant with some technical details but there is no record of things I consider most important. Sometimes it can definitely be healthy to question things, even if it costs you precious "reputation points". If I need assistance, will do! --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 12:34, 23 January 2019

::Unlike {{U|Lourdes}}, I do not consider it to be a good or healthy discussion, and more precisely to be an excessive and unnecessary stain on a serious RfA that is certainly destined to pass. There is a distinct difference between discussion and just stirring things up or to troll. Perhaps you could still find the good grace to understand that such voting is what puts people off from running for adminship and reconsider your vote before the RfA closes. You would gain reputation ppoinnts for it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
::: As another voter on this RfA, I have to say I agree with [[User_talk:Kudpung|Kudpung]] re: the difference between substantive discussions and stirring things up, and I think you should reconsider your vote. [[User:Airbornemihir|Airbornemihir]] ([[User talk:Airbornemihir|talk]]) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Thanks, but no thanks. RfAs can be stressful if people go around digging all the things you did years ago to find every flaw, but I don't think it should be a big deal to politely disagree with the nom. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 12:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

== Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = A year ago ...
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.25
| bold = Finland
| normal = ... you were recipient no. '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Pudeo|1836]]''' of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious|Precious]], a prize of QAI!
}}
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Gerda Arendt}} You are free to remove anything related to these, as I have no particular interest in them. Also I have little trust in your judgment as you have defended users like Jytdog. Regards, --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 09:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

== Remind you of anyone? ==

User: Ratio Cantina. (Space-free in the original, of course.) [[User:Qwirkle|Qwirkle]] ([[User talk:Qwirkle|talk]]) 18:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
:Right...? That army code word or CAPTCHA stuff. But no en-wiki or global edits. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

== Anthony J. Hilder ==

Hi Pudeo, is it possible please that you could keep an eye on the [[Anthony J. Hilder]] page as I am concerned about some recent edits. Well, not so much concerned about them as such at this stage, but more what may happen later. The article is up for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_J._Hilder_(2nd_nomination) Deletion discussion]. I have been a major contributor to the article. I have expanded others such as [[Deane Waretini]] and [[Lou Dorren]] etc and I admit with the Hilder one I did get carried away on it and piled too much stuff in it. Fair enough, it should be trimmed to a better size and have content best suited to Wikipedia guidelines. Anyway, I sense something strange about the arrival of a recent editor. I was just wondering if you could please keep an eye on it just to make sure not massive chunks of content are taken out that may make it look flimsy if you get my drift. Thanks [[User:Karl Twist|Karl Twist]] ([[User talk:Karl Twist|talk]]) 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

== February 2019 ==

Please refrain from [[WP:HOUND|hounding]] MjolnirPants, as you appear to have been doing for the last few months.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=858549546][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=865738754][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=884157794][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=884175979] It is generally considered very inappropriate to repeatedly show up at ANI every time an editor you have disputed with is mentioned there to request that they be blocked. If you think he is uncivil, then you can just ignore him; showing up every time his name comes up at ANI to support sanctions against him implies you are ''not'' concerned about his civility (if he was really uncivil enough that you don't enjoy interacting with him, why would you seek him out?). Please just leave him alone and write articles. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] ([[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:Someone had to act on it, even when it meant I had to scrutinize diffs. I'm sorry it turned out this way, but it was also possile to dial down the "fuck off"s after the first ANI thread. I really dislike the negativity at ANI so I certainly didn't have fun, but I think it resulted in Wikipedia being a better place because no one should be abused like that. In the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Incivility|October 2018 thread]] there were plenty of people who were directed obscenities at who agreed with me, but just didn't have the guts themselves to open an ANI thread because it's not a nice environment and takes a thick skin. I don't mind getting my hands dirty. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 19:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:: I recommend taking ANI off your watchlist, and only show up there if your name is mentioned. You'll be much happier that way. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 21:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Jehochman}} I don't watchlist it, I just visit and see from the contents table if there's anything interesting usually. But yes, I do plan on taking a long vacation from dramaboards (unless this one turns into RFAR, I suppose). BTW I remember and respect you from your participation in the DangerousPanda ArbCom case which was mostly about civility too. He refused my block appeal back in the day by calling me a liar and then attacked the admin who rightly unblocked me. [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::::But you didn't just check in on occasion: every time MPants found himself at ANI (thanks, invariably, to a sockpuppet trolling him) you jumped in and proposed restrictions, without regard to the obvious fact that the threads were opened by trolls for the specific purpose of harassing him, and in the latest instance you explicitly opposed closing the thread to allow everyone to move on with their lives. That's really not cool. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] ([[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]) 04:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I find it unseemly to have votes for sanctions. I recommend not proposing sanctions. Instead, say what’s wrong and ask that it be stopped. Whatever unlucky admin decides to close the thread will then have to figure out what if anything is needed to stop the negative behavior. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 14:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

==DYK for Schio massacre==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#2 March 2019|2 March 2019]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Schio massacre]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the [[Italian Communist Party]] blamed [[Trotskyism|Trotskyite]] agents for carrying out the '''[[Schio massacre]]''', which led to an Allied military court trial?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Schio massacre]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-02-20&end=2019-03-12&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Schio_massacre Schio massacre]), and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
}} [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 00:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

== I hope we can resolve this ==

For the Soviet Union in World War II I just redid it so it it said the number what the Russian government puts it at

And for the excess mortality under Joseph Stalin for the older edit that was when I was really starting out and had no idea what I was doing and for the other one it was redid because I made a mistake with it
[[User:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] ([[User talk:Jack90s15|talk]]) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Jack90s15}} I am usually very receptive to new editors and don't mind if you don't handle everything right at first, but in this case I think you have caused a bit of a mess with not attributing sources right and it has happened in several articles. I'll wait for comments by others first. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained with the articles you showed what happened with them and I was recommended to join the WikiProject Military history and to ask for help to on my talk page so that is what I am going to do[[User:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] ([[User talk:Jack90s15|talk]]) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Could I borrow your eyeballs on something? ==

I recently submitted an SPI on one of the frequent offenders, which was almost directly shot down. I am reasonably certain that investigation would “find the guilty bastard guilty”, as me old First Sergeant used to say, but I am very uncomfortable with dumping the evidence into a public space. We might as well be giving them instructions on how to sock better, you ask me...
Some time late next week or the week after, would you mind looking at an email on this, or could you recommend someone? [[User:Qwirkle|Qwirkle]] ([[User talk:Qwirkle|talk]]) 21:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Qwirkle}} Sure, my email is enabled. I believe the issue you are referring to has been discussed elsewhere with inconclusive results (the opinion of editors I trust the most with catching sockpuppets think it's very suspicious, but they also find some things that would suggest they are not necessarily the same person). --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

==Deletion review for [[Template:Infobox Finnish municipality]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality|deletion review]] of [[Template:Infobox Finnish municipality]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  '''[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann]]''' ([[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]/[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|What I been doing]]) 22:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

== Case request ==

This is a courtesy notification that the [[Special:Permalink/892308310#RexxS_RfA_bureaucrat_chat|RexxS Bureaucrat Chat case request]] has been declined by the committee. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|Amanda]] [[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]] 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
:Thank you for your time and apologies. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 17:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Patriotic People's Movement (Finland) logo.svg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Patriotic People's Movement (Finland) logo.svg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

== Fact checking SashiRolls ==

I feel really frustrated to have my work at all discredited by the suggestion that I may be a sock. Can I ask you to look at my history to hopefully take back the accusation? I think you can see my editing/talk page comments were unskilled at first and improved over time. But the explanation for my experience with detective work is that after I made an edit to WP:[[Xennials]] I was confronted by what I found to be an extremely abusive personality, who I think was the first editor I ever interacted with on Wikipedia. (DynaGirl).[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xennials] I mostly sent my research by email, but you can see here how involved the work was from another editor's comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_74#Generation_related_articles]. Most of the work was investigating what I had thought were her socks on the Xennials article and other generations articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=2606%3A6000%3A6111%3A8E00%3A%3A%2F64&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aboutbo2000]

Feel free to email me. I see you've been here thirteen years so I can probably trust you. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
:You are not a sockpuppet, unless there is evidence indicating so, which there isn't. But sleeping for a couple of years, then turning active and fluent at AN/I certainly makes many people suspect it's someone's new account. Given that some sockpuppets have recently gone long undetected and caused frustration, I'll reserve the right to remain skeptical but don't hold anything against you without evidence. Happy editing. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
::I understand how that could look. Context for what I was doing at AN/I might help: SashiRolls "invited me to correct what [they] felt was Snoogans' copyright violation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiLeaks&diff=893394757&oldid=893394317]; here at ANI [they] have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate." Thank you. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

== Julius Evola dispute ==

Hi Pudeo. There is an [[Talk:Julius_Evola#Did_Evola_%22justify_rape_as_a_natural_expression_of_male_desire%22?|ongoing dispute]] regarding a claim made in the lede of the article on [[Julius_Evola|Julius Evola]]. Since you were [[Talk:Julius_Evola/Archive_3#%22Justifying%22_rape?!|involved]] in a previous discussion on the subject, I was wondering whether you had any input or suggestions on how to proceed in the current discussion. [[Special:Contributions/160.39.234.40|160.39.234.40]] ([[User talk:160.39.234.40|talk]]) 15:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I think it's healthy to move on and not engage disputes from two years ago. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

== Birthday [[Mark Weston (athlete)]] source ==

Hi! I [[:de:Benutzer:Habitator terrae/Liste intersexueller Sportler|work]] for a [[:de:Liste intersexueller Sportler|list of intersex sportspeople]] in the German Wikipedia. For this the exact living dates of [[Mark Weston (athlete)]] would nice to know. [[Special:Diff/620683273/621642434|Here]] you gave the exact date referenced with [https://www.oxforddnb.com/abstract/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-104186]. Because of I have no acces on it, it would be nice of you if you send me article to the adress habitator.terrae@e.mail.de - thank you very much! [[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 14:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Habitator terrae}} sorry - I do not have access to the article anymore. However, you could try to request someone to send it to your email [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|here]]. ODNB is subscription only - but it can be accessed from pretty much any public library in the UK. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 19:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
:: OK, then I will request there(, because it would be a to long way from Germany to the next public library UK;) --[[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
{{section resolved|[[User:Habitator terrae|Habitator terrae]] ([[User talk:Habitator terrae|talk]]) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)}}
==Orphaned non-free image File:True Finns logo.svg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:True Finns logo.svg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] ([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]]) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

== Notice of arbitration ==

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, – [[User_talk:Bradv|brad''v'']][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|🍁]] 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

== Pinging Raystorm ==

[[User_talk:Raystorm#Discussion_where_you're_mentioned]] - Raystorm said pings weren't working for them. You might want to alert them on their talk page for a response. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
:Oh they just responded to the post above yours, so I suppose they'll be reading yours as well. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=901504824&oldid=901504744] '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks, though they seem to be reading. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

== [[WP:CEN]] is now open! ==

To all interested parties: Now that [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Wikipedia:CEN|it has a proper shortcut]], the [[WP:Current events noticeboard|current events noticeboard]] has now officially opened for discussion!

[[WP:CEN]] came about as an idea I explored through a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard|request for comment]] that closed last March. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-05-31/Recent research|Recent research]] has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:Recentism]] are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at [[WP:CEN]] soon! –[[User:MJL|MJL]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]][[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]] 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of [[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712#top|talk]])


==Disambiguation link notification for July 11==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[1951 Australian Communist Party ban referendum]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Daily News]] ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1951_Australian_Communist_Party_ban_referendum check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1951_Australian_Communist_Party_ban_referendum?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are [[WP:INTDABLINK|usually incorrect]], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 19:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

== Some baklava for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG|135px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your support in the enforcement matter. I am not sure what Snooganssnoogans' issue is, but my recent edits have been anything but falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears. [[User:JohnTopShelf|JohnTopShelf]] ([[User talk:JohnTopShelf|talk]]) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|}

== Please do not ping me with hypothetical situations unrelated to the topic at hand ==

I don't appreciate it, it's irrelevant, and you know that perfectly well. Please don't @ me over such a nothing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:Sure, ok. You still don't understand that when the suspected perpetrator has been publicly connected to the crime in high-circulation publications like the NYT or WaPo, it's no longer something that needs to be hush-hush in Wikipedia, though, and that was the main point. It's not what BLPCRIME is about. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 16:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::Just stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

== SPI reports ==

Hi, just as a heads up, part of the reason [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist]] took so long to close was that your report was somewhat difficult to follow. When I was an admin or even before I passed RfA, I would always format it something like this if it was a complex case:

<code>
[Insert narative here]

Socks have [similarity here]: [Diff of sock 1], [Diff of sock2]

They also have: [Diff of sock 1], [Diff of sock 2]

etc.

[Any closing context that may be helpful here]
</code>

You obviously don't have to have that exact format, but putting the diffs of socks side-by-side and saying how they relate makes it easier for us to look at it. Just as a heads up so that things might get processed quicker next time. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks, that's fair advice. The problem here was that I was finding new information after I filed it so it turned into a sort of a mindflow. It could have been completely re-written afterwards to be clearer. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 07:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

==DYK nomination of Leo Skurnik==
[[Image:Symbol question.svg|25px]] Hello! Your submission of [[Leo Skurnik]] at the [[Template talk:DYK|Did You Know nominations page]] has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath '''[[Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Skurnik|your nomination's entry]]''' and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  [[User:Girth Summit|GirthSummit]][[User talk:Girth Summit| (blether)]] 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

== Backlog Banzai ==

In the month of September, [[WP:MILHIST|Wikiproject Military history]] is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, '''Backlog Banzai'''. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai]]''' to take part. For the coordinators, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


==[[Template:Did you know nominations/Salomon Klass]]==
Hi, I promoted your Leo Skurnik hook with the single article and thought that this article also deserves an appearance on DYK. Could you please add the words that verify the hook in the offline source to the nomination template? Thanks, [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 21:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

== Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open ==

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2019|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coord team]]. Cheers, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


==DYK for Leo Skurnik==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#2 September 2019|2 September 2019]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Leo Skurnik]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that when offered the award of the [[Iron Cross]] from Nazi Germany, '''[[Leo Skurnik]]''', a Jewish major in the [[Finnish Army]], refused, reportedly saying "I wipe my arse with it"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Skurnik]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-08-23&end=2019-09-12&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Leo_Skurnik Leo Skurnik]), and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
}} [[User:Valereee|valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

== Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced ==

G'day everyone, voting for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2019|2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche]] is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


== Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark ==

G'day everyone, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2019|'''voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche''']] is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


== RfA standards ==

Hi Pudeo, Do you have a page somewhere that lists your expectations of the standards for admin. If so can you please point me to it. Regarding the number of years/months of active service, what is your expectations for a good admin candidate ? I am asking this simply out of my own curiosity. regards--''[[User:DBigXray|DBig]][[User talk:DBigXray|Xrayᗙ]]'' 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:Hello, and hope you are enjoying your Friday. The answer is no, but generally I don't think it's controversial to think that 1.5 years of active editing is not much. The nominee does not have much experience in article space, which maybe they would if they'd been here for longer. But criticizing lack of experience is not personal, it's just saying [[WP:NOTYET]]. 3+ years would be decent? I think the prospect of getting adminship "too soon" has the risk that we still don't fully know the editor and it opens a quick path for "broilerhouse" admins. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 17:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::Yes, Friday has been great so far, looking forward to the weekend. Thanks for the kind response, as I already noted this discussion is solely to satisfy my own curiosity, and I dont intend to influence your vote on the RfA. I did start this thread after seeing your comment, but that is all. The number of years of service expected from a candidate differs from person to person. I do agree that 1.5 years is not much but it is still enough to judge. I have seen people expecting min 1 year as well, but most expect a 1.5-2 year range, which is understandable for the reasons you gave. Min 3 years of experience is on the higher side I feel, and if I recall correctly this is the biggest I have seen among the RfA standards. IMHO the candidate's maturity is more important than the number of months. Can you take a look at [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DBigXray my] xtool and comment if I satisy your experience criteria. Thanks. --''[[User:DBigXray|DBig]][[User talk:DBigXray|Xrayᗙ]]'' 17:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

==DYK for Salomon Klass==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#29 September 2019|29 September 2019]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Salomon Klass]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that when a German colonel found out that Finnish captain '''[[Salomon Klass]]''' ''(pictured)'' was Jewish, he said "I have nothing personal against you as a Jew" and gave him the [[Nazi salute|Hitler salute]]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Salomon Klass]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-09-19&end=2019-10-09&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Salomon_Klass Salomon Klass]), and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
}} [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

== A cup of tea for you ==

[[File:567-hot-beverage-2.svg|120px|thumb|left]]
Thanks for your level-headed contributions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany&diff=922160492&oldid=922157880 like this one] but also many others. When encountering [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany&diff=922157436&oldid=922143048 behaviour that may be perceived as provocative], it is usually better to not be provoked but instead have a cup of tea. It is a struggle at times. All the best, [[User:1Kwords|A Thousand Words]] ([[User talk:1Kwords|talk]]) 16:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|1Kwords}} Thanks, and that is correct, although sometimes you have to stand your ground when you know you are on firm soil. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

== ITN recognition for [[Vladimir Bukovsky]] ==

{{ivmbox
|1=On 28 October 2019, '''''[[:Template:In the news|In the news]]''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''[[Vladimir Bukovsky]]''''', which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|candidates page]]. — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
|2=Ambox current red.svg
|imagesize=50px
}}
== Nomination of [[:Conan (dog)]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Conan (dog)]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan (dog)]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. [[User:JDDJS|JDDJS]] ([[User talk:JDDJS|talk to me]] • [[Special:Contributions/JDDJS|see what I've done]]) 06:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

== A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process ==

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate [[:m:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019|in a recent consultation]] that followed [[:en:WP:FRAM|a community discussion]] you’ve been part of.

Please fill out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWWUofC6-DmmNK0s7TBRd522YujyKWbixJflILnZQ6UYgveQ/viewform this short survey] to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation_in_Partial/Temporary_Office_Actions_consultation_2019 here]. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, [[user:Kbrown (WMF)|Kbrown (WMF)]] 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2019|2019 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Election_timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>


== Thank you ==

Thank you for defending me yesterday, was busy and didn't even see what was going on so very much appreciate it. Will continue to do my best to improve the website. [[User:Edit5001|Edit5001]] ([[User talk:Edit5001|talk]]) 13:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

== Personal attack ==

Please show evidence of "[[WP:Tag team|a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus.]]" that involves me, Objective3000, and Snooganssnoogans, or strike your comments. Editing the same articles is not the definition of tag team. Your accusation is a blatant [[WP:NPA|personal attack]].

I will not ask twice. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:Pudeo, I came here to warn you to never make a baseless attack of tag-teaming again only to find MrX got here first. Now, will you call this tag-teaming because we are making the same complaint within minutes after your egregious attack? Retract your defamatory accusations. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 20:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
::Nope. There are 93 articles that you all three have edited within 10 minutes, and 236 articles you have edited in the same 24 hrs period. I believe you have never once disagreed, and indeed seem to target editors like SashiRolls in individual disputes to turn it into 2-3 v. 1. It's there for everyone to see, and in no way a personal attack. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:::It's a damnable lie. We both have been editing AP2 articles for years. We don't disagree because we both have the same understanding of NPOV, BLP and DUE. Frankly, I don't even know his politics. Hell, I'm not sure of my own. An interaction report between me and an active editor I never agree with would show the same. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

== Notice ==
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

== Rollback granted ==

[[Image:Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg|right|130px]]
Hi Pudeo. After reviewing your request for "{{mono|rollbacker}}", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3APudeo enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
*Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing [[WP:TW|Twinkle]].
*Rollback should be used to revert ''clear'' cases of [[WP:VAND|''vandalism'']] ''only'', and not [[WP:AGF|good faith edits]].
*Rollback should never be used to [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]].
*If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
*Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback]] (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my [[User talk:Juliancolton|talk page]] if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – '''[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|''Talk'']] 19:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
:I'm sure this was all profoundly unnecessary for someone as proficient as yourself, but you know how scripts can be... – '''[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|''Talk'']] 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
::No, that is appreciated. Better safe than sorry. Thanks. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

== March Madness 2020 ==

G'day all, '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020|March Madness 2020]]''' is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team


==Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions notice==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}{{Z33}}
:Truly no implication here, I am just making sure anyone who has edited [[Race and intelligence]] in the past two weeks has been properly alerted. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
::Perhaps a better notice would be that if you are wise, you don't touch that topic with a ten feet pole :-) --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

== Arbitration case opened ==

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence]]. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the [[Special:PermanentLink/872120137#Jytdog|original ARC]] and the [[Special:Permalink/944557164#Jytdog - re-opened 2018 case|latest ARC]] are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Cthomas3|'''''CThomas3''''']] ([[User talk:Cthomas3|talk]]) 06:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

== Apologies, thanks. ==

Didn’t (and don’t) know whether I could have requested nuking that unwanted archive myself. [[User:Qwirkle|Qwirkle]] ([[User talk:Qwirkle|talk]]) 16:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Qwirkle}} No problem, I've done some similar misclicks. Good thing I don't use that archiving script myself, or else it would seem like I was being framed as a sockmaster! --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 16:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

==Recent messages==
5 million dollars [[User:Chinamiing|Chinamiing]] ([[User talk:Chinamiing|talk]]) 09:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you give me 5 million dollars [[User:Chinamiing|Chinamiing]] ([[User talk:Chinamiing|talk]]) 09:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC )

I think Chinese censuses and Human Rights Watch Asia testimonials reports are reliable sources for mass death by torture of intimate parts with burning sticks in wombs and winding with strings, thread or cord of Chahar Mongols in Inner Mongolia but Pudeo writes that they are not. The source for the Case of the Party of Inner Mongolia and the mass death that can be seen from the censuses difference although prohibited to reveal the figures in China are available via the Chinese census figures as available and from the Human Rights Watch Asia testimony by a Turkish Uyghr available in 2005 or one year earlier or one year later and also there are references in "Wild Swans" by Yung Chang or Qiang. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.108.245.35|93.108.245.35]] ([[User talk:93.108.245.35#top|talk]]) 11:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 

== Grave dancing accusation ==

I have stayed away for a few days, but after a blatant PA against me [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=949232130&oldid=949230667]], and now these accusations of users grave dancing I will not remain silent. The ANI thread about Hijiri88 ‎had not been "inactive for weeks" I can see posts dated the 30th the 29th the 28th (all from Hijiri88, that is not inactivity). In fact the longest single gap between posts seems to be 4 days (not weeks), and that "breach" is another post from Hijiri88 (when he unarchived the thread [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=945651984&oldid=945651118]]), if that had not been done this souold have been closed weeks ago with no action. Moreover this [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=948444519]] implies he may not in fact have retired, as does [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QEDK&diff=prev&oldid=948502034]]. He was in fact still active in pursuing grievances, thus it was reasonable to think he was not retired (and the comment about me above, plus much else on their talk page demonstrates they are still not in fact retired, they are still commenting on other users, and even watching what they do, how else did he know what I had posted on my user page?). Maybe if he had retired when he said he would I could not have pointed out he is still active.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
:Noted, and I agree, but since you are not inteaction banned, you could post this to AN. Though the thread is mostly about the personal attack. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 11:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
::What thread?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{re|Slatersteven}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hijiri88|This]] new one. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I have posted a bit of it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

== Request ==

Looking at your user page jogged my memory that you are from/in Finland (I think I knew that from the unnameable site), and I saw there that you have created articles on plane crashes. Long ago, someone asked me to create an article on the {{ill|Turenki rail accident|fi|Turengin junaturma}}, but I couldn't find adequate sources, partly because I can't search well enough in Finnish (I can count from 1 to 10, but that's about it). I gather it still hasn't been written up here. Please could I request it? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 21:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Yngvadottir}} Apparently that is the deadliest train accident in the country, so it should warrant an article. There is little information about it because it happened during war-time and information about it was suppressed, and it's still reflecting to it. The 2016 source cited in the Finnish WP article is paper-only, and the only other sources I could find are two 1990s local newspaper (''Laitilan Sanomat'') articles quoted verbatim (apparently with a permission) on a 3rd party website: [http://www.vakkamedia.fi/harviala.htm#Laitilan_Sanomat_12.3.1990][http://www.vakkamedia.fi/harviala.htm#Laitilan_Sanomat%C2%A0_maanantaina_maaliskuun_19._p%C3%A4iv%C3%A4n%C3%A4_1990%C2%A0%C2%A0_]. Not too many sources, but I might atleast create a start-class article later. Eyes are getting tired from doing all this remote work in front of this screen, so perhaps not a good idea to write anything that takes time yet! --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
::Yes, all I found on a new search yesterday was [https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11223481 this at Yle] about the memorial at the station. I'd be grateful, poor lads should be remembered. However, I see the [[Kuurila rail accident|deadliest in peacetime]] isn't covered here yet either, so I'm not too surprised that no one has written an article in the years since someone first drew my attention to it. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

== IP warrior on [[Gregor Strasser]] ==

Hi. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=952691927&oldid=952686274 this complaint], can you say what is meant by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=952662335 'yellow filter triggers']? Is there some actual filter? Thanks, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|EdJohnston}} Apparently they are not filters, but the AI-controlled revision scoring system: [[:mw:ORES review tool]]. That's what I meant, my settings showed almost all of that IP's edits as likely damaging. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
::Per your advice I went to [[Special:Preferences/Watchlist#mw-prefsection-watchlist]], viewed the 'Revision scoring' section and turned on the 'May have problems' level. Then I do see that most of the IP's edits are marked in yellow when I view their contributions! That could turn out to be a labor-saving device. But may not be easy to cite in a block message... ('Too much yellow in their contribs?'). Thanx, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Out of all the IPs you mentioned at AN3 (besides the one blocked) only [[Special:Contributions/24.228.198.157]] shows up as currently active and also as getting their edits flagged by ORES. The IP is distinguished by their pretentious edit summaries (like 'fairness and specificity') but I don't see very many edits worth reverting as yet. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{re|EdJohnston}} Thanks for looking at it, and so it seems that all other IPs are inactive. Suppose that it's still good to get that on record, because he'll be back sooner or later. Heh yeah, the ORES tool is a very handy setting to have on -- the only downside is that if you get lazy you won't look at problematic edits that aren't flagged by it. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

== Status of the lead in [[Camp of the Saints]] ==

Hey Puedo, so it's been about a month since a consensus conversation was done about the state of the lead sentence in the [[Camp of the Saints]] article. I was wondering as to when we should come to a conclusion on that. Based on the history of edits, it still seems that people are still having edit fights over it. I do not normally get into conflict with stuff such as this since I try to stay as neutral as possible. Based off the month long discussion, I think most people agree that the term "racist" should be removed from the first sentence. I believe that the second introduction paragraph that I wrote and researched a couple months back would suffice given the content of the sources, most of which I researched and read myself. I'm not familiar with how these work in particular, so please let me know if you know how to proceed. Thanks, [[User:AdvancedScholar|AdvancedScholar]] ([[User_talk:AdvancedScholar|talk]]) 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|AdvancedScholar}} Hello. I have already requested a closure for it here: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure]]. It is yet to be seen if, how and when that will happen. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 06:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

== [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==

I have linked your TFD for the NOTHERE block message to [[WP:AN]] for a wider discussion, as it's not just about a template, it's a standardised block reason built into Special:Block and the Twinkle extensions. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:No problemo. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 17:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== My recent behavior ==

I posted this on the noticeboard, which might have been a mistake. I must apologize for my behavior these past few days. Looking back it's obvious that I've been acting irrational. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to remedy the situation, but i will go back and remove the offending comments. If there's a better way to remedy the situation, I'm willing to listen, and i will do my best to avoid personal attacks in the future. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.78|46.97.170.78]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.78|talk]]) 09:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:Well, it is really good that you can reflect on it. I won't further comment the thread yet, though, as no one else has yet offered input. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== ArbCom ==

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JzG]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use.

Thanks,

== JzG case request declined ==

The case request "JzG" that you are a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators [[Special:Permalink/962683413#JzG:_Arbitrators'_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_<3/7/0>|voted to decline the case request]]. The case request has been removed from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case]]. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed [[Special:Permalink/962683413#JzG|through this wikilink]].

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy '''Jazz''']] ''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]'' 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

== SashiRolls case request ==

I am an arbitration clerk who is tasked with, amongst other things, maintaining good order on arbitration pages. I have read your statement at the SashiRolls case request and would like to remind you about the [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks policy]] and that allegations on arbitration case requests should be backed up with evidence. Please ensure that your statement follows relevant policies and guidelines, and that you provide evidence to support any allegations you make. If you would like clarification on this, do ask. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy '''Jazz''']] ''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]'' 01:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Dreamy Jazz}} Oh, just noticed now that this was a personal message for me, since it never crossed my mind anything I posted would be close to a personal attack. You wrote that {{tq|allegations on arbitration case requests should be backed up with evidence}}. Is 9 diffs not enough? --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 23:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Pudeo}}, specifically {{tq|MastCell rushed to close the thread because El_C's comment did not call for a siteban.}} wasn't supported with evidence which showed this. You do say before hand that their last logged action was in September 2019, but this does not prove that he "rushed" to do anything nor that this was because El_C did not call for a siteban. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy '''Jazz''']] ''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]'' 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
:::I see. Yes, that's my own interpretation of what happened and I offered it as a statement. He closed the thread before the requested time extension by SR and that was after EL C's comment turned the trend in the discussion, so the action happened between those two events. I backed previous side-picking with AE diffs. That phrasing could have been nicer, but I feel like this is a bit of a hair-splitting. Thank you for the feedback anyhow, I appreciate it. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 23:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you, Pudeo, for salvaging a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng|compelling sockpuppet report]] from an inadequate topic ban appeal. Your attention to detail is much appreciated, especially when it comes from an overlooked perspective. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|}
:{{re|Newslinger}} Thanks, and you also made quite some efforts to investigate yourself with regard to compiling the IP addresses and the messages he had posted. Great! Behavioral analysis is quite tedious work - abusing multiple accounts is much easier. Returning after 12 years must be one of the most unusual cases.--[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 07:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
:: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng|Two for two]], excellent job. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Original Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for the great work in investigating and reporting sock puppet accounts! [[user talk:Marvin 2009 |Precious Stone (Marvin 2009)]] 02:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|}

:I was coming here to say the same thing. Just when I was starting to despair that Wikipedia had become a post-truth environment where the rules apply to some but not to others, I saw your SPI filing and my faith was (faintly) restored. There ought to be more of you.[[User:TheBlueCanoe|'''TheBlueCanoe''']] 17:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

== Swastikas ==

The mention of swastikas in a recent WP:AN post, reminded me of a long ago conversation with a friend. We were discussing the use of "symbols" from an artistic viewpoint. I made an offhand remark that Buddhists used a form of swastika as a religious symbol.

My friend turned to me in concern, and said: "Why would the Buddhists use this symbol? Didn't they know that Hitler had already used it?" I had to explain that "the Buddhists came first", etc.

Thought you might like a chuckle. But it seems that people are still making similar mistakes.
Pinging {{u|Levivich}}, who also has a sense of humor, hope you don't mind Regards, [[User:Tribe of Tiger|Tribe of Tiger]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|Let's Purrfect!]] 22:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Tribe of Tiger}} Indeed, and such conceptions were a reason why I wanted to share the curiosity, though perhaps that is inadvisable because things can be sensitive. It had been used in prehistoric times, like in most of Europe, and here the national painter [[Akseli Gallen-Kallela]] incorporated it in many state emblems and decorations. I don't know if you are a military history buff at all, but there is a picture of the Soviet Marshal [[Kliment Voroshilov]] brandishing a Finnish swastika decoration after the war: [https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005865297.html]. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
::I was unaware of the use in Finland, will study, thanks. I am not a military history buff, (sorry) and I cannot seem to see a swastika in the ref/link provided, but nonetheless, I "get the picture", so to speak. It is logical that basic geometric forms would be used throughout human history, and have various meanings assigned by different cultures. I respect Buddhist thought, etc. But I would never offend my Jewish friends, or "disturb the memory" of my late FIL, (who served in Europe with the US Army) by displaying this Buddhist symbol...However, even Dad would have been perfectly comfortable with your photo of a museum exhibit of airplanes.

::Symbols are powerful, no doubt. Consider the "Christian cross" which originally represented a cruel death of torture, and has been transformed in meaning over @2000 years. Prior to 1746 in Scotland, a Fiery Cross signaled a gathering of the clans, and a declaration of war. So again, a symbol has changed, and been co-opted, this time by the KKK. Scottish heritage festivals, etc, at least here in the Southern US, do NOT feature reinactments of clan-gathering cross burnings. (Brrr...)

::As decent people of goodwill, we must be sensitive to the new meanings of old symbols. But others should be aware of their past meanings, and not rush to judgemnt. Context! Okay, I will climb down from my soapbox. Regards, [[User:Tribe of Tiger|Tribe of Tiger]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|Let's Purrfect!]] 06:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

== Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open ==

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2020|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|coord team]]. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


== Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced ==

G'day everyone, voting for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2020|2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche]] is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>


== Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open ==

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_history_newcomer_of_the_year_for_2020_are_open!|'''Military history WikiProject newcomer''']] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nominations_for_military_historian_of_the_year_for_2020_are_open!|'''Historian of the Year''']] are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


== A bowl of strawberries for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Erdbeerteller01.jpg|120px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Good work, Detective Pudeo! '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you, strawberries are really good. The only issue is that if you have been picking them yourself, you start associating them with lower back pain. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 07:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
::Poor strawberry farmers - and dentists! '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 08:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

== Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing ==

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "'''[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Voting|Military Historian of the Year]]'''" and "'''[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Voting_2|Military history newcomer of the year]]'''" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team


== Marquinhos Wikipediano ==

It looks like they are trolling again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_crimes&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=WikipedianManiac&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.131.1.0|109.131.1.0]] ([[User talk:109.131.1.0#top|talk]]) 05:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 

== He is trolling the Sockpuppet_investigations page to ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15 — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.131.1.0|109.131.1.0]] ([[User talk:109.131.1.0#top|talk]]) 05:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 

== They made this page Marquinhos Wikipediano Can you help nominate it to be deleted also the other Sock Master is from Brazil when looking at their Case page =D ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montese — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/177.155.203.67|177.155.203.67]] ([[User talk:177.155.203.67#top|talk]]) 06:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 

I POSTED ON THE WRONG PART REMOVE PLEASE

clearly i aint sock of any of these you mentioned, if i was, i wouldnt be searching for their sockpuppets and trying to help, i found driverofknowledge by looking into a page's edit history, also, the summaries part is non sensical, i undid what an sockpuppet made on them, then i undo my revert n soviet war crimes cuz the guy that ADDED was ALSO probably a sockpuppet, filter log means my errors, also, what the frick? persistent sockpuppetry? i just reverted his talk page to get a better understanding of that 9 year old's behaviour and see where he will attack (ww2 and footbal/emergency (police, firefighters, etc)), i aint doing exactly like jack did, its just a coincidence that i hate sockpuppeters and vandals? i just have a interest on ww2 pages like him, diference is that i am not a 9 year old that vandals while screaming "MAMA LOOK IM SO FUNNY, HAHA I VANDALIZED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE", i modified the talk page because i wanted to get in contact with the kid to try to understand that imbecile's reasons to vandalize, if he was just plain dumb or if he was a historical revisionist that clearly contradicts himself on war crimes (favouring axis sometimes then favouring soviets), its just plain coincidence, ALL,ill repeat, ALL of your claims make absolute non sense, i checked the edits and man, i was just undoing jack sock edits, also, if i was a sock, i wouldnt be jack, cuz if i was a jack sock, i wouldnt be attacking him, i would be attacking marquinhoswikipediano or the admins/common users, i saw about marquinhoswikipediano and when i saw jack comment, i wanted to remove it because jack is guilty, and a guilty guy commenting on another guilty guy is sus, you cant be certain that im a sock by seeing a filter log or some random reverts, you need more research, i had a reason to undo hes blank, i had a reason to comment on the investigations page (on my opinion, it shouldnt had been archived because it clearly needs to continue as this jack kid continues to sock), also, i accused an ip of being marquinhos sock because he had the same attitudes as jack and marquinhos, also, i think that marquinhos and jack are either enemy trolls or the same person making edit wars for fun, or brother, friends, something like that doing random edit wars to disrupt wikipedia (the last one is improbable). — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/177.155.203.67|177.155.203.67]] ([[User talk:177.155.203.67#top|talk]]) 06:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 

== Similarities ==

Pudeo, regarding your comment here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Previous_accounts]]. Do you see similarities to this account [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/John_Mendelsund&dir=prev&offset=20191002135211&limit=500&target=John_Mendelsund]]? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Springee}} I don't know, I'll look into it, although that account is apparently not blocked or banned, so in itself it would just be a link in-between. Thanks for pointer. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

== Request for help and feedback - non-free use images and WP:NFCCP ==

Dear Pudeo,
Recently I have been trying to improve wiki pages relating to British activists, especially those with links to the Spanish Civil War. Yesterday was the first time I had ever attempted to upload a photograph to a wikipedia page using the non-free use rational, and although I believe I have done everything to ensure it's properly used, I would feel more comfortable if a more experienced editor like you could double-check my work.
The below image of Alan Winnington was the first non-free use photo I have uploaded.

'''Alan Winnington:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Journalist_Alan_Winnington.jpg#filelinks

I have done everything I can to make sure it's used properly and that it follows WP:NFCCP, but I would feel much better to have a more experienced editor have a look.
Any help and advice will be greatly appreciated.
[[User:BulgeUwU|BulgeUwU]] ([[User talk:BulgeUwU|talk]]) 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|BulgeUwU}} It looks good to me. The resolution is small enough, and the non-free rationale you write seems alright. Sometimes the non-free criteria is quite complex and many editors don't use non-free images at all, with the exception of logos and the like. Just remember that the image can't be embedded to any other page (whether it's a talkpage or any other article). Good job. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 15:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

== Spurious allegation of sockpuppetry on my talk page - please strikethrough ==

In January, you made a false suggestion on my talk page that I have used sockpuppets on controversial pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noteduck#Previous_accounts] Your allegations have no basis in fact. I called upon you to strike through your comment on 22 January but didn't get a response. Your allegation is totally false, and you should strike it through or I'll have to consider other remedies. Thanks [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck|talk]]) 00:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Noteduck}}. Let me get this straight. Your previous account called {{user|Spungo93}} was checkuser-blocked on January 7. You [[Special:Diff/998768157|explained]]: {{tq|I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it}}. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=107377130 log entry]), meaning you misremembered the date by years, which you confirmed in your reply. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part does not make sense because you had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. Sockpuppeting is quite a serious problem in Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask you about these inconsistencies, because they seemed fishy to me. Or as the admin who blocked your previous account later said he probably should have responded: [[Special:Diff/1001828400|"ahem, that's crap"]]. But I didn't mean any ill will towards you, and that's that.
:But no, I'm not going to strike that. However, you are free to remove almost anything from your talkpage per [[WP:OWNTALK]], including my comment. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo#top|talk]]) 13:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Pudeo

2021-02-07T13:47:41Z

Pudeo: /* Spurious allegation of sockpuppetry on my talk page - please strikethrough */ I'm not going to strike that. But you are free to remove anything from your talkpage.

Plum, Pennsylvania

2021-02-06T20:47:24Z

Pudeo: Reverted edits by ProFortniteMan (talk) to last version by NASCARfan0548

:''For the township in Venango County, see [[Plum Township, Pennsylvania]].''
{{Infobox settlement


|name = Plum, Pennsylvania
|settlement_type = [[Borough (Pennsylvania)|Borough]]

|image_skyline = OakmontCountryClub.jpg
|image_caption = Oakmont Country Club National Register of Historic Places


|image_map = Allegheny County Pennsylvania incorporated and unincorporated areas Plum highlighted.svg
|mapsize = 260px
|map_caption = Location in [[Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Allegheny County]] and the U.S. state of [[Pennsylvania]].
|pushpin_map = Pennsylvania#USA
|pushpin_label = Plum
|pushpin_map_caption = Location in Pennsylvania##Location in the United States
|coordinates = {{coord|40|29|55|N|79|45|16|W|region:US_type:city|display=inline,title}}
|subdivision_type = Country
|subdivision_name = [[United States]]
|subdivision_type1 = State
|subdivision_name1 = [[Pennsylvania]]
|subdivision_type2 = County
|subdivision_name2 = [[Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Allegheny]]

|established_title = Founded as Plum Township
|established_date = 1788

|unit_pref = Imperial
|area_total_sq_mi = 28.96
|area_land_sq_mi = 28.58
|area_water_sq_mi = 0.38
|area_water_percent = 1.34

|population_as_of = [[2010 United States Census|2010]]
|population_total = 27126
|website = {{URL|www.plumboro.com}}
|pop_est_as_of = 2019
|pop_est_footnotes = <ref name="USCensusEst2019CenPopScriptOnlyDirtyFixDoNotUse"/>
|population_est = 27087
|blank_name = [[Federal Information Processing Standards|FIPS code]]
|blank_info = 42-61536
|area_footnotes = <ref name="CenPopGazetteer2019">{{cite web|title=2019 U.S. Gazetteer Files|url=https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2019_Gazetteer/2019_gaz_place_42.txt|publisher=United States Census Bureau|access-date=July 28, 2020}}</ref>
|area_total_km2 = 75.01
|area_land_km2 = 74.03
|area_water_km2 = 0.98
|population_density_sq_mi = 947.66
|population_density_km2 = 365.89
}}
'''Plum''' is a [[Borough (Pennsylvania)|borough]] in [[Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Allegheny County]] in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Pennsylvania]]. A suburb of [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]], it is located northeast of the city of Pittsburgh, in what is commonly referred to as the East Hills suburbs. The population was 27,126 at the [[2010 United States Census|2010 census]].<ref name="Census 2010">{{cite web |url=https://www.census.gov |title=Race, Hispanic or Latino, Age, and Housing Occupancy: 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File (QT-PL), Plum borough, Pennsylvania |publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]] |access-date=September 21, 2011 }}</ref>

Plum is often referred to as "Plum Boro" or more correctly "Plum Borough" by locals to distinguish it from its previous status as a [[Township (Pennsylvania)|township]]. It was founded as Plum Township in 1788 and was reorganized as a borough in 1956. The borough took its name from nearby [[Plum Creek (Allegheny River)|Plum Creek]].<ref>{{cite news | url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a4NIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G24DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2867%2C2505444 | title=Town names carry a little bit of history | work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | date=May 10, 1984 | access-date=26 May 2015 | author=Porter, Thomas J. Jr. | pages=1}}</ref>

==History==
Plum Township was founded on December 18, 1788 as one of the original seven townships of Allegheny County. It originally extended as far south as [[Versailles Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Versailles]] (modern-day [[North Versailles Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|North Versailles Township]]), east to the county line, west to [[Pitt Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Pitt Township]], and north to the [[Allegheny River]]. Plum has shrunk greatly over the years in area, but still remains among the larger municipalities in Allegheny County.<ref name="Kordalski2011">{{cite book |last1=Kordalski Jr. |first1=Frank |title=Plum Borough |date=May 16, 2011 |publisher=Arcadia Publishing |isbn=9780738574332 |url=https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9780738574332}}</ref>

==Geography==
According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the borough has a total area of {{convert|29.0|sqmi}}, of which {{convert|28.6|sqmi}} is land and {{convert|0.4|sqmi}}, or 1.34%, is water. Plum Borough is the second largest borough (area-wise) in the state of Pennsylvania.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.plumboro.com/about-the-borough-of-plum|title=About the Borough of Plum {{!}} Plum PA|date=2013-06-03|website=www.plumboro.com|language=en|access-date=2018-04-20}}</ref>

===Streams===
* [[Pucketa Creek]] joins the [[Allegheny River]] where the creek forms the boundary between the borough of Plum and the city of [[Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania|Lower Burrell]].<ref name="GNIS1">{{Cite gnis|id=1184482|name=Pucketa Creek|access-date=2009-12-02}}</ref>
* Abers Creek
* [[Plum Creek (Allegheny River)|Plum Creek]] rises in the borough.<ref name="GNIS2">{{Cite gnis|id=1184110|name=Plum Creek|access-date=2010-12-18}}</ref>
** Little Plum Creek

===Surrounding communities===
* [[Monroeville, Pennsylvania|Monroeville]] (south)
* [[Penn Hills Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Penn Hills]] (west)
* [[Oakmont, Pennsylvania|Oakmont]] (west)
* [[Harmar Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania|Harmar Township]] (north across [[Allegheny River]])
* [[Cheswick, Pennsylvania|Cheswick]] (north across Allegheny River)
* [[Springdale, Pennsylvania|Springdale]] (north across Allegheny River)
* [[Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania|Lower Burrell]] (north, in [[Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania|Westmoreland County]])
* [[New Kensington, Pennsylvania|New Kensington]] (north, in Westmoreland County)
* [[Upper Burrell Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania|Upper Burrell Township]] (northeast, in Westmoreland County)
* [[Murrysville, Pennsylvania|Murrysville]] (east, in Westmoreland County)

==Demographics==
{{US Census population
|1960= 10241
|1970= 21932
|1980= 25390
|1990= 25609
|2000= 26940
|2010= 27126
|estyear=2019
|estimate=27087
|estref=<ref name="USCensusEst2019CenPopScriptOnlyDirtyFixDoNotUse">{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2019.html|date=May 24, 2020|title=Population and Housing Unit Estimates|publisher=United States Census Bureau|access-date=May 27, 2020}}</ref>
|footnote=Sources:<ref name="Census1960">{{cite web|title=Number of Inhabitants: Pennsylvania|url=http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/17216604v1p40ch02.pdf|work=18th Census of the United States|publisher=U.S. Census Bureau|access-date=22 November 2013}}</ref><ref name="Census1990">{{cite web|title=Pennsylvania: Population and Housing Unit Counts|url=https://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-40.pdf|publisher=U.S. Census Bureau|access-date=22 November 2013}}</ref><ref name="GR2">{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov|publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]]|access-date=2008-01-31|title=U.S. Census website}}</ref><ref name="CensusPopEst">{{cite web|title=Annual Estimates of the Resident Population|url=https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html|publisher=U.S. Census Bureau|access-date=22 November 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019235623/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012-3.html|archive-date=19 October 2013}}</ref>
}}
At the [[2010 United States Census|2010 census]] there were 27,126 people, 10,528 households, and 7,431 families living in the borough. The population density was 935.4 people per square mile. There were 10,528 housing units at an average density of 363.0 per square mile. The [[Race and ethnicity in the United States Census#2010 census|racial makeup]] of the borough was 93.9% White, 3.6% African American, 0.1% Native American, 1.1% Asian, 0.00% Pacific Islander, 0.2% from other races, and 1.0% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.9%.<ref name="GR2" />

There were 10,528 households, 29.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 62.6% were married couples living together and 29.4% were non-families. 24.5% of households were made up of individuals, and 12.6% were one person aged 65 or older. The average household size was 2.55 and the average family size was 3.09.

The age distribution was 24.2% under the age of 20, 2.5% from 20 to 24, 24.4% from 25 to 44, 29.6% from 45 to 64, and 16.8% 65 or older. The median age was 42.6 years. For every 100 females, there were 97.6 males.

The median household income was $66,680 and the median family income was $74,941. Males had a median income of $54,119 versus $40,625 for females. The per capita income for the borough was $30,474. About 3.8% of families and 4.8% of the population were below the [[poverty line]], including 6.3% of those under age 18 and 3.2% of those age 65 or over.

==Government and politics==
Boroughs in Pennsylvania (including Plum) are governed by a Mayor-Council system; in which the mayor has only a few powers and the council is the main legislative body.<ref>{{cite web |title=Plum Boro: Government |url=https://www.plumboro.com/government |access-date=25 January 2020}}</ref> As of January 2020, the mayor is Harry Schlegel.

{| align="center" border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="float:right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"
|+ '''Presidential Elections Results'''<ref>{{cite web|last1=EL|title=2012 Allegheny County election|url=http://triblive.com/politics/2907065-74/pittsburgh-ward-hills-west-borough-braddock-east-elizabeth-north-park|website=Pittsburgh Tribune-Review|access-date=15 October 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=EL|title=2016 Pennsylvani general election...|url=http://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/electionresultsgen2016/|website=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|access-date=15 October 2017}}</ref>
|- bgcolor=lightgrey
! Year
! [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]
! [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]]
! [[Third Party (United States)|Third Parties]]
|-
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Republican}}|'''[[United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2016|2016]]'''
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Republican}}|''58%'' ''8,224''
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Democratic}}|''41%'' ''5,739''
| style="text-align:center; background:honeyDew;"|''1%'' ''121''
|-
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Republican}}|'''[[United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2012|2012]]'''
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Republican}}|''57%'' ''7,723''
| style="text-align:center; {{Party shading/Democratic}}|''42%'' ''5,633''
| style="text-align:center; background:honeyDew;"|''1%'' ''119''
|}

==Education==
The [[Plum Borough School District]] serves the borough grades K–12. The elementary schools (grades K–4) are Center and Pivik. The middle elementary school is Holiday Park Elementary (grades 5-6). The junior high school is A.E. Oblock Junior High School (grades 7-8) and [[Plum High School|Plum Senior High School]] serves grades 9–12. The latest redistricting was approved by the Plum School Board in 2018. There were once three other elementary schools, which were called Renton Elementary School, Regency Park Elementary, and the other called Adlai E. Stevenson, both have since been torn down. Plum School District is governed by the Plum School Board.<ref name="Divittorio2018">{{cite news |last1=Divittorio |first1=Michael |title=Plum School District reconfiguration options to be narrowed down at committee meeting |url=https://triblive.com/local/plum/13358992-74/plum-school-district-reconfiguration-options-to-be-narrowed-down-at-committee-meeting |work=Pittsburgh Tribune-Review |date=March 2, 2018}}</ref>

Plum Borough is also serviced by the Plum Borough Community Library. The library houses the history room of the Allegheny Foothills Historical Society (the Historical Society also provides tours of the reconstructed Carpenter Family Log House in Boyce Park).

==Landmarks==
* [[Oakmont Country Club]] is wholly located within Plum's borders, according to Google Maps. The course has been consistently ranked as one of the five best by ''[[Golf Digest]]'' 100 Greatest Golf Courses in America. In 2007, Oakmont placed 5th by the magazine.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200705greatestranking.html |title=America's 100 Greatest Courses |work=[[Golf Digest]] |date=May 2007 |access-date=2007-06-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070607164409/http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?%2Fcourses%2Famericasgreatest%2Fgd200705greatestranking.html |archive-date=2007-06-07 |url-status=live }}</ref> It is one of only a few courses ranked every year in the top ten of the publication's history. The top 50 toughest courses rank Oakmont also at #5,<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/index.ssf?/courses/gd200703toughestcourses2.html | archive-url = https://archive.today/20130111022713/http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/index.ssf?/courses/gd200703toughestcourses2.html | url-status = dead | archive-date = 2013-01-11 | title = America's 50 Toughest Golf Courses | work = [[Golf Digest]] |date=March 2007 | access-date = 2007-06-10 }}</ref> while GolfLink.com ranks it at #3 overall.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.golflink.com/top-golf-courses/ | title = Top 100 United States Golf Courses | year = 2007 | access-date = 2007-06-10 | work = Golf Link }}</ref> It hosted its ninth [[U.S. Open (golf)|U.S. Open]] in 2016, the most of any course.
* The portion of the [[Pennsylvania Turnpike]] from mile markers 49 through 55 crosses through Plum.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.unityvfd.org/about_us.html| title = About Unity Volunteer Fire Department |year = 2009 | access-date = 2009-09-12 }}</ref>

==Notable people==
* [[William D. Boyce]], founder of the [[Boy Scouts of America]]
* [[Pat McAfee]], former punter for [[Indianapolis Colts]], former punter/kicker [[West Virginia Mountaineers football]] team
* [[Elias (wrestler)|Elias]] (real name Jeffrey Sciullo), professional [[WWE]] wrestler

==See also==
* [[Logans Ferry Mine Tunnel]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.plumboro.com/ Plum Borough official website]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20080918225146/http://www.plumhistory.org/ Allegheny Foothills Historical Society]

{{Pittsburgh Metro Area}}
{{Allegheny County, Pennsylvania}}
{{Pennsylvania}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:Populated places established in 1788]]
[[Category:Pittsburgh metropolitan area]]
[[Category:Boroughs in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:1788 establishments in Pennsylvania]]

Plum, Pennsylvania

2021-02-06T20:44:55Z

Pudeo: Reverted 1 edit by ProFortniteMan (talk) to last revision by ClueBot NG

User talk:ProFortniteMan

2021-02-06T20:41:05Z

Pudeo: Caution: Unconstructive editing on :Plum, Pennsylvania.

== February 2021 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Steve M|Steve M]]. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of [[Special:Contributions/ProFortniteMan|your recent contributions]]—specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plum%2C%20Pennsylvania&diff=1005263324 this edit] to [[:Plum, Pennsylvania]]—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]]. Thanks. [[User:Steve M|Steve M]] ([[User talk:Steve M|talk]]) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at [[:Plum, Pennsylvania]]. Your edits appear to constitute [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use your [[User:ProFortniteMan/sandbox|sandbox]]. Repeated vandalism may result in the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|loss of editing privileges]]. Thank you.{{Z187}} [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Plum, Pennsylvania

2021-02-06T20:40:24Z

Pudeo: Reverted 1 edit by ProFortniteMan (talk) to last revision by Steve M

Aldergrove, Langley

2021-02-06T20:40:18Z

Pudeo: Reverted 1 edit by 96.48.115.218 (talk) to last revision by ClueBot NG

'''Aldergrove''' is a community in the [[Langley, British Columbia (district municipality)|Township of Langley]] within [[British Columbia]], Canada,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/724.html | title=Name Details: Aldergrove | publisher=GeoBC | access-date=April 14, 2013}}</ref> approximately {{convert|59|km|mi|abbr=on}} east of Vancouver. The community is urban in nature<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=802&SR=1&S=1&O=A&RPP=9999&PR=59&CMA=0 | title=Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and urban areas, 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data (British Columbia) | publisher=[[Statistics Canada]] | date=June 1, 2010 | access-date=April 14, 2013}}</ref> and, although not [[List of towns in British Columbia|incorporated as a town]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/Name%20Incorp%202011.xls |title=British Columbia Regional Districts, Municipalities, Corporate Name, Date of Incorporation and Postal Address |publisher=British Columbia Ministry of Communities, Sport and Cultural Development |type=[[Microsoft Excel|XLS]] |access-date=April 14, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140713004716/http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/Name%20Incorp%202011.xls |archive-date=July 13, 2014 }}</ref> is often referred to as one.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.aldergrovestar.com/news/164673576.html | title=Cooking up a storm in Aldergrove's bountiful gardens | author=Kurt Langmann | newspaper=Aldergrove Star | publisher=[[Black Press]] | date=August 1, 2012 | access-date=April 14, 2013}}</ref> Aldergrove is located at the southeastern edge of both the Township of Langley and the [[Greater Vancouver]] metropolitan area, near the western edge of the [[Abbotsford, British Columbia|Abbotsford]] metropolitan area. It is home to one of the [[Lower Mainland]]'s five land border crossings, connecting Aldergrove and [[Lynden, Washington]].

This is a predominantly agricultural area, with crops including medical cannabis, grown by [[Canopy Growth Corporation]], in the [[Agricultural Land Reserve (British Columbia)]] area.<ref>https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/alr-maps</ref><ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/world-largest-licensed-pot-farm-langley-1.4556613</ref> This grow operation is the largest federally licensed cannabis facility in the world, with 400,000 sq. ft. of growing space and may eventually reach 1.3 million sq. ft.<ref>http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canopy-growth-largest-marijuana-facility-aldergrove-february-2018</ref><ref>https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/aurora-cannabis-inc-vs-canopy-130035763.html</ref>

== Demographics ==
Aldergrove was split up into two [[Census geographic units of Canada#Population centres|population centres]] in the [[Canada 2016 Census]], the main part in the Township of Langley and the other part in the City of Abbotsford as "Aldergrove East." Aldergrove had a population of 15,498 living in 5,280 of its 5,557 total private dwellings, a 7.1% change from its 2011 population of 14,466. This population was divided into 12,007 residents of Aldergrove proper, in Langley; and 3,491 residents of Aldergrove East, in Abbotsford. With a land area of {{convert|9.45|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}, it had a population density of {{Pop density|15498|9.45|km2|sqmi}} in 2016. 49.3% of the residents were male and 50.7% of the residents were female.<ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove">{{cite web | url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=1218&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=aldergrove&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 | title=Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and population centres, 2016 and 2011 censuses (British Columbia) | publisher=Statistics Canada | date=November 3, 2017 | access-date=November 19, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove East">{{cite web | url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=1408&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=aldergrove&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 | title=Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and population centres, 2016 and 2011 censuses (British Columbia) | publisher=Statistics Canada | date=November 3, 2017 | access-date=November 19, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Census 2016 Table BC">{{cite web | url=http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table.cfm?Lang=Eng&T=801&SR=1&S=47&O=A&RPP=25 | title=Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and population centres, 2016 and 2011 censuses (British Columbia) | publisher=Statistics Canada | date=August 28, 2017 | access-date=November 19, 2017}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="2" | Canada 2016 Census!! Population !! % of Total Population
|-
| rowspan="12" | [[Visible minority]] group Source:<ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove" /><ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove East" /> || [[South Asia]]n || 1,820 || {{Percentage | 1820 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Chinese Canadian|Chinese]] || 175 || {{Percentage | 175 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Black Canadians|Black]] || 305 || {{Percentage | 305 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Filipino Canadian|Filipino]] || 160 || {{Percentage | 160 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Latin American Canadian|Latin American]] || 160 || {{Percentage | 160 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Arab Canadians|Arab]] || 10 || {{Percentage | 10 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Southeast Asia]]n || 655 || {{Percentage | 655 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Western Asia|West Asian]] || 30 || {{Percentage | 30 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Korean Canadian|Korean]] || 75 || {{Percentage | 75 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Japanese Canadians|Japanese]] || 75 || {{Percentage | 75 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| Other visible minority || 30 || {{Percentage | 30 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Multiracial|Multiple]] visible minorities ("mixed") || 105 || {{Percentage | 105 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Total visible minority population'''|| '''3,610''' || '''{{Percentage | 3610 | 15498 | 1 }}'''
|-
| rowspan="3" | [[Aboriginal peoples in Canada|Aboriginal]] group Source:<ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove" /><ref name="Census 2016 Aldergrove East" /> || [[First Nations]] || 680 || {{Percentage | 680 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Métis people (Canada)|Métis]] || 515 || {{Percentage | 515 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| [[Inuit]] || 10 || {{Percentage | 10 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Total Aboriginal population''' || '''1,135''' || '''{{Percentage | 1135 | 15498 | 1 }}'''
|-
| colspan="2" | [[European Canadian]] || 10,515 || {{Percentage | 10515 | 15498 | 1 }}
|-
| colspan="2" | '''''Total population''''' || '''''15,498''''' || '''''100%'''''
|}

== Arts and culture ==
The [[A&E (TV channel)|A&E]] television series ''[[Bates Motel (TV series)|Bates Motel]]'' is filmed in Aldergrove, though it is set in the fictional town of White Pine Bay, Oregon. The series stars [[Freddie Highmore]] and [[Vera Farmiga]] and is a prequel to the famous 1960 [[Alfred Hitchcock]] horror film ''[[Psycho (1960 film)|Psycho]]'', which is based on the [[Psycho (novel)|novel of the same name]]. The series is set in modern times and the first season was filmed in the fall of 2012. The set for the original home is located in [[Universal Studios Hollywood]] in Los Angeles, however a replica has been built in Aldergrove, where the series is filmed. Filming for the second season commenced in August 2013.<ref>http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2013/03/bates_motel_whats_going_on_in.html</ref> The set is located on 272nd Street.<ref>http://yvrshoots.com/2012/11/bates-motel-set-in-aldergrove-just-like-hitchcocks-psycho.html</ref> Principal photography for the third season began on October 20, 2014 and was completed on March 1, 2015. The Kent farm from the TV series ''[[Smallville]]'' is a working farm in Aldergrove. Owned by the Anderlinis, their home was painted yellow for the show.

The fourth season of the Canadian television series, ''The Amazing Race Canada'', starred two women from Aldergrove, Frankie Gassler and Amy Gassler. They ended up placing 4th in this race around the world.

In 2017, location filming for the [[Hallmark Channel]] original movie ''Coming Home for Christmas'' starring [[Danica Mckellar]] took place at a large mansion in Aldergrove.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whatsfilming.ca/2017/08/08/coming-home-for-christmas-welcome-home-warrior/|title=Coming Home For Christmas & Christmas Homecoming Start Filming|author=What's Filming|publisher="What's Filming"|date=August 8, 2017|access-date=December 28, 2017}}</ref>

== Attractions ==
The [[Greater Vancouver Zoo]] and the [[Twilight Drive-in Theatre]] are located in Aldergrove.

The Aldergrove Credit Union Community Centre opened in 2018, with an accompanying Otter Co-op Outdoor Experience water park, featuring water slides, a wave pool, lazy river and an aquaplay structure.<ref name="Claxton">{{cite web |last=Claxton |first=Matthew |title=Aldergrove takes a dip in new pool at rec centre |url=https://www.langleyadvance.com/community/aldergrove-takes-a-dip-in-new-pool-at-rec-centre/ |website=Langley Advance |access-date=17 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817124940/https://www.langleyadvance.com/community/aldergrove-takes-a-dip-in-new-pool-at-rec-centre/ |archive-date=17 August 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

== Sports ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ 
|-
! scope="col" | Club
! scope="col" | League
! scope="col" | Sport
! scope="col" | Established
! scope="col" | Championships
|-
! scope="row" style="font-weight: normal;" | [[Aldergrove Kodiaks]]
| <center>[[Pacific Junior Hockey League|PJHL]]</center>
| [[Ice hockey]]
| <center>2008 </center>
| <center>2</center>
|}

== Government ==
=== Military ===
The [[Royal Canadian Navy|Royal Canadian Navy's]] primary communication station for the Pacific fleet is located at [[NRS Aldergrove|Naval Radio Site Aldergrove]].

The Canadian military owns over one thousand acres of land just outside the main Aldergrove population area.

=== Politics ===
[[Langley—Aldergrove]] in the [[House of Commons of Canada]].

== Infrastructure ==
=== Transportation ===
Aldergrove is served by the [[List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver#Langley|#503 Aldergrove/Surrey Central Station]] bus route. The No. 503 operates trips every half-hour between [[Langley Centre]] and Fraser Hwy and 272nd Street. It is also served by the No. 21 Valley Max bus service that connects Aldergrove to Abbotsford.

An independently run trolley service briefly serviced Aldergrove before ceasing operations.<ref>http://www.aldergrovestar.com/news/aldergrove-trolley-service-suspended/</ref>

Aldergrove is located at the junction of [[British Columbia Highway 13|Highway 13]] and the [[Fraser Highway]].

== Education ==
As part of [[School District 35 Langley]], Aldergrove has one [[High school (North America)|high school]], [[Aldergrove Community Secondary School]], four [[elementary school]]s, and a [[middle school]]:

*[[Betty Gilbert Middle School]]
*[[Coghlan Elementary School]]
*[[North Otter Elementary School]]
*[[Parkside Centennial Elementary School]]
*[[Shortreed Elementary School]]

[[Aldergrove Elementary School]] had been an active school until 2007, when [[protest]]s since 2005 failed to prevent closure due to running under capacity with 189 pupils in 2006. The school has since been torn down, with a new community centre being built in its place.

Aldergrove also has four Khalsa school Fraser valley (26345 62) [[private school]]s: Aldergrove Christian Academy and [[Fraser Valley Adventist Academy]], both of which are K-12 schools; and Combined Christian School.

== See also ==
*[[Otter Co-op]]
*[[Aldergrove Credit Union]]
*[[Grande West Transportation Group]]
*[[Canopy Growth Corporation]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

{{Subdivisions of British Columbia|detached=yes}}
{{LangleyNeighbourhoods}}

{{coord|49.055|N|122.475|W|display=title}}

[[Category:Neighbourhoods in Langley, British Columbia]]
[[Category:Langley, British Columbia (district municipality)]]

User talk:178.255.168.11

2021-02-06T20:39:20Z

Pudeo: General note: Removal of content, blanking on :Pavel Rychetský.

== November 2020 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:AcebulfALT|AcebulfALT]]. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of [[Special:Contributions/178.255.168.11|your recent contributions]] —specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution%20of%20Dignity&diff=988916720 this edit] to [[:Revolution of Dignity]]—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]]. Thanks. [[User:AcebulfALT|AcebulfALT]] ([[User talk:AcebulfALT|talk]]) 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''

[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[:Democracy in China]]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. '' '' [[User:4thfile4thrank|4thfile4thrank]] {[[User talk:4thfile4thrank|talk]]} :? 19:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
:
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''

== February 2021 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]]. I noticed that you recently removed content from [[:Pavel Rychetský]] without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Pudeo|my talk page]]. Thanks. [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''

Pavel Rychetský

2021-02-06T20:39:11Z

Pudeo: Reverted 1 edit by 178.255.168.11 (talk): Why remove the infobox?

{{Infobox Officeholder
|honorific-prefix = JUDr.
|name = Pavel Rychetský
|honorific-suffix =
|image = Charta-setkání-signatářů-ke-40.-výročí-Lucerna2017-025.jpg
|imagesize =
|smallimage =
|caption =
|office = 3rd President of the [[Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic|Constitutional Court]]
|term_start = 6 August 2003
|term_end =
| nominator = [[Václav Klaus]] [[Miloš Zeman]]
|succeeding =
|predecessor = [[Miloš Holeček]]
|successor =
|office1 = [[Ministry of Justice (Czech Republic)|Minister of Justice]]
|term_start1 = 15 July 2002
|term_end1 = 5 August 2003
|primeminister1 = [[Vladimír Špidla]]
|predecessor1 = [[Jaroslav Bureš]]
|successor1 = [[Karel Čermák]]
|office2 = [[Miloš Zeman's Cabinet|Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic]]
|term_start2 = 22 July 1998
|term_end2 = 12 July 2002
|primeminister2 = [[Miloš Zeman]]
|predecessor2 =
|successor2 =
|office3 = [[Senate of the Czech Republic|Senator]] from [[Strakonice]]
|term_start3 = 23 November 1996
|term_end3 = 6 August 2003
|predecessor3 = ''office established''
|successor3 = [[Josef Kalbáč]]
|birth_date = 17 August 1943
|birth_place = [[Prague]], [[Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia|Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia]]
|death_date =
|death_place =
|restingplace =
|restingplacecoordinates =
|birthname =
|nationality = Czech
|party = [[Independent politician|Independent]] {{Small|(2003–present)}}
|otherparty = {{Nowrap|[[Communist Party of Czechoslovakia|Communist Party]] {{Small|(1966–1969)}} [[Civic Forum]] {{Small|(1989–1991)}} [[Civic Movement]] {{Small|(1991–1995)}} [[Czech Social Democratic Party|Social Democratic Party]] {{Small|(1995–2003)}}}}
|spouse =
|relations =
|children = 3
|residence =
|alma_mater = [[Charles University]]
|occupation =
|profession =
|cabinet =
|committees =
|portfolio =
|religion =
|signature =
}}

'''Pavel Rychetský''' (born 17 August 1943) is a [[Czech Republic|Czech]] lawyer and former politician who is the 3rd and current President of the [[Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic]]. The [[Senate of the Czech Republic|Senate]] confirmed him on 16 July 2003 and on 6 August 2003 he was sworn in by [[President of the Czech Republic|President]] [[Václav Klaus]] and reappointed in 2013 by President [[Miloš Zeman]].

Before joining the [[Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic|Constitutional Court]], Rychetský was the Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Legislative Council from 15 July 2002 to 5 August 2003 and also [[Senate of the Czech Republic|Senator]] from [[Strakonice]] from 1996 to 2003. Between 1998 and 2002 he served as vice president of [[Miloš Zeman]]'s government.

Previously, he had a private law practice and held positions in the Government since early 1990s.

Rychetský was awarded the [[Légion d'honneur]] on 12 July 2005.

== External links ==
* [http://www.concourt.cz/view/1420 Official biography]
* {{Commonscat-inline}}

{{CZ-Justice-ministers}}

{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rychetsky, Pavel}}
[[Category:1943 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Charter 77 signatories]]
[[Category:Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic judges]]
[[Category:Charles University alumni]]
[[Category:Justice ministers of the Czech Republic]]
[[Category:Czech Social Democratic Party Senators]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Legion of Honour]]
[[Category:Communist Party of Czechoslovakia politicians]]
[[Category:Judges from Prague]]
[[Category:Politicians from Prague]]
[[Category:Czech Social Democratic Party Government ministers]]
[[Category:Civic Movement Government ministers]]
[[Category:Recipients of the Order of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, 1st class]]

{{CzechRepublic-politician-stub}}
{{Law-bio-stub}}

Talk:Axis powers

2021-02-06T20:28:32Z

Pudeo: /* Co-belligerent */ +

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=high|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=C

|B-Class-1=no

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes
|Japanese-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|Italian-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=C|importance=high|milhist=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}}
{{WikiProject Italy|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Romania|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=C|importance=Mid|no-todolist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=c}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
{{WikiProject Judaism}}
}}
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History|anchor=World War II (72 articles)}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=b}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Status of Vichy France ==

Some sources, including [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iEVYAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2281&lpg=PA2281&dq=vichy+france+co-belligerent++Bradley+%26+Goldsmith&source=bl&ots=oA0RDO5skt&sig=ACfU3U0JraVK_03zmQwE1i3YZUsRt9sscQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmzb2JvprtAhVYxzgGHTVgB6Y4ChDoATAAegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=vichy%20france%20co-belligerent%20%20Bradley%20%26%20Goldsmith&f=false this] legal study of the law of co-belligerency, consider Vichy France a co-belligerent on the Axis side. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its fine to have it there then.[[User:Isabella Emma|Isabella Emma]] ([[User talk:Isabella Emma|talk]]) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:Have cited it. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Havsjö|Beyond My Ken}} Vichy France waged war against Britain (which ''is'' co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
::Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:::We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Vichy France was most certainly not in the state of war with Germany. An armistice is less than a full fledged peace treaty but it can end state of war as well. Vichy France was most certainly an ally or a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, ''inter alia'', to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was ''minimally'' coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Srnec}}, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:In her [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", ''Yale Journal of International Law'' (2017)], Rebecca Ingber cites [https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/HUMR5503/h09/undervisningsmateriale/bradley_goldsmith.pdf Bradley&Goldsmith], and puts that article into a proper context. It says that Bradley&Goldsmith (who worked for the US government) wrote their work to justify US action against the states that supported Al Qaida, and they used Vichy as a precedent. However, according that that article, there are serious problem with their arguments, and [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ this York University School of Law web site] provides a convincing counter-arguments against Vichy's co-belligerence. Importantly, according to the NYU school of law article, Bradley&Goldsmith were ''originators'' of the idea of Vichy co-belligerency, therefore, we can conclude that that view didn't exist before that date, and, most likely, it still reflects mostly US view. Therefore, Vichy France should be removed from the infobox, and its potential co-belligerency should be discussed in a separate section devoted to controversial cases.
:Interestingly, although Bradley&Goldsmith's article is being [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9987766149056998138&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en widely cited], majority references are not in a context of Vichy France (only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=5%2C33&sciodt=0%2C33&cites=9987766149056998138&scipsc=1&q=vichy+france+&btnG= 13 documents] from that list mention Vichy), which means Vichy France is not a focus of that article. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Maybe the issue is controversial, but per the mother article's definiton ([[co-belligerence]]), certainly there was a period when she was like that.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::Wikipedia is not a RS. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I know, but terminologies and articles should be consisntent in it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::AFAIK, Vichy never attacked the Allies, they were just fighting back, which is consistent with a behaviour of truly neutral states. Anyway, I got no reasonable counterarguments, so I remove Vichy. Please, do not restore it without providing better sources.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::And I have reverted your edit. Ignoring arguments from other people that do not fit in your POV is not the way consensus works. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::I saw no arguments, and, importantly, no sources. Per WP:ONUS, responsibility is on those who adds a contested material. please, self-revert addition of poorly sourced material that is contested by reliable sources and is definitely non-neutral. If no arguments, supported by reliable sources, will follow in next week, I am going to revert you.
:::::::In addition, [[WP:NPA|accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack]]. I suggest you either provide evidences or to refrain form accusing me of POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Inclusion of USSR in the infobox ==

USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=999720829]. This was challenged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002614947&oldid=1002614763]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002618127&oldid=1002616357] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This [https://books.google.com/books?id=MktdDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=umQqmFXTosMC&pg=PA84&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwA3oECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (political scientist).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Here, [https://books.google.com/books?id=maEfAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=%20alliance&f=false pages 116-7, 156-158].[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=MYqFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwCHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=uroiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik5pD53rbuAhWHbs0KHUtiA2U4ChDoATABegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (also historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:And [https://books.google.com/books?id=giMfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ8fLl37buAhXGWM0KHSFgA0IQ6AEwBHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (professor of Holocaust Studies).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This source [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&div=75&id=&page=] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: ''"As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17"''.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.
::I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1002631212] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
*Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]]. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was '''''not''''' an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.{{pb}}I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.{{pb}}History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the '''''consensus''''' of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was '''''not''''' an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were '''''not''''' allies, to mean that they '''''were''''' allies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078&diffmode=source]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote [[User:Peacemaker67]] who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent"''''' with the Axis Powers''''' (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Indeed. Since the lasted revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002785076&oldid=1002776256&diffmode=source] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) {{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}} 2) {{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Regarding adding sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=1002826669&oldid=1002786397&diffmode=source] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail.” [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
:::*[[WP:V]] is quite clear that any unsourced material in a Wikipedia artifcle can be removed at will, regardless of how long it's been in the article. The information I removed was "referenced" only by a "see" pointer to another Wikipedia article, and [[WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]], so, in other words, it was never referenced at all, and should have been removed ages ago. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002839165&oldid=1002838319&diffmode=source] Thank you. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not '''''directly support''''' the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says '''''explicitly''''' that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says '''''specifically''''' that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they '''''must''''' say '''''exactly''''' what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.
:::This is extremely frustrating.
:::First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.
:::Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.
:::When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.
:::It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?
::Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] - [[German–Soviet Axis talks]] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Piotrus|Volunteer Marek}} The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so ''explicitly''; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute [[WP:OR]]. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the [[strawman]] already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.

Folks, '''you need to provide sources'''. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says ''"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."''

Sources please.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: Both Astral Leap ({{tq|Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...}}) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'') cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's ''World at Arms'', which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War'', which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.
::Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.
::And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.
::[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.
::: I would gladly find you a source {{tq|which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies}}, but you already had me in {{tq|absence of evidence is not evidence of absence}}. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies '''after 1941'''. Question is about '''1939-1941''' as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a ''de facto'' military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Slatersteven}} {{tq|Weinberg's ''World at Arms''... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War''... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.}}; {{tq|Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'' -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same.}} You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:
::''"The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union '''aligning herself with Germany'''''
::Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.
::Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)
::Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940
::Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.
::Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)
::Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)
::Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)
::Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.
::So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because '''everything I see in this source actually says the opposite!''' [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::
::So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!
::Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a [[strawman]] despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']]
::::And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

Weiberg, ''World at Arms'', p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1003136212 I *just* asked you] to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing the USSR in the Axis column (as an ally, co-belligerent or however labelled), from 36-39 (or any period of time), based on there being a treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany, makes no sense. If we listed countries as allies/co-belligerents/whatever based on treaties (even treaties with secret codicils), we'd be in the weird position of listing countries (like the USSR) on both sides of the conflict. For example, if the 1939 [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]] makes the USSR a co-belligerent or ally of Germany, then the 1939 [[Munich Agreement]] would make the UK and France a co-belligerent or ally of Germany. But listing countries on both sides like this would be nonsensical, and extremely confusing to the reader. Yes, these agreements and the complicated, changing relationships of the parties before and during the war are obviously all content that is and should be covered in the article, but the ''infobox'' is supposed to give people a quick overview and some basic facts about the topic. If the topic is "Axis powers", the USSR should not be listed anywhere in the same column as the Axis powers. The USSR should be listed on the ''other'' column, where we list the countries that were opposed to the Axis powers, and the reason for this is simple: the USSR and Germany fought on opposite sides in World War II. Duh. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:If there is a timestamp intervall and an appropriate chart with note inside the infobox, it should not be a problem.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

=== {{Font color||yellow|PLEASE NOTE}} - Discussion is '''NOT''' about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power===
[[File:Axis infobox.png|thumb|right|200px]]
I feel compelled to emphasize that the discussion here is NOT about whether Soviet Union should be listed as an Axis Power, because a couple users insist on falsely framing the disagreement in those terms. This is a [[strawman]] fallacy.

The discussion is whether Soviet Union should be listed as an "ally" of Nazi Germany/Axis or a "co-belligerent" '''for the period in 1939-1941''' before Hitler broke the alliance and attacked them (multiple high quality sources for this have been provided)

The infobox has three parts (image on right):

#"Tripartite Powers" - no one is saying USSR should go here
#"States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" - while the Soviet Union had agreed to join the Tripartite Pact it ended up never joining because Nazi Germany broke off the negotiations. However no one is saying USSR should go here
#Co-belligerent states - '''this is what the argument is about''' Should USSR be included here?

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

== Slovakia? ==

Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. [[User:Hawkillglu|Hawkillglu]] ([[User talk:Hawkillglu|talk]]) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Hawkillglu}}, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::Slovakia is already accurately described as a Tripartite Pact signatory. That they were a puppet state during the war is already described in great detail in the article. No need to introduce a more subjective term into the infobox - particularly given e.g., Hungary also having had a government imposed on it. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact ==

While we're here, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940. Stalin asked for a naval base on the Bosporus (and some other stuff) and Nazi Germany decided that it wasn't worth it so went with Barbarossa instead.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Hitler '''''always''''' intended to "go with Barbarossa", and '''''never''''' seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act. In any case, whatever was agreed to "provisionally", they never jined, so the information is irrelevant here. Countries consider doing many things, what they actually '''''do''''' is what's important. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is actually not true and not backed by any sources. Hitler was willing to have Soviets join the Axis if they were willing to stay in Asia. Nazi Germany explicitly offered the Soviets control over Middle East and Persian Gulf. Ribbentrop, on behalf of Hitler, explicitly invited Stalin to join the Tripartite Pact. Stalin agreed but with demands for a naval base on the Bosporus. At that point Hitler changed his mind (this was as late as December 1940) and green lit Barbarossa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Sure, both monsters had similar plans for each other, but that doesn't mean they didn't cooperate at the beginning of the war. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::The pact had never been signed. Negotiations failed, similarly to 1939 Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. Do you propose to add both?

::::Moreover, USSR ''initiated'' triple negotiations, and it was a position of UK and France that lead to their failure. With regard to Soviet-Axis talks, initiative came from Ribbentrop, and Molotov disagreed with German proposal, which ignored Soviet interest in Balkans.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Well, yes, both should be mentioned. But here we're talking about USSR agreeing to join the Tripatrite Alliance in 1940, not 1939. And I think you have it backwards - USSR was willing to join the Axis if it was given interests in the Balkans but it was the Germans who at that point ignored the Soviets. Last diplomatic note on the subject was Moscow --> Berlin, not vice versa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Not "agreeing", but "negotiating in a responce to Hitler's invitation". "Agreeing" is misleading, because it sounds like USSR agreed to join the Axis, but Hitler rejected that idea. In reality, a situation was different: Hitler and Molotov were discussing possible Soviet membership in the Axis, but Hitler's conditions didn't satisfy Stalin, and Stalin's conditions were rejected by Hitler. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::He did agree though.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed to what?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::To join the Tripartite Pact.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::To claim that, you need (i) to provide the source that explicitly says so, and (ii) to demonstrate that that source represents a majority viewpoint. I tried to find that information, but 10 minute googling provided no sources (instead, I found several interesting sources saying otherwise), which demonstrates that the viewpoint you are pushing is a minority view. You either provide evidences (vide supra) or stop POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Beyond My Ken}} you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.

Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris).
https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what your point is.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler always wanted to do a operation Barbarossa just like he always wanted to do a General plan ost on the polish people.[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Maybe. We actually don't know what "Hitler always wanted". What we do know is that Hitler asked Stalin to join the Tripatrite Pact, Stalin agreed, but then Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting [[Lebensraum]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And yet he invited Stalin to join the Axis. And Stalin agreed. And then Hitler changed his mind. Or maybe he didn't, who knows, maybe it was just stalling. Who cares? The point is that Hitler asked and Stalin agreed and there's no dispute about that. And that's a cold hard fact rather than speculation about "what Hitler always wanted" or how he wanted to get it. Anyway. Show me sources.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Gilbert's ''The Second World War'' states that "Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis", and suggests that the Soviets were aware of the German preparations for invasion owing to a spy operating in Tokyo. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::let's be more precise: Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin. For further details (and to avoid cherry-picking), I looked at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Molotov+berlin+1940+Axis&btnG= the sources] (I believe there will be no objections to my keywords choice), and representative sources are Roberts, Gorodetsky and Watson. At least, these will be the sources any good faith Wikipedian with no preliminary knowledge of the subject would find. Of course, if someone wants to push some specific POV, they can cherry-pick a source saying that Stalin's dream was an alliance with Hitler. However, we all want to stay neutral, aren't we?
::::What these representative sources say? We already know that Roberts says that Stalin was shocked after fall of France, and he sent Molotov to Berlin partially to figure out Hitler's intentions. It was more a political game than a sincere desire to join the Axis.
::::Gorodetsky says that "''it is not sufficiently stressed that rather than participating in the dismembering of the British Empire, Molotov stubbornly insisted on the Soviet short-term strategic aim of securing a buffer zone in the Baltic and in particular in the Balkans, where the Germans now posed a serious threat to Russia. The negotiations indeed broke down over Germany's declared interests in Finland, Romania and Bulgaria''". That even remotely resembles Molotov's agreement to join the Axis, which Hitler refused to accept.

::::Watson, whose article is devoted specifically to Molotov's role as a minister of foreign affairs in 1939-, mentions his visit to Berlin in passing.

::::In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's in Davies' "No Simple Victory" and a few other sources. You'll have to wait for me to brave the raging pandemic and make it to my office for more specifics (that's partly why I brought it up on talk rather than just putting it in myself).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::I think you are supposed to have a remote access to all resources like OUP, Springer, Jstor etc, just ask you IT specialists. According to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/HIST.37.2.49-52 this], Davies is a revisionist, so it would be premature to present his viewpoint as a majority view. In general, he objects to glossing all Allies (not only USSR), and that may be correct, taking into account that the WWII history is still being written mostly from (western) winners' perspective. Therefore, it is not a surprise that some of his statements may be exaggeration.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{re|Paul Siebert}} A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:
{{quote|As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.

This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...

[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...

It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.}}
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes and none of this contradicts the fact that Stalin agreed to join the pact in November 1940.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
{{re|Volunteer Marek}} Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Repeating the same argument without providing evidences is by no means helpful. You just demonstrate that you have no arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: That's not exactly what he's saying:
{{quote|...Hitler had first to examine what might be gained by prolonging the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After all, the Soviets could not have failed to notice Germany’s greatly enhanced position, and Stalin might be persuaded to make some interesting concessions... To this end, Molotov was invited to Berlin in November 1940. He was peculiarly unforthcoming...

Two issues brought negotiations to an impasse. One was Romania, which both Germany and the USSR wished to dominate. The other concerned the conditions on which Stalin might agree to join the Tripartite Pact... Ribbentrop sent a proposal to that effect via Molotov, and in a note of 25 November Stalin provisionally agreed. The devil lay in the details. The Nazis sought to use the Tripartite Pact as an instrument for keeping Stalin out of Europe... Stalin, in contrast, sought to use it as a means of reviving historic Russian claims in the Balkans. Apart from demanding the withdrawal of all German troops from Finland, his note of 25 November envisaged not only a Russo-Bulgarian treaty, but also a Soviet naval base on the Bosporus... Neither Germany nor Italy could tolerate such a prospect. Indeed, Berlin and Rome must have woken up to the fact... that the Soviet Union, once internally stabilized, would prove no less imperialist and aggressive than its tsarist predecessor. No reply was ever sent to Stalin’s note of 25 November. Instead, on 18 December 1940, Hitler drew up Directive 21, ‘Case Barbarossa’...

The implications are obvious... Stalin’s attitudes, no less than Hitler’s, determined the shift towards German-Soviet conflict. The decision to prepare plans for ‘Case Barbarossa’ was driven by ‘the combination of Britain’s refusal to make peace and the expansionist aims of the Soviet Union’.}}
::: There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That doesn’t actually contradict what I (and Davies) say. Also you have a lot of ellipsis in there.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That is close to what Roberts says. I am not sure we need to waste our time further.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::This is a somewhat different discussion. It’s not about the info box but whether this info should be added to the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::*'''Opposed to listing the USSR in the infobox''', Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, [[Polish–Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938|invaded]], clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to Piotrus' and Volunteer Marek's own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me what "my definition" is. My "definition" is very simple. Here it is: '''Do sources refer to Nazi Germany and some other country as "ALLIES" or "CO-BELLIGERENT"?''' Yes? Then we do to. No? Then we don't. There are dozens of mainstream high quality sources which refer to USSR and Nazi Germany as "allies" (or co belligerents) in 1939-1941. There are NO sources which refer in such terms to Poland and Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::* Yep. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Nope.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*Good point. Either Poland should be added to the infobox or (preferably) the USSR should be removed. I would say the same thing about [[European theatre of World War II]], which—''hilariously''—lists Stalin as a "commander and leader" of both the Allies and the Axis.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*:{{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, The last time I checked it was a bloodless invasion that doesn't even have its own article, because it was such a non-notable event (Polish foces simply occupied and a bit of territory with no resistance met). There's the little thing about WWII in Europe starting in 1939, not 1938... Nobody ever considered 1938 events in Czechoslovakia to be a part of WWII military operations. An ultimatum followed by a bloodless annexation hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict', which is required for invoking the term co-belligerence. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::That's a lovely argument, Piotrus. I doubt the 227,399 people who lived in that territory, carved up between Poland and Germany, viewed it the same. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Piotrus, do I understand you correctly that a bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia ''by Germany'' hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict' too?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:*'''Opposed''' As plenty of nations had "confused" alliances at the start of the war. They cooperated on one invasion.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::The point is that whether these were "confused" or not, they DID have them so they should be included in the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
'''Opposed'''. The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland which only took place after the German's secured total victory and the Polish government and army were in the process of fleeing the country [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] . The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 
:I also reinforce here, the Soviet Union is '''appropriately''' present in the infobox as she was [[Co-belligerence|co-belligerent]] for a period, undoubtedly per definiton. No excuse, no whitewash has room about it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
*'''Oppose'''. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Volunteer Marek. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is obviously an embarrassing chapter in Russian and ML history, so its understandable that they've tried to downplay it, but mainstream sources are unambiguous about the extensive collaboration between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to 1941. An agreement to partition a third state is not a simple nonaggression pact. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 08:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' No serious history book that I know of has ever identified the USSR as being an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Given Hitler's attitude to communism, I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone. Anyway, what we would need to include this would be a preponderance of serious (not some random piece in a newspaper), neutral (in this case, that would mean neither Russian nor Polish), ideally academic and other high-quality level sources ([[WP:BESTSOURCES]]) which describe this as a fact - this lacking (there have been few, if any, such sources proposed - and in any case most history books, from the school book vulgarisation up to the most respectable, do not make a case for such a distinction), such an addition would fail [[WP:V]] and probably [[WP:NPOV]] too. Attempts to argue what a co-belligerent is and is not and what would fit under a given definition are rather poor and transparent attempts at [[WP:SYNTH]] (given the failure to find grounding in [[WP:RS]], this could potentially be interpreted as [[WP:POVPUSH]]ING, but editors here seem rather experienced so I assume such behaviour would be below them) which we must ignore per [[WP:NOR]].

:Finally, a word of wisdom from WP:POVPUSH: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact." - simply because it is a fact that the USSR invaded Poland and did so while Nazi Germany was doing it does not make them "co-belligerents" or allies, especially given the wider context of ideological struggles (must it be reminded, that the Nazis were staunch anti-communist?), and we must not entertain this confusion between "facts" and "neutrality". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
**Are you suggesting that historians in Poland, a country that has been a democracy for 30 years, where academic freedom is respected, are unable to form impartial judgements about World War II? Which countries’ historians qualify as “neutral” in your worldview? - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Yes, absolutely, USSR must be described as "co-belligerent", but only until June 1941, i.e. as described here: [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref>. This is for two reasons. First, the cited sources say so. Second, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. This is simply a historical fact, not a personal view by anyone. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Just another war over infoboxes with an attempt to squeeze every possible last ounce of info into them. That's not what they're for. Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland is a very minor part, if a part at all, of understanding the Axis vs Allies dynamic of WWII. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

===USSR was added by IP, with no consensus===
Adding the USSR to the Axis side was added by an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=854616495&oldid=854612284 IP], the same IP also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=800410909 claimed Katyn was part of "Polish Genocide in the Soviet Union"]. The addition of the IP did not undergo serious discussion, was not supported by sources, and is in opposition to how other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] treat the Axis powers. Other reasonable encyclopedias do not list the USSR as an ally or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:I am so embarrassed that this was here for two and a half years. Yikes. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::It was NOT added to the "Axis side". It was listed in the "co-belligerents" section. Please stop mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute, especially since you've been asked previously.
::And that's actually not where it was added. Here is a version from 2016, two years before the IP edit (which simply restored it) where the info is clearly in that section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=714581154]. It goes farther back than that. So, Levivich, I'm sure we all appreciate your deeply felt embarrassment on the part of Wikipedia, but it might not be necessary after all. At least not in this instance.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Temporary extended confirmed protection ==

I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I concur this would be useful ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=prev&diff=1002925818&diffmode=source] and others). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

==Infobox==

I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc).
In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items.
As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:I 100% agree that establishing criteria for infobox and specifically for this category would be useful. One issue is "allies" vs "co-belligerents" vs "client states" (or something similar). For example should we include [[Independent State of Croatia]] anywhere in there? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::Can you please be more focused? Do you agree with my approach to co-belligerence criteria?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::Everything turns on being a special case at some point. Even if we came up with strict criteria as to what belonged in an infobox, we could still have a local consensus that over-rode it, or chose to have specific caveats next to the text.
::The best way of achieving consensus quickly and to the point is for someone to state what they think belongs in the infobox and where they want to see it in the infobox. Then we understand what is being proposed, and can marshal thoughts and arguments appropriately [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::IMO, infoboxes are supposed to present the most essential and commonly accepted information, and special cases should be discussed in the article's body.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think special cases can be discussed in infobox too, with notes. Right now Italy and Croatia have longer notes, but USSR, Iraq and Finland, very short ones. This all started when I simply tried to expand the USSR's note... [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*{{ping|Paul Siebert}} So Vichy France and the USSR are out because nobody declared war on them and they did not declare war, but Finland and Thailand remain? (Iraq is a weird case; I'd have to look it up.) That works for me, but the "co-belligerents" label should go. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I agree we should define the terms for the infobox, then check if various states match them. This is indeed a good approach. However, definition of [[co-belligerence]] in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law doesn't say anything about declaring war (it defines co-belligerents as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." [https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&dq=states+engaged+in+a+conflict+with+a+common+enemy,+whether+in+alliance+with+each+other+or+not&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_7MrCyL3uAhVCK6YKHd7cCBMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=states%20engaged%20in%20a%20conflict%20with%20a%20common%20enemy%2C%20whether%20in%20alliance%20with%20each%20other%20or%20not&f=false]], on a side note, that source also discusses few WWII cases but not Poland of France, unfortunately). With all due respect, I'd rather use the definition from an accepted, academic source than yours, which, surely incidentally, seems almost crafted to exclude USSR since it chose not to declare the war on Poland in '39... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
just crawling through superficially all the discussion (not just this section), reacting also to Gizzy's question, '''Yes''', the Soviet Union is correctly listed by the co-belligerents with note. The current infobox is '''good and accurate''', the main issue was about how to expanding the note, and other possibly technical questions about it. I hope you reach consensus about it the Soviet note expansion issue, but I reiterate, current infobox structure is perfect, as well Independent State of Croatia or Vichy France is in its perfect place. Any outsider editor will be totally confused seeing this wall of text (I don't say it in a negative manner, since these important issues has to be precisely discussed), but I recommend if something is outlined for change/further addition, it should be proposed strictly in a separate section, shortly/sharply, focusing only on that matter, with the most concise and minimal verbiage possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
:{{u|KIENGIR}}, A quick question - maybe needs its own subsection here - why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)Srnec, being belligerent does not mean of necessity of declaration of war, it happened by many instances, not any entity should be excluded because of that. Anyway I don't understand just because a note would have been expanded, why this perfect infobox is speculated to be questioned/changed, seems an unnecessary waste of time (just because the Allies article it had problems, it does not mean here it was not perfect).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
::Piotrus, no problem, open a section for it, if its akin the other listed, I will support to add (just because the list it not complete, it does not mean the structure would be bad).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland. The Soviets only moved into Poland after the Polish military completely collapsed and the government and high command was in flight (at some border town near Romania) [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] .--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 

:::[[User:GizzyCatBella]]], I don't find this your comment appropriate. You ''de facto'' accused that user of being a sock/SPA. Accusations of misbeaviour is a personal attack. If you see some problem with that user, discuss it in some place that is intended specifically for that purpose. And, by the way, instead of reading essays, it might be more fruitful to familiarise yourself with [[WP:BITE|behavioral guidelines]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: [[User:Paul Siebert]], note was triggered by this Vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003297241&oldid=1003296974&diffmode=source] I pointed out that this user had made few or no edits in other topic areas for transparency. It's a standard procedure now in intensely disputed areas. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Such a comment would be relevant if we !voted. There is no voting here, because Wikipedia is not democracy. Do you have any objections/comments on what that user says?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I see. No, I have no comments, just reporting, due to the recent two separate new accounts and IP blocked. This particular account has not made any other edits (a few small ones, 11 in total) before being heavily involved in this and only this topic. I believe it is worth noting so established editors get an accurate idea of the situation. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::So, instead of arguing that [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] essentially reproduced the official Soviet POV, and modern sources look at that at somewhat different angle, you preferred to resort to ''ad hominem'' arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::It did not matter to me what POV and what their position is. The account is new; it reverts without waiting for consensus, hence the note. Drop it, please. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::... and you decided that other experienced users do not know how to use the "contribs" button? Of course, that is the first thing I did when I'd seen that new account. Yes, the views this account is pushing are somewhat obsolete, but they may be a good counter-balance to ultra-revisionist views pushed by some other users. I would be grateful if in future you tried to be more focused at contributions, not contributors.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Paul, I haven't "decided" on anything ... I aimed to make it simpler for established editors involved here to manage this mess, as I told you already. Please drop it. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

* I am seriously disappointed. I started this section to invite others to join a work aimed to select neutral criteria for the Axis co-belligerence - and only Piotrus and VM supported that. All others continue mailing irrelevant posts about some specific country. '''I respectfully ask everybody to refrain from posting anything here that is not relevant to the section's topic.'''
:I propose to discuss the following questions:

* Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?

* This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?

* Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?

* What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?
:I think, the [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ following analysis of Vichy's case] by [https://www.justsecurity.org/author/goodmanryan/ Ryan Goodman] may be helpful for answering some of those questions.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::I think more sources rather than one short (self-published?) piece by a legal scholar considering only US-Vichy relationship would be needed. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::This source was authored by a leading expert in the field, and it was cited by top quality sources, such as [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017)]. Another peer-reviewed source also cites the same SPS as follows:
::::"''For example, the claim that congressional authorization to use force against an enemy includes authorization to use force against that enemy’s co-belligerents is based essentially on one precedent. See Ryan Goodman, Debunking the “Vichy France” Argument on Authorization to Use Force Against Co-Belligerents, JUST SECURITY (Nov. 17, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://just-security.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/. And,in fact, the Vichy France precedent is particularly telling, as there is no indication that any lawyers were present in making the decision whether the attack on Vichy France was consistent with congressional authorization, rendering its use as evidence of legal authority particularly doubtful.''"

:::The source that is being used by top quality peer-reviewed sources deserves a very careful; attention.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, "Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?". but who decides what's controversial? "This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?" When would you say Axis were created? The infobox states 1936... if we want to change the date I'd suggest a separate section for this item only. "Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?" I don't see why not? "What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?" I dn't think we (the Wikipedia editors) should define such a scale. If no reliable source does it, then we should simply stick to the simple definitions of concepts and/or reliable sources that use discussed terms. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Piotrus}} As usual, we decide what is controversial by analysing sources. A typical example is Vichy: per one source, for the first time it was called the Axis co-belligerent in 2005, and the conclusion about co-belligerency was made to justify modern US-military actions, and it expresses US viewpoint (because the authors were working for the US governnent), and that view was not widely cited, and it was criticized by one expert, that criticism was supported by others. That is quite sufficient to call it a controversial case, per our policy.

:::As I already explained, I was wrong, and it seems that the Axis is not the same as the Tripartite Pact. However, if the Axis was a loose and poorly defined formation before 1940, would it be correct to speak about "Axis co-belligerence" before all major actors joined the Tripartite pact? Did China fight against the Axis in 1937, or just against Japan? Did USSR annexed the territory of the Axis state (Romania), or ''just'' Romania? Did USSR fight against the Axis at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol, or just against Japan? And so on. The

:::Actually, the question of threshold is strongly linked to the question of controversy, so I realised it would be incorrect to separate them. So the question is: what is a degree of controversy that precludes inclusion in the infobox?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

'''commnet''' - {{ping|Paul Siebert}} I think all of these problems is dated back from description in [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]]. Yes. "the former Axis power and Co-belligerents" in Allies article, and "Co-belligerents" in naviagtionbox of Axis power. But if you see both articles, there is no such subtitles called "Co-belligerents" except for Kingdom of Italy in Allies article. But, Italy can be categorized as "former Axis power" so it actually means "there is no such category of co-belligerent". So my suggestion is this.

* We should put a country by articles of [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]].
* Co-belligerents is not used in both articles so we should avoid that word.
* Controversial countries should not be included until users agree to put. If we starts putting those countries, it makes matter worse not better

-- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] - What countries are ''"controversial countries"''? Also, why we should avoid the word ''"co-belligerents"'' if RS use that word? Quote from ''"Problems of Communism, Volume 39, Issue 6"'' page 107 - "As a '''co- belligerent''' of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland" [https://books.google.ca/books?id=I5wAEgugOiAC&pg=PA107&dq=As+a+co-+belligerent+of+Nazi+Germany,+the+Soviet+Union+secretly+assisted+the+German+invasion+of+western+and+central+Poland&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_3o6wucDuAhWBMX0KHWYTBCMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=As%20a%20co-%20belligerent%20of%20Nazi%20Germany%2C%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20secretly%20assisted%20the%20German%20invasion%20of%20western%20and%20central%20Poland&f=false] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I think I can answer you by giving my opinions of "Co-belligerents". First, "those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis" or "semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents" one. I think we shouldn't divide countries like that. After all, they were all parts of Axis or Allies. And most of countries according to those criteria are "puppet state" or "government-in-exile". And also, "co-belligerents" are not using broad in WW2 military infobox and usually show contradiction. I think we should talk about that "co-belligerent" issue in other section, because I have lots of things to tell for. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_theatre_of_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1003493738&diffmode=source] until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: Ok. I will stop abput my edition on other pages until users agree. I hope we will get agreement which many can understand. Thanks for listening my views. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Paul,
::::::* to judge what would be controversial, I have to know which instance we are discussing, and it is really confirmed to be controversial, maybe
::::::* you should again specify which entity ou'd refer, the infobox e.g. does not contain any entry that would be not engaged after 1936
::::::* the same....many users move uncertain in such fields, exatly we should know which entity you refer, and when
::::::* formally there would not be a treshold, but again, here a general approach without knowing the exact subject will likely to fail
::::::- about [[co-belligerency]], I already posted above in the Vichy France section.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::::KIENGIR, I deliberately avoid discussing concrete cases, because the only way to create a neutral content is to agree about some general criteria, and only after that check if each concrete case meets them. To create rules for pushing some specific case would be a totally flawed approach.
:::::::I do not want to specify anything, I am just asking what we consider the Axis (in terms of its composition and timeframe): thus, if the Axis is the military alliance, can we speak about the Axis before that alliance was signed? Thus, was a declaration of a war on Germany in September 1939 a declaration of a war on the Axis, or just on Germany? Can Japan be considered an Axis power by September, 1939? What about Romania or Hungary? And so on.

:::::::If there would be no threshold, why Vichy France was not considered a co-belligerent of the Axis until Bradley&Goldsmith claimed that in 2005 to justify some modern military actions of US? BTW, taking into account that Bradley&Goldsmith reflect a US-centric (and contested) viewpoint, it would be non-neutral to include Vichy into infobox unless evidences are provided that non-US scholarly community share that view. If no such evidences are provided, Vichy should be excluded from the infobox, and we should agree that some co-belligerency threshold does exist, at least, in WWII related literature.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not be a database of countries. It's not a table meant to exhaustively list every country and where they fit into the conflict. The infobox should summarize the key facts. It doesn't need to list, at all, all of the countries who supported or opposed in some way; just the key players. If you sat someone down to explain what the Axis powers were, and you said, "The Axis powers were the countries of...", whatever follows is what should be in the infobox. You probably wouldn't mention countries like Thailand or Iraq in that sentence. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:I don't think it should be a "databse" either. I do think it should include the most important cases which are discussed in sources. Like the Soviet Union. Likewise, just because something is "controversial" does not mean we should omit it from the infobox. The very fact that something is "controversial" here means it's notable and pertinent and is something that we should let our readers know. Omitting controversy isn't actually NPOV. Is there a way to include the controversy while noting that it's "controversial"? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*My opinion can be found back in [[Talk:Axis powers/Archive 8|Archive 8]] (Sept. 2020) and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=978790438 this edit]. I am also in complete agreement with {{u|FOARP}}'s comment at [[Talk:Tripartite Pact#Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis"]]. In direct response to Paul Siebert's question: we should not be weighting contributions to determine inclusion, which requires an arbitrary cutoff. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now my position is that IF we have a "co-belligerents" section in the infobox then the USSR most def belongs in there. I'm still mulling over the question of whether such a section should be in the infobox.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:Paul, despite I don't see other way, there may be so many unexpected whereabouts that just theoretically put delimiters will ultimately fail and the outcome will be as well debated, if we see al the set of variables, then we may easier construct a delimiter (despite in theory you have right).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
*{{tq|As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence.}} We should not be taking a formally-defined category and placing things in it ourselves, at least not in an infobox where there is little room for explanations. The ''only'' valid argument for including anything under that term is if someone can demonstrate that that term is widely used to refer to their involvement in the war in reliable sources. I would strenuously oppose including anything in the infobox that cannot be cited to multiple high-quality, mainstream sources using the term "co-belligerent" specifically. If the term is not widely used, then the infobox should not use it either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Should [[Burma]] be added as a co-belligerent? ==

Per my note above, "why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a [[WP:RS]] which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not [[WP:SYNTH]] - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of [[WP:NOR]]... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
:Only if it is universally described using the term in [[WP:RS]]es. Nothing should be listed there without that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Poland ==

I added a section on the Polish-Hitler pact. Poland and Hitler were on friendly terms from 1933 through the end of 1938, and Poland participated in the bullying and hostilities against Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. This cooperation extended also to fascist Italy, in the Munich conference Benito Mussolini proposed the transfer of Czech lands to Poland, Hungary, and Germany.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 15:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:I undid your provocative edit per [[WP:POINT]].(also obvious POV). As a brand new account with very few edits who immediately jumped into controversy I suggest you don't do that in the future.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::Appears relevant and sourced, [[German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]], [[1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania]], [[Munich Agreement]] are all on Wikipedia. I will start a RfC. Certainly as relevant as the USSR to the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact - accomplishing [[Détente]] to not go to war with your neighbour (see also [[Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]]) doesn't necessarily mean 'friendly'. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Much less so, but it does make some sense to discuss foreign relations of Axis with other countries in this article. As long as the section is properly sourced and doesn't include any fringe theories like Soviet/Russian claims that Poland provoked Germany to start WWII I think such a section may --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::I am not aware of any serious Soviet articles/books that blamed Poland of provoking WWII, although agree that fringe theorists are everywhere.

::::I am not sure standard non-aggression pacts should be included into this article (MRP had specific clauses and a secret protocol that made it not just a usual non-aggression pact).

::::Polish-Lithuanian conflicts do not make the former a German/Axis co-belligerent, just because Germany had never been at war with Lithuania.

::::Munich agreement is also marginally relevant, actually, one have separate annexation of Sudetes from subsequent events (dismemberment and annexation of Czechoslovakia).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note this article covers a period starting in 1936, so any military action or political support would count as relevant for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The article is about the Axis, not WW2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1615050074}}
{{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=14AFE1D}}
This RfC has four questions:
# Poland-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Poland section on Poland] be present?
# Poland-infobox: Should Poland be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
# USSR-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Soviet_Union section on the USSR] be present?
# USSR-infobox: Should the USSR be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
===Poll ===
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section''', but trimming both. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox'''. While Poland's co-bullying of Eastern European states, in cooperation with Hitler, in 1938 was significant and resulted in territorial gains for Poland, it would be inaccurate to summarize Poland's position as a Co-belligerent in the scope of the entire period. It is appropriate to have a section detailing Polish dealings with Hitler and the Axis, but a one line in the infobox is not appropriate here. The same applies to the USSR, even though the case for inclusion for the USSR is even weaker given that the dealings were more limited in time, in parallel to conflict with Japan, and of a clearly temporary nature to both sides. Other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] do not list Poland nor the USSR at all - but they both do cover Finland's cooperation with the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::You got "USSR-section" twice in there. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sorry, fixed.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''' to '''USSR-infobox''' per detailed oppose in previous section, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1003762095 here]. '''No''' (with a hint of [[WP:SNOW]] and reminding others to not be [[WP:POINTY]]) to '''Poland-infobox''' per [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. <s>'''No comment''' on the others since I didn't check through that.</s> [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}} makes a compelling analysis of sources below. This, additionally with the fact that there are virtually only a few sources about that could support "USSR co-belligerence" The Poland proposal is, I'm quite sure, not to be taken seriously, effectively making it a very minor position (bringing [[WP:UNDUE]] into account), leads me to say that dedicated sections on either of Poland or USSR would be out-of-place. Opportunistic bullying (Poland) or taking advantage of weaker neighbours (USSR; no matter how this might offend the sensibilities of some editors) do not make them members of the Axis, and the term co-belligerence being rather rare in academic sources would make this even more out of place. A few short mentions of pre-war diplomatic events (for ex. the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), robustly sourced, remain certainly warranted. Changing to '''No dedicated sections''' on both relevant topics. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' to inclusion of USSR or Poland in the '''infobox''' (per the point of Infobox being that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - Polish and Soviet interactions in activities that aligned with the Axis powers activities not being a Key part of this articles coverage of the Axis powers. '''Yes''' to '''sections''' on USSR and/or Poland interactions with the Axis on the assumption that they follow the sources on the subject and aren't making interferences. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each, but I don't want to imply that either the Poland or USSR sections have to be exactly as they are and can't be edited and further improved. But yes to having a section on each. No the the infoboxes for the reasons I and others have stated above and in previous discussions on this page: basically, it's not true that either Poland or the USSR were co-belligerents of the Axis (at any point in time). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No infoboxes, yes body-content''', per all of the above. — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Where are the sources and what do they say?''' - I have not seen any sources describing Poland as a "co-belligerent" or words to that effect. We do have sources describing the USSR as such. There is controversy about whether the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany. There is not any controversy that I am aware of about whether or not Poland was a co-belligerent of Germany because I am yet to see any reliable source saying that Poland could have been considered such. I see a lot of opinions cited above, but no sources. If you want to add a one-sentence mention of Poland's annexation of a bit of Czech territory in the general history this might be due. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::just in case anyone is in any doubt on this, '''no, a poll cannot be used to overturn [[WP:V]]'''. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, No, Yes, No.''' Same as the other responders, I think the infobox is not the place for this stuff, but the article body is fine. In all cases, the infobox is for straightforward, uncomplicated facts. Anything that's really complicated should be restricted to prose in the article. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* *'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each. But robustly sourced. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to both infobox inclusions''', yes to having content about the various antebellum agreements that both Poland and the USSR had with Germany, but not as presented in the diffs. These sections should have headings that make it clear these two countries were not Axis powers, and the actual content of both should be agreed upon beforehand to avoid any disruption to the article. - [[User:Thewolfchild|wolf]] 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''', '''No''', '''Yes''', '''Yes'''. Some info from "Poland" section might be included somewhere, but this does not justify making such section. Key info: ''"On 31st March 1939 Poland received guarantees from Britain and France, and on 28th April 1939 Hitler repudiated the pact with Poland"''. Same with Poland in the infobox. The story with USSR was very different. Here Hitler and Stalin concluded the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|famous pact of aggression]], and most important, ''acted'' according to their pact by attacking very same Poland together. This is simply a historical fact. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::And which reliable source can you cite which supports this status of USSR as co-belligerent in the wider context, besides what I hope is not just your own [[WP:SYNTH]]? Again, see the diff on my reasoning above. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is described with references in [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref> Yes, that co-belligerence lasted only until June 1941, but it was a key factor for decision by Hitler to attack Poland. More sources? Well, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' A section on Poland, if properly sourced, is helpful. The section on USSR has existed for years and nobody ever disputed it's relevance. As for the infobox, sources have been presented that clearly describe USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, so there's that. But no such sources have been presented for Poland (probably b/c Poland never engaged in military operations on the German side, unlike USSR). Anyway, since no sources are present for Poland being co-belligerent, inclusion of Poland in the infobox would be wrong. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes to the sections''' but they should be improved nonetheless. '''Yes to the USSR-infobox''' with a footnote that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent only until the Operation Barbarossa started. There were joint military meetings and some coordinated operations by Wehrmacht and Red Army in the eastern Poland. That's enough for inclusion. '''No to the Poland-infobox'''. Polish policies in the 1930s were certainly opportunistic but hyenism in neighbourly relations doesn't make Poland a co-belligerent state.--[[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Sort of? No. Yes. Yes (1939).''' The Soviet Union and Germany jointly planned and executed the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939. They were clearly co-belligerents in 1939. This is supported by scholarly sources and the infobox should note that. We should not rely on popular histories that sweep the complexities of the period under the rug in favour of the simple wartime claim of "France, UK, USSR and USA vs Germany, Italy and Japan". Regarding a section on Poland, I'm worried that its going to immediately fall into [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Would prefer to instead expand the existing history section to provide more detail about the division of Czechoslovakia. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, No, Yes, Yes''' This discussion is like voting on a QAnon theory. Poland was not more co-belligerent than the United Kingdom and France, with their appeasement policy and giving all the countries around to Hitler, only to save peace for themselves. Since its victory in 1920, Poland was preparing itself for the next war against the Soviet Union, and since at least 1935 for a war against Nazi Germany - assuming, that these wars are inevitable. They only didn't know which of them will attack first, and certainly, Poles didn't know that they will attack together. [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]]) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)  — '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matrek|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. ([https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206446&oldid=62206341 diff])

* '''Comment''' : Can we have a SNOW close on question number two? Clearly, that one (which, as I pointed out, is a bit on the POINTY side) is not going to pass as no editor amongst all the above (myself included) has !voted yes. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

* I hate polls, because, in this context, they are against [[WP:DEMOCRACY|our policy]]. Instead, I decided to check what a random Wikipedian without any preliminary knowledge of a subject would have learned from sources if they started to search for the answer to this poll's question in Google Scholar. My presumption is that if we put Soviet or Polish flag to the infobox in "Co-belligerent" section, that implies that at least one source clearly says that USSR was the "Axis co-belligerent", AND this opinion represents majority view.
::"USSR "axis co-belligerent""[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=USSR+%22axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG=&oq=USSR+%22Axis+ 7 obscure sources, which are irrelevant to the topic]

::"Finland "Axis co-belligerent"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=finland+%22Axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG= hmmm...]

::Well, just ""Axis co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of the Axis"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22Axis+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+the+Axis%22&btnG= not impressive]. It looks like the concept of the Axis co-belligerence is not popular in scholarly literature at all.

::Ok, although I assume I know virtually nothing about WWII, I still know Finland was a German co-belligerent. Let's check:

::"Finland AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Finland+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= 29 results]; most sources clearly describe Finland as Germany's co-belligerent. If we consider Finland as a "positive control", it demonstrates this search procedure works.

::Now let's try a "negative control". "Vichy AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Vichy+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= yields 2 irrelevant sources]. I checked Bradley&Goldsmith, and I found that that source does not call Vichy "the Axis co-belligerent". The exact wording is "'' had a nexus to the named enemy''". That is, by and large, a confirmation that the idea about Vichy's co-belligerency was proposed by these two authors, and it is not popular.

::Now, let's try USSR. "(Soviet OR USSR) AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%28Soviet+OR+USSR%29+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22&btnG= 29 results], but, the first article (by Gheorghe) is about Romanian co-belligerence, several other sources are about ... Finland co-belligerence, and one source (Blobaum, no citations) is about USSR's co-belligerence.

::My conclusions:

::* The very term "Axis co-belligerent" is virtually non-existing in literature. Such a generalisation is simply not found in sources.

::* The information about the countries that are known to be Germany's co-belligerents can be easily found during a neutral search. Moreover, when I was looking for an information about USSR's co-belligerency, I found information about Finland and Romania despite the fact that that was not my goal.

::* The information about the countries that are generally not considered co-belligerents (Vichy) cannot be found using the same approach. That confirms that that approach is correct.

::* I even didn't try Poland, because it would be obvious that that information cannot be found (except probably veeery obscure sources).

::* The situation with USSR is close to that of Poland: I am sure it is possible to find a source saying that USSR was the Germany's co-belligerent, but the amount of efforts needed for that would be a clear demonstration that the results of that work by no means reflect a commonly accepted/majority viewpoint (obviously, minority views should not be presented in infoboxes).

::To summarise, I suggest to stop this nonsense, remove the "Axis co-belligerent" category altogether, and, probably, add Finland under category "Germany/European Axis co-belligerent" and Thailand to "Japan's co-belligerent".

::It is quite likely my search procedure is far from ideal, but the most important thing here is that I used the same approach for each country. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Mostly agree with this, except to say that characterising Finland as a "co-belligerent" is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government and a minoirty of modern-day Finnish historians (Finland has largely discarded the "driftwood" theory). There is plenty of opinion that characterises them simply as an Axis member/German ally. Membership of the Axis is a contested concept, with people in a number of countries trying to characterise their governments of the era as not having been in the Axis for various reasons that should not necessarily be taken at face value. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Yes, No, Yes, Yes'''. 1) Poland interacted with the Axis for several years, and it can’t hurt the reader to summarize that history. However, 2) Poland did not fight alongside the Axis after 1 September 1939 (!), or even before. 3) The extensive Soviet-Axis (primarily German, but Italian too) rapprochement between August 1939 and June 1941 has to be mentioned, no question. Finally, 4) Soviet participation crossed the threshold of co-belligerence, with joint invasions, co-ordinated annexations, victory parades, intelligence sharing and more. - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::According to which sources? Your !vote reads a lot like [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I would point out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003864187&oldid=1003864106&diffmode=source these sources], as well as the definition of “co-belligerent” provided by the ''Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law'': "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::What does it mean "Poland interacted with the Axis" - use to have diplomatic relations with axis powers? I think all European countries had. Did Poland ever conspire with Hitler like the Soviet Union? No. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''' – on grounds documented and argued previously. While there can be elements of subjectivity in approaching such judgments, the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports my conclusions. Poland was not motivated in its [[Cieszyn Silesia]] action by a desire to collaborate with Germany, but by a felt need to redress what Poland saw as a 1919–20 Czech assault on Poland, which had been fighting for its life; whereas the USSR is generally seen as having been a cobelligerent of Germany – each of them harboring a declared intent to hegemonize Europe and eventually the world – in their joint, coordinated September 1939 invasion of Poland. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, Yes, No, No'''. The case for inclusion of Poland is strong. Poland [https://www.thejc.com/on-this-day-the-german-polish-non-aggression-pact-1.20771 signed the first alliance with Hitler in 1934]. It then spent most of the 30s bullying its neighbors and collecting scraps of territory allocated to it by Hitler. It bullied Lithuanian alongside Hitler in 1938. It [https://books.google.com/books?id=HzrpExvg2XgC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22witnessed+German-Polish+co-operation%22&source=bl&ots=5CGkJ-4PhB&sig=ACfU3U2hyZ2ABZ9CApKwu_JnHZ1YM4XeKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisvObnycXuAhUFC-wKHWiaBJcQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22witnessed%20German-Polish%20co-operation%22&f=false co-operated with Hitler in Czechslovakia], in the Munich conference it was on the side of the Axis overall together with Italy [https://books.google.com/books?id=PS76MzGVjSwC&pg=PA39&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia&f=false]. The allies considered Poland to be in league with Hitler.[https://books.google.com/books?id=nOALhEZkYDkC&pg=PA311&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia+ultimatum+Beck&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia%20ultimatum%20Beck&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=htqsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22Poland+was+viewed+as+complicit%22&source=bl&ots=EB8wPZBwpE&sig=ACfU3U26X-U_KmlKYRWL2wlmCUeJOfmosg&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Poland%20was%20viewed%20as%20complicit%22&f=false]. The case for Soviet inclusion is much smaller. The Soviet agreement was limited to Hitler's previous friend, Poland, which was a long-standing enemy of Russia and that occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (Affirmed by the alliance to belong to the USSR, not Poland). Poland was swiftly overrun by the German forces, and by [https://books.google.com/books?id=ApRHMNS1jtAC&pg=PA42&dq=Polish+commander+in+chief,+Marshal+Edward+Rydz%27Smigly,+ordered+a+general+retreat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmmvjfy8XuAhWSC-wKHX6hCekQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=Polish%20commander%20in%20chief%2C%20Marshal%20Edward%20Rydz'Smigly%2C%20ordered%20a%20general%20retreat&f=false September 10 was in general retreat] with the government in flight. On 17 September, Poland's defeat was manifest and the Germans had already crossed the Vistula, area promised to the USSR, and were racing towards the Bug River. At this late date the USSR decided to enter Poland, so that it would received its Western Ukraine and Belarus territories. The allies welcomed Solviet forces entering Poland as this stopped the Nazi advance east, Churchill himself saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail."[https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] In addition to all this, the USSR was engaged in combat with Japan, an Axis power, and its puppets in September 1939. The USSR entering Poland was a mere footnote, an end to a Polish occupation that began in 1920. Polish-Nazi relations between 1934-38 were significant, and the Polish role in World War II was merely limited to being a line in the sand drawn by the Western Powers. The Polish army was swiftly defeated at a very small cost to the Nazis. The allies chose to declare war over Poland not because of any Polish virtue, Poland was seen by the allies as in league with Hitler up until 1939, but because of Hitler breaking promises (Austria, the post-Munich March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Poland being one state too far. The contribution of the USSR to the alliance was overwhelming, tens of millions of dead ([[World War II casualties of the Soviet Union]]), and most of the war in Europe against Hitler was prosecuted by the USSR.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
::"Pact of non agression" as aa "alliance with Hitler"? What kind of nonsens is this? The USSR conspired with 3rd Reich to devide the entire Eastern Europe between them, not just Poland. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''No''' or '''Likely''' (but calls for improvements) '''No''' (this should not be even debated) '''Yes''' and '''Yes''' (per my prior comments) - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''No to all, very briefly describe Polish and Soviet relations with Nazis but not in current/proposed form'''. This Russian-Polish bickering has now gone way over the top here. Ask yourself the basic question, do other sources covering the Axis Powers as a topic showcase Poland or the Soviet Union as being associated with the Axis? The answer is overwhelmingly no. You can find a source supporting nearly any position on World War II, but the vast majority of sources covering the Axis as a topic do not cover the Soviet Union or Poland as Axis-cooperators (they do cover Axis aggression against them) at all, or if they do they do so briefly. I came here after [[https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia], and in my mind peace in the answer, not fighting over history painting each other as bogeymen.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 08:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''', 1. Poland obviously deserve a section, 2. per Biruitorul 3. Obviously deserve also a section per weight 4. Sure, since for a time it was when more Axis powers attacked Poland.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
* '''Yes''' to sections on both, no to info boxes on both.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Obvious no''' to including Poland, '''obvious yes''' to including USSR. I also need to point out that an RfC cannot be used to completely ignore facts and sources. Poland never fought alongside the Axis powers; Poland was invaded ''by'' Germany and the USSR, operating in unison. That is the very definition of "co-belligerent". Again, this is not really an RfC matter where a "vote" can be pushed for revisionist purposes. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. No.'''. A Polish section is absurd and even more misleading than the USSR in the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. Yes.''' - the proposal for a Polish section appears to be a bit of [[WP:POINT]]y [[Putin]]ite [[whataboutism]] (in the sense that this is a propaganda line that's been pushed by Putin recently, see 6th paragraph [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/ here] for example). For USSR, "co-belligerents" makes more sense for Wikipedia even if most sources use the term "ally". Agree with User:KENGIR somewhere above that the present infobox is fine.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (added sig later)
*'''No to infobox, Maybe to sections''' - The evidence presented thus far suggests that overwhelmingly, academic literature does not describe the USSR or Poland as Axis powers, and should not be listed as such in the infobox. Co-belligerence is not equivalent to membership in the Axis powers unless sources say so. This article can include information in its body about the Axis powers' relations with the USSR, Poland, etc; it's not immediately apparent what degree of depth is appropriate, and should be determined by further editing and not by an RfC at this time. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::The proposal isn't to describe either as an Axis power. No one is proposing that. The proposal is to describe one or the other or both as "co-belligerents". For the Soviet Union, this is supported by sources, as you acknowledge. So I'm not sure if I understand your comment.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm largely swayed by Paul Siebert's argument so far, that based on the level with which it is used in the literature, at the infobox level co-belligerence is a valid way to summarize Finland and Thailand's status at most. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I disagree, but fair enough.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'd say even for Finland this is probably over-stating it, since the idea that Finland was only a co-belligerent is basically the POV of the Finnish wartime government and a minority of modern-day Finnish historians. For Thailand and Finland we have sources explicitly identifying them as Axis members. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I was trying to hedge a bit by saying "at most" because I didn't want to risk poison pilling the discussion by making what we decide for USSR or Poland dependent on changes to Finland, but you're likely correct that even Finland's position as "co-belligerent" isn't well-supported. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section'''. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox''' - The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence. Nevertheless the context collaboration/co-belligerence should be explained within the main body of the article.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::"The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence". I agree. However, do not you think that MP pact leading to the attack by Hitler on Poland (that event started WWII!) and the coordinated attack by USSR to the same Poland two weeks later was an example of MAJOR collaboration/co-belligerence. Hence it must be in infobox.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::How can you say "yes" to section which has no supporting references that would demonstrate why it should be on a page about Axis countries? This poll can't simply be used as a way of disapplying [[WP:V]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Maybe''' to sections for both, '''No''' to infobox. Per Paul Siebert's search, I don't think we can say that this accurately characterizes the weight of scholarly opinion. However, including reasonable length historical background in the article will allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|buidhe]]''' 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' For reasons already stated,[[User:Eccekevin|Eccekevin]] ([[User talk:Eccekevin|talk]]) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. No.''' Poland and USSR fought along with Germany (in Czechoslovakia and Poland, respectively), but there are not widely associated with the Axis, bu with the anti-Axis camp; listing them along countries such as Finland would confuse the regular readers.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 08:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to cramming the infobox, I'm fine with a section on Polish & Soviet activities with Axis powers.''' - The infobox is for summarizing key aspects (as others have pointed out), let the finer details and exceptions be explained by summarizing reliable sources in the body text of the article, not by warring over the top of the page. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to all''' and remove co-belligerant segment from the infobox per [[user:Paul Siebert]]'s analysis. The sections on all cobelligerants can be removed too, because with 111K of readable prose, the articles is [[WP:TOOLONG]].[[User:Mottezen|Mottezen]] ([[User talk:Mottezen|talk]]) 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, no, yes, yes''' (that is, include in the body but not the infoboxes.) They're simply not generally described as "Axis co-belligerents" (whatever that somewhat vague term means) in the sources, so putting it in the infobox, which can't really explain it, is nonsense - things like that in infoboxes need to be extremely, unambiguously clear while also being central to the topic, none of which applies here. I would support removing the co-belligerent bit from the infobox entirely on these grounds - it's just too vague and ultimately feels like [[WP:OR]] in context, especially given the editors trying to come up with their own personal definitions for it above (if the sources don't define it in clear and unambiguous terms, we shouldn't be using it in an infobox.) However, both had agreements with the Axis powers of one sort or another and these should be explained in the appropriate part of the article. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

===Call to arms on Polish Wikipedia===
Over at the Polish Wikipedia, [[User:Hanyangprofessor2]] which is a [[User:Piotrus]] alternative account, [https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 posted this call to arms]. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at [[: en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll]]. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there". I posted a note at AN.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Just noting that I take a very dim view of the [[WP:CANVASS]] issues that this discussion now suffers from, per the above. I have [[WP:ECP]]'d this article talk page for one month, which is an extreme measure, to be sure. This is an [[WP:ACDS]] action which I will be recording in the [[WP:AEL|log]] momentarily. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|El_C}} that was a bad idea from Piotrus, but looking at the above discussion I see that all but three accounts in the above discussion are en-wiki EE regulars and pretty much none of them Polish. I don't think any of them have been canvassed. The three accounts which are either brand new or low edit count are the OP, Astral Leap who started this [[WP:POINT]]y RfC and about whom concerns have been expressed previously ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive]), Erin Vaxx, which created an account in Sept 2020, made a couple edits, then immediately jumped into this controversy when it began. These two obviously were not canvassed by Piotrus. The third account is Matrek and I guess it's possible they came here as a result of Piotrus' post on pl wiki though their comment makes a coherent and well thought out argument which means it should be taken at face value.
::Oh yeah. Bob not snob too I guess.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Which means that whatever canvassing happened has had essentially no impact on the outcome here.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, my notice above is just that — a ''notice.'' This isn't the place to discuss this matter at length. The place to do so is at [[WP:AN]], where the discussion remains ongoing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Update: Piotrus has been topic-banned for one month by El_C as an AE; and Astral has been given a one-week block for edit warring with Volunteer Marek (although they're appealing on a technicality - in any case I haven't looked at the specifics, just notifying on this talk page in case anybody missed it/is not aware of the issue). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

*I think that having [[WP:Canvass]] is fine, merely as a fair advice, but enforcing it with topic bans and blocks is damaging for WP. We must encourage, not discourage communications in the project. For example, someone inviting friends from another project to participate here is actually a good idea, assuming that they will contribute constructively. If these "friends" (whoever) will not contribute constructively and will behave badly here, then yes, block ''them'' on spot, very simple. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

::* My personal view is the above poll is simply a [[WP:POINT]]y attempt to get around [[WP:V]]. We simply don't have sources laying out the view of Poland espoused above as being a German ally. We do have (some) sources stating this about the USSR. But ultimately this is a page about the Axis, and we don't have any sources stating that the USSR was an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::*And if (say) he had left a similar message on the Russian wiki about "Polish editors" fine, it would not have been canvassing. But we cannot allow the project to be highjacked by nationalism (and no I never invite friends from another project, even when I think their input might be valuable, its not as if we are a well-kept secret). Would it be OK to (say) post on Stormfront "Hey they are trying to say the nazis killed jews, just pop over and have a look"? No it would not, and this is the point, a rule has to be that, a rule. It cant be a rule only when its conviniant to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I agree: it would not be appropriate to invite "friends" from Stormfront. But I hope that Polish WP is not Stormfront. As about Russian wiki, there are actually many messages out there about disputes on English WP. As you can imagine, many guys on ruwiki are not exactly "pro-Western". Under no circumstances I reported anyone involved in such cross-wiki communications to ANI. And I think that was right. BTW, they had at least two EEML-like affairs on ruwiki, and some participants were editing here. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

*Painting this as a simple attempt to ìnvite "friends from another project" is disingenuous. Piotrus is (like VM and other regulars) certainly aware of the EE ArbCom situation, and justifying it as an attempt to bait a potential sock is no excuse. What AL did is nigh inexcusable, but doesn't change the fact that [[WP:CANVASS]] isn't exactly a secret either... Anyway, this discussion has been had at AN and there's also now a block appeal from AL that needs (IMHO) rejecting, this unfortunate parenthesis should for the time being be closed and the regular course of events hopefully resumed. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

== This article is still too long and has too many parts unreferenced ==

Per [[WP:LENGTH]] if an article has more than 80kb of readable prose it should certainly be split (and if one longer than 60kb it should "probably" be split). Using the prose-length measuring tool I see this page currently has a prose-length of 106kb. 
I'm going to make the [[A Modest Proposal|modest proposal]] right now that any unreferenced content should be cut so we can get this page down to a reasonable size. This is entirely justified by [[WP:V]]. I'm sure the endless fights over who gets the mark of shame in the infobox are entertaining, but it really isn't as important as the basic fact that this article is a garbage-heap in terms of referencing. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, but I disagree one removal and the shortening of the Italy section, it has weight in the article.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
:Yes, the article is long. But no, I do not see how it can be split without damaging the article. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:What unreferenced content?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Having had a quick edit myself in the Indo-China part of the article, some of the sections which are summaries of "Main" articles are thin on referencing.[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::So we just port over a couple of refs from the main articles.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Whole sections of this article have no references at all, or only one. Simply porting over references from the main articles (typically "COUNTRY during WW2" articles) is questionable methodology when the immediate question for some of the countries here that are unreferenced is "why are they on this page?" and that question is not answered on the respective page. For example, there is no explanation really as to why Laos should be included here. No reference is provided for Manchukuo. Iraq is limited to a single reference to the text of Fuhrer Order, when what is really needed is a secondary source telling us that this was a German/Axis-Iraqi alliance of some sort. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::If the material is covered in the main article, and is source it is perfectly acceptable to just port over a ref. Also if it is well sourced in the main article we only need one or two sources here for convenience.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::But that material should support that country being included on this page as a member of the Axis. If it doesn't (and, e.g., for Iraq, it doesn't seem to, since the Fuhrer Order is a primary source requiring interpretation, and the page discusses the course of operations in Iraq in factual terms without providing a source saying "Iraq was an axis ally" or words to that effect). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Does "pro-nazi"count [[https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fworld%2f2019%2f10%2f10%2factually-president-trump-some-kurds-did-fight-world-war-ii%2f]], [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13610702]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Seems like we're still making an interpretation rather than having a secondary source tell us that there was an alliance of some sort. There's no doubt that Rashid was pro-Nazi, no doubt also that the Germans and Italians supported him militarily, no doubt also that he fought against the British, but does this add up to alliance? I'd be much more comfortable if there were a reference saying so. To take another example, the Shah of Iran has been described as being pro-German, and he also fought the allies, is this sufficient for us to say that Iran was an Axis country without having a reference saying that or words to that effect?
:::::::::It seems to me that this area of history has been the subject of enough writing that it should be very simple to find references explicitly saying who was and was not an Axis ally, and if these references can't be found then we should hesitate about saying so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::You seem hung up on the word ally. They received military aid from the Axis, they fought against the British during ww2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What I'm hung up on is sourcing, particularly on a page which is about an alliance. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well then it should only be about those nations who were part of the Axis or allied to the Axis and not just one nation, should it not?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The problem with that is it means excluding countries which the sources are pretty explicit about being part of the Axis such as Finland, which never signed any official alliance with Germany beyond the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Axis does not appear to be a formal alliance with a clear list of signatories. Even the Tripartite Pact was never formally invoked and never really functioned beyond a few technical committees. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::So? either we go with exactly what RS say or we allow some leeway. But this page is Azis powers, not (for example) Nazi Germany (which has its own international relations page). I agree we should not get hung up on the word ally.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==Co-belligerent==
This article is not about WW2, it is not about "the Axis in WW2". Thus I am unsure if Co-beligerant should even be here. After all WW2 was not the only war fought by an Azis power in this period.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Co-belligerents should only be included here if there is a reference saying that they were an ally of Germany/Italy/Japan/the Axis. For example, Iran did fight against the UK and the USSR, but I have not seen a single reference referring to them as having been a German/Japanese/Italian/Axis (or whatever) ally and as such I would not support them being included unless a reference can be provided to support inclusion. On the other hand Finland's wartime government claimed to be simply a co-belligerent of Germany, but this should not be decisive since there is plentiful evidence in reliable sources stating that Finland was basically a German ally and part of the axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::So it has to say, ally, not aided, sided with, helped, accomplice, just ally? This is why this is a bad idea to have this. What is a "co-beligerant"? This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe. It would be best (to my mind and to avoid further conflict) to just remove this from the info box and discuss details in the body.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{tq|"This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe."}} - which period is that? If we're talking about pre-1936 then I think you may be correct. I don't think the sub-headings in the infobox are particularly helpful as it leads to daisy-chain arguments (e.g., "Finland was self-described during the war as a co-belligerent and is included as part of the Axis, therefore any country that was arguably a co-belligerent of the Axis was also part of the Axis").
::The reason to include Finland (and indeed any other country) is not that it was a co-belligerent, it's that reliable sources describe it as having been a German ally and/or axis member regardless of the claims of its wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::And again, does it have to only be ally, or can it also be aided, sided with, helped, accomplice (or even pro)? By not having this heading, and only including actual signed up members we remove the issue.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::But what is an "actual, signed up member"? If this article is restricted to [[Tripartite Pact]] signatories then it becomes simply a duplicate of the [[Tripartite Pact]] article. A review of the sources shows the Axis is defined more widely than the Tripartite Pact. Other alliances of different degrees of formality were involved. Bottom line is if anyone wants to include a country here they need to provide sources supporting that inclusion and they need to be pretty explicit about that country having been an ally of the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::And then we have arguments over what is and is not acceptable criteria. But yes this does begin to look all a bit forky, an article created just to say X or Y was part of the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Even if that wasn't the original intent, and even if (which I believe is possible) the article can be edited so as not to be a [[WP:POVFORK]], {{tq|"an article ... just to say X or Y was part of the axis"}} is what it seems to be right now. This is why we have these repeated, facile arguments about the infobox which are driven entirely by [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour.
::::::This article should be GA at least, but it isn't and stands no chance of becoming so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::maybe this then [[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers]] should be our model, we only include nations that "joined the Axis" rather than just some connection with it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Actually, by using a loose definition of the term "the Axis" (which is not just a Tripartite Pact) and trying to introduce a strict term "Axis co-belligerent" we are making a big mistake. In reality, that division is artificial. Thus, some sources (vide supra) describe Romania as "Germany co-belligerent", despite the fact that it was the Axis member. And that is not a mistake: actually, it is possible to be the Axis member without being Axis co-belligerent (Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR, as far as I know). I agree it would be better to get rid of "co-belligerent" section at all. With regard to Finland, it never formally joined the Tripartite Pact, but, keeping in mind that the term "The Axis" is more loose, I see no reason why cannot it be included as the Axis power (with a reservation that it never signed the Tripartite Pact). That is what EB says:

:"''During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers. They included Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia (after Czechoslovakia had divided in 1939) in November 1940, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in March 1941, and, after the wartime breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia (June 1941). Finland, although it did not formally join the Tripartite Pact, cooperated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union (to which Finland had been forced to cede territory in 1940) and entered the war in 1941.''"

I think if we use a loose definition of the Axis, a division onto the Axis members and co-belligerents should be removed and replaced to "Other states".--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I'd be happy to only include countries which we actually have sources saying were members of the Axis here. The title of the article is "Axis powers" (setting aside what a "power" is ....) this means it should be about Axis countries. The following have no source explicitly identifying them as part of the Axis:
::::*Iraq
::::*Wang Jingwei regime
::::*Denmark
::::*Manchuria (though I note [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Axis_Air_Forces/4PgwCKQQP1gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Wang+Jingwei%22+%22Axis%22&pg=PA259&printsec=frontcover this source at least] identifies them as part of the Axis)
::::*Spain
::::*Ba Maw regime
::::*USSR
::::*Vichy
::::*Albania
::::*Serbia
::::*Greece
::::*Cambodia
::::*Mengjiang
::::*Laos
::::*Vietnam
::::*Philippines
::::The various Japanese puppet states could fairly be covered in a sub-section under the Japan section on the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This would, anyway, bring the focus back to where it belongs and shorten the article to the length where it needs to be (it needs to lose at least 20kb to meet [[WP:LENGTH]]). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:I would rather (to avoid future conflict) just avoid any inclusion of anyone not actually described as a member of the axis powers by RS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support removal of co-belligerents altogether''' — Slater's right, "co-belligerent" only makes sense in the context of a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war. This article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII, some countries' status changes over time, and that seems to be the root of the dispute over whether countries should be listed as co-belligerents. The idea of "Axis co-belligerents" requires more nuance than is possible (or desirable) in an infobox. Listing almost any country as a "co-belligerent" in the infobox gives the reader an incomplete picture at best (at worst, a completely false picture). So, the best move is to just list the Axis powers in the infobox, and not list co-belligerents at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:*This is valid point. However, USSR and Nazi Germany, for example, did attack Poland from two sides, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war". Would not you agree? Speaking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time should be included on this page'' [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*I agree about the infobox, but I do not agree that "this article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII". Specifically, I do not think there is a any clear definition of the Axis not in terms of World War II. It is true that the term originates in the years just before the war, but war trumps diplomacy. "Axis", like "Entente", "Central Powers" and "Allies", refers to one side in a global conflict—and in all cases was a product of the war itself as much as of pre-war diplomacy. The reason we should remove the co-belligerents (''except Finland, which was fully Axis'') is that it is very likely to mislead the casual reader and the infobox is for just such a reader. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- It was "controversial" to put co-belligerence since exist of this term. By its meaning co-belligerence is the state which related to the war which has common enemy. By its vague meaning, I think we shouldn't use the word co-belligerence here. Other states what [[User:FOARP]] mention is puppet-states and they have participated various activities with Axis power (except for Soviets which is controversial right now), so I don't think we should delete them for now. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not proposing deleting them, just grouping them under the heading of their "boss" country if there is no source identifying them as a member of Axis. Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary (governed by a German-installed government after 1944) are described in multiple sources as Axis members, signed the Tripartite pact, so they would remain separate (but noted as governed as puppet states). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any major change on the outline and categorization of the infobox. Professionally and well set modifications possible. I still stand not any general guide may decide inclusion in this complex area, but all entities should be judged and discussed one-by-one.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
*'''SUPPORT removal of co-belligerents from the infobox'''. The title of this article is "Axis powers". Naturally you'd expect the infobox to list countries that we know are Axis power because reliable sources call them that. Is a co-belligerent necessarily a member of the Axis? This is dubious. Finland claimed to be a co-belligerent during the war but plenty of reliable sources simply identify them as a member of the Axis. In the case of Finland, the idea that they were "co-belligerents" is generally just considered to be wartime spin, not undoubted fact. We have sources identifying the USSR as a "German Ally" during the M-R pact, but again this is not the same as sources identifying the USSR explicitly as a member of the Axis. The same goes for puppet states that are not explicitly described as Axis-members in reliable sources, though these may be grouped under their "boss" country title - puppet states that are explicitly described as Axis members in reliable sources should remain in the infobox. The M-R pact can be covered in the article under bilateral relations, a section on Poland is just trolling TBH. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' strongly - for two reasons. First, the page in current state is actually very good and informative. Being only slightly familiar with this subject, I found many things I did not know about on this page, in particular all these complex connections between different countries during WWII. Removing more than 50% of content from this page (as suggested) will dramatically degrade it. Secondly, some countries from the list above do belong to this page. There is no any doubts. For example, USSR and Nazi Germany did both attack Poland, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: such as an actual attack and an actual war". Thinking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time'' should be included on this page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|My very best wishes}} - Including states which fought against the Allies but for which there is no reference at all saying they were in the Axis and which are not presently included on this page (e.g., Iran)? Regarding length, the corresponding article on [[Allies of World War II|the Allies]] is half the length, covers more countries, and is in every way better. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I am saying we must include all countries that collaborated military (or had significant political agreements/pacts) with Axis countries on this page if we want this page to be interesting and informative. And especially such pacts and coordinated military actions (with Nazi Germany) which started the entire WWII. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::* Discussing them on this page in terms of bi-lateral relations with Axis countries, yes, but in the infobox in what is supposed to be a list of Axis countries? I would say that needs a source saying explicitly that they were in the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::*We are not talking about "bi-lateral relations". Everyone had such relations with everyone. We are talking about a ''de facto'' actual military alliance with Axis countries. But, yes, these are not Axis countries, and therefore they are NOT included in in the infobox as Axis countries, but separately. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::*How does it make sense in the infobox for a page about the Axis, to list countries that weren't in the Axis? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think anyone is suggesting removing 50% of the content of the page. This relates solely to the infobox and to if we should use the specific term "co-belligerent"; at least based on most of the opinions I'm seeing here, the more in-depth details on those Axis-adjacent nations and their involvement would remain in the article body without much change. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- Co-belligerence has a rather strict legal meaning, it's not for Wikipedian editors to judge. Do note that the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2213959?seq=1 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland] defines the country as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", not a co-belligerent.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*Agree on Finland. It is not only the peace agreement that says this, either, plenty of historians say the same. The entire idea that being simply a "co-belligerent" of the Axis was a thing is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*100% agree on Finland. It is the whole reason there is a co-belligerents section in the infobox that attracts countries that don't belong. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::*No. As this page correctly tells, "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941-44 Continuation War", and so on. See the photo of Mannerheim with Hitler. Finland absolutely must remain on the page, just as [[Vichy France]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Is this an article about the Tripartite Pact? No. So why is membership of the (never actually invoked, barely ever operated) Tripartite Pact decisive as to whether a country should or should not be described as an Axis member? What is decisive is reliable sources describing Finland as being an Axis member, which means we should keep them there as an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: See, you misunderstood what they've said. Finland and Vichy France, Iraq, Thailand is not a co-belligerent of Axis power. They are Axis power themselves. The countries that belong to "co-belligerent" section should be deleted, and we are going to put it on Axis itself. Like "Tripartite Pact" and "Other countries" -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'd say any country for which sourcing can be found describing them as a member of the Axis should be kept. For Finland and Thailand we have this so they should stay in a list of Axis countries. For Vichy and Iraq we don't have this. In fact it is unclear to me why Vichy and Iraq should be included (and Iran not included) in a list of Axis countries, since we don't have any sources saying they were members of the Axis (and AFAIK we also don't have sources saying they were co-belligerents). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Neutral to removal/keeping the term "co-belligerents", but retain Finland, Thailand, Iraq in the infobox'''- No matter what term is decided on to describe, they cooperated military and declared/waged war in cooperation/alliance with the Axis powers and should be shown in the infobox in some capacity... Neutral on inclusion or not of the USSR --[[User:Havsjö|Havsjö]] ([[User talk:Havsjö|talk]]) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Happy to include both Finland and Thailand as simply Axis members. We can have a footnote for Finland saying it is described by some (not all) as being a co-belligerent. Thailand would need a source saying they were a co-belligerent even for that. Iraq, on the other hand, we both have no sources describing as a "co-belligerent" AND no sources saying they were an Axis-member - so why describe them as being either? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::According to a 2008 ''[[Helsingin Sanomat]]'' poll with 28 history professors ([https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000004606365.html link]), 16 said that Finland was allied with Germany, 6 disagreed and 6 didn't want to take a clear stance. However, the fact that it wasn't a de jure alliance made a difference with things like that the United States never declared war on Finland despite being de facto allied with Germany. So it should stay but the relationship should covered with more detail. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Though it might be important to consider that "Axis powers" & "allied with Nazi Germany" are not necessarily the same thing. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents from the infobox''' unless significant mainstream sources can be found using the term; the term has very specific meaning, so it's [[WP:OR]] for us to apply it ourselves unless we have sources doing so. However, I don't support removing the related material from the article body - we should avoid the term "co-belligerents" unless directly supported by the sources, but the body of the article can discuss the full depth of involvement other nations had in the Axis war effort while following the sources more closely. It's only the infobox, which has trouble reflecting the full nuance of the sources, that is the problem. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== [[Independent State of Croatia]] ==

The page describes Croatia as a puppet state (three sources).[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is however [[:Category:Client states of Nazi Germany]] and [[Client state]]. Some consistency would be nice.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Something may be founded/created as a puppet state, which after will be a client state.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
:::This, plus if the sources say "puppet state" then that's what we're calling it - we don't typically second-guess reliable sources. "Puppet state" is (according to our article) a kind of "Client state", but not all client states are puppet states if our article is to be believed. What a category is called is not decisive of anything because it is often not based on the sources. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Axis powers

2021-02-06T20:13:09Z

Pudeo: /* Co-belligerent */

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=high|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=C

|B-Class-1=no

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes
|Japanese-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|Italian-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=C|importance=high|milhist=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}}
{{WikiProject Italy|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Romania|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=C|importance=Mid|no-todolist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=c}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
{{WikiProject Judaism}}
}}
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History|anchor=World War II (72 articles)}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=b}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Status of Vichy France ==

Some sources, including [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iEVYAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2281&lpg=PA2281&dq=vichy+france+co-belligerent++Bradley+%26+Goldsmith&source=bl&ots=oA0RDO5skt&sig=ACfU3U0JraVK_03zmQwE1i3YZUsRt9sscQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmzb2JvprtAhVYxzgGHTVgB6Y4ChDoATAAegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=vichy%20france%20co-belligerent%20%20Bradley%20%26%20Goldsmith&f=false this] legal study of the law of co-belligerency, consider Vichy France a co-belligerent on the Axis side. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its fine to have it there then.[[User:Isabella Emma|Isabella Emma]] ([[User talk:Isabella Emma|talk]]) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:Have cited it. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Havsjö|Beyond My Ken}} Vichy France waged war against Britain (which ''is'' co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
::Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:::We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Vichy France was most certainly not in the state of war with Germany. An armistice is less than a full fledged peace treaty but it can end state of war as well. Vichy France was most certainly an ally or a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, ''inter alia'', to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was ''minimally'' coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Srnec}}, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:In her [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", ''Yale Journal of International Law'' (2017)], Rebecca Ingber cites [https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/HUMR5503/h09/undervisningsmateriale/bradley_goldsmith.pdf Bradley&Goldsmith], and puts that article into a proper context. It says that Bradley&Goldsmith (who worked for the US government) wrote their work to justify US action against the states that supported Al Qaida, and they used Vichy as a precedent. However, according that that article, there are serious problem with their arguments, and [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ this York University School of Law web site] provides a convincing counter-arguments against Vichy's co-belligerence. Importantly, according to the NYU school of law article, Bradley&Goldsmith were ''originators'' of the idea of Vichy co-belligerency, therefore, we can conclude that that view didn't exist before that date, and, most likely, it still reflects mostly US view. Therefore, Vichy France should be removed from the infobox, and its potential co-belligerency should be discussed in a separate section devoted to controversial cases.
:Interestingly, although Bradley&Goldsmith's article is being [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9987766149056998138&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en widely cited], majority references are not in a context of Vichy France (only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=5%2C33&sciodt=0%2C33&cites=9987766149056998138&scipsc=1&q=vichy+france+&btnG= 13 documents] from that list mention Vichy), which means Vichy France is not a focus of that article. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Maybe the issue is controversial, but per the mother article's definiton ([[co-belligerence]]), certainly there was a period when she was like that.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::Wikipedia is not a RS. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I know, but terminologies and articles should be consisntent in it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::AFAIK, Vichy never attacked the Allies, they were just fighting back, which is consistent with a behaviour of truly neutral states. Anyway, I got no reasonable counterarguments, so I remove Vichy. Please, do not restore it without providing better sources.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::And I have reverted your edit. Ignoring arguments from other people that do not fit in your POV is not the way consensus works. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::I saw no arguments, and, importantly, no sources. Per WP:ONUS, responsibility is on those who adds a contested material. please, self-revert addition of poorly sourced material that is contested by reliable sources and is definitely non-neutral. If no arguments, supported by reliable sources, will follow in next week, I am going to revert you.
:::::::In addition, [[WP:NPA|accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack]]. I suggest you either provide evidences or to refrain form accusing me of POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Inclusion of USSR in the infobox ==

USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=999720829]. This was challenged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002614947&oldid=1002614763]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002618127&oldid=1002616357] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This [https://books.google.com/books?id=MktdDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=umQqmFXTosMC&pg=PA84&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwA3oECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (political scientist).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Here, [https://books.google.com/books?id=maEfAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=%20alliance&f=false pages 116-7, 156-158].[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=MYqFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwCHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=uroiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik5pD53rbuAhWHbs0KHUtiA2U4ChDoATABegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (also historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:And [https://books.google.com/books?id=giMfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ8fLl37buAhXGWM0KHSFgA0IQ6AEwBHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (professor of Holocaust Studies).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This source [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&div=75&id=&page=] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: ''"As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17"''.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.
::I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1002631212] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
*Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]]. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was '''''not''''' an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.{{pb}}I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.{{pb}}History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the '''''consensus''''' of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was '''''not''''' an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were '''''not''''' allies, to mean that they '''''were''''' allies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078&diffmode=source]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote [[User:Peacemaker67]] who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent"''''' with the Axis Powers''''' (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Indeed. Since the lasted revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002785076&oldid=1002776256&diffmode=source] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) {{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}} 2) {{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Regarding adding sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=1002826669&oldid=1002786397&diffmode=source] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail.” [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
:::*[[WP:V]] is quite clear that any unsourced material in a Wikipedia artifcle can be removed at will, regardless of how long it's been in the article. The information I removed was "referenced" only by a "see" pointer to another Wikipedia article, and [[WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]], so, in other words, it was never referenced at all, and should have been removed ages ago. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002839165&oldid=1002838319&diffmode=source] Thank you. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not '''''directly support''''' the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says '''''explicitly''''' that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says '''''specifically''''' that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they '''''must''''' say '''''exactly''''' what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.
:::This is extremely frustrating.
:::First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.
:::Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.
:::When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.
:::It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?
::Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] - [[German–Soviet Axis talks]] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Piotrus|Volunteer Marek}} The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so ''explicitly''; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute [[WP:OR]]. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the [[strawman]] already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.

Folks, '''you need to provide sources'''. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says ''"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."''

Sources please.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: Both Astral Leap ({{tq|Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...}}) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'') cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's ''World at Arms'', which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War'', which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.
::Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.
::And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.
::[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.
::: I would gladly find you a source {{tq|which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies}}, but you already had me in {{tq|absence of evidence is not evidence of absence}}. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies '''after 1941'''. Question is about '''1939-1941''' as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a ''de facto'' military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Slatersteven}} {{tq|Weinberg's ''World at Arms''... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War''... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.}}; {{tq|Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'' -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same.}} You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:
::''"The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union '''aligning herself with Germany'''''
::Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.
::Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)
::Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940
::Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.
::Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)
::Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)
::Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)
::Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.
::So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because '''everything I see in this source actually says the opposite!''' [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::
::So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!
::Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a [[strawman]] despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']]
::::And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

Weiberg, ''World at Arms'', p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1003136212 I *just* asked you] to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing the USSR in the Axis column (as an ally, co-belligerent or however labelled), from 36-39 (or any period of time), based on there being a treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany, makes no sense. If we listed countries as allies/co-belligerents/whatever based on treaties (even treaties with secret codicils), we'd be in the weird position of listing countries (like the USSR) on both sides of the conflict. For example, if the 1939 [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]] makes the USSR a co-belligerent or ally of Germany, then the 1939 [[Munich Agreement]] would make the UK and France a co-belligerent or ally of Germany. But listing countries on both sides like this would be nonsensical, and extremely confusing to the reader. Yes, these agreements and the complicated, changing relationships of the parties before and during the war are obviously all content that is and should be covered in the article, but the ''infobox'' is supposed to give people a quick overview and some basic facts about the topic. If the topic is "Axis powers", the USSR should not be listed anywhere in the same column as the Axis powers. The USSR should be listed on the ''other'' column, where we list the countries that were opposed to the Axis powers, and the reason for this is simple: the USSR and Germany fought on opposite sides in World War II. Duh. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:If there is a timestamp intervall and an appropriate chart with note inside the infobox, it should not be a problem.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

=== {{Font color||yellow|PLEASE NOTE}} - Discussion is '''NOT''' about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power===
[[File:Axis infobox.png|thumb|right|200px]]
I feel compelled to emphasize that the discussion here is NOT about whether Soviet Union should be listed as an Axis Power, because a couple users insist on falsely framing the disagreement in those terms. This is a [[strawman]] fallacy.

The discussion is whether Soviet Union should be listed as an "ally" of Nazi Germany/Axis or a "co-belligerent" '''for the period in 1939-1941''' before Hitler broke the alliance and attacked them (multiple high quality sources for this have been provided)

The infobox has three parts (image on right):

#"Tripartite Powers" - no one is saying USSR should go here
#"States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" - while the Soviet Union had agreed to join the Tripartite Pact it ended up never joining because Nazi Germany broke off the negotiations. However no one is saying USSR should go here
#Co-belligerent states - '''this is what the argument is about''' Should USSR be included here?

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

== Slovakia? ==

Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. [[User:Hawkillglu|Hawkillglu]] ([[User talk:Hawkillglu|talk]]) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Hawkillglu}}, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::Slovakia is already accurately described as a Tripartite Pact signatory. That they were a puppet state during the war is already described in great detail in the article. No need to introduce a more subjective term into the infobox - particularly given e.g., Hungary also having had a government imposed on it. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact ==

While we're here, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940. Stalin asked for a naval base on the Bosporus (and some other stuff) and Nazi Germany decided that it wasn't worth it so went with Barbarossa instead.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Hitler '''''always''''' intended to "go with Barbarossa", and '''''never''''' seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act. In any case, whatever was agreed to "provisionally", they never jined, so the information is irrelevant here. Countries consider doing many things, what they actually '''''do''''' is what's important. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is actually not true and not backed by any sources. Hitler was willing to have Soviets join the Axis if they were willing to stay in Asia. Nazi Germany explicitly offered the Soviets control over Middle East and Persian Gulf. Ribbentrop, on behalf of Hitler, explicitly invited Stalin to join the Tripartite Pact. Stalin agreed but with demands for a naval base on the Bosporus. At that point Hitler changed his mind (this was as late as December 1940) and green lit Barbarossa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Sure, both monsters had similar plans for each other, but that doesn't mean they didn't cooperate at the beginning of the war. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::The pact had never been signed. Negotiations failed, similarly to 1939 Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. Do you propose to add both?

::::Moreover, USSR ''initiated'' triple negotiations, and it was a position of UK and France that lead to their failure. With regard to Soviet-Axis talks, initiative came from Ribbentrop, and Molotov disagreed with German proposal, which ignored Soviet interest in Balkans.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Well, yes, both should be mentioned. But here we're talking about USSR agreeing to join the Tripatrite Alliance in 1940, not 1939. And I think you have it backwards - USSR was willing to join the Axis if it was given interests in the Balkans but it was the Germans who at that point ignored the Soviets. Last diplomatic note on the subject was Moscow --> Berlin, not vice versa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Not "agreeing", but "negotiating in a responce to Hitler's invitation". "Agreeing" is misleading, because it sounds like USSR agreed to join the Axis, but Hitler rejected that idea. In reality, a situation was different: Hitler and Molotov were discussing possible Soviet membership in the Axis, but Hitler's conditions didn't satisfy Stalin, and Stalin's conditions were rejected by Hitler. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::He did agree though.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed to what?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::To join the Tripartite Pact.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::To claim that, you need (i) to provide the source that explicitly says so, and (ii) to demonstrate that that source represents a majority viewpoint. I tried to find that information, but 10 minute googling provided no sources (instead, I found several interesting sources saying otherwise), which demonstrates that the viewpoint you are pushing is a minority view. You either provide evidences (vide supra) or stop POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Beyond My Ken}} you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.

Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris).
https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what your point is.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler always wanted to do a operation Barbarossa just like he always wanted to do a General plan ost on the polish people.[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Maybe. We actually don't know what "Hitler always wanted". What we do know is that Hitler asked Stalin to join the Tripatrite Pact, Stalin agreed, but then Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting [[Lebensraum]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And yet he invited Stalin to join the Axis. And Stalin agreed. And then Hitler changed his mind. Or maybe he didn't, who knows, maybe it was just stalling. Who cares? The point is that Hitler asked and Stalin agreed and there's no dispute about that. And that's a cold hard fact rather than speculation about "what Hitler always wanted" or how he wanted to get it. Anyway. Show me sources.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Gilbert's ''The Second World War'' states that "Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis", and suggests that the Soviets were aware of the German preparations for invasion owing to a spy operating in Tokyo. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::let's be more precise: Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin. For further details (and to avoid cherry-picking), I looked at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Molotov+berlin+1940+Axis&btnG= the sources] (I believe there will be no objections to my keywords choice), and representative sources are Roberts, Gorodetsky and Watson. At least, these will be the sources any good faith Wikipedian with no preliminary knowledge of the subject would find. Of course, if someone wants to push some specific POV, they can cherry-pick a source saying that Stalin's dream was an alliance with Hitler. However, we all want to stay neutral, aren't we?
::::What these representative sources say? We already know that Roberts says that Stalin was shocked after fall of France, and he sent Molotov to Berlin partially to figure out Hitler's intentions. It was more a political game than a sincere desire to join the Axis.
::::Gorodetsky says that "''it is not sufficiently stressed that rather than participating in the dismembering of the British Empire, Molotov stubbornly insisted on the Soviet short-term strategic aim of securing a buffer zone in the Baltic and in particular in the Balkans, where the Germans now posed a serious threat to Russia. The negotiations indeed broke down over Germany's declared interests in Finland, Romania and Bulgaria''". That even remotely resembles Molotov's agreement to join the Axis, which Hitler refused to accept.

::::Watson, whose article is devoted specifically to Molotov's role as a minister of foreign affairs in 1939-, mentions his visit to Berlin in passing.

::::In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's in Davies' "No Simple Victory" and a few other sources. You'll have to wait for me to brave the raging pandemic and make it to my office for more specifics (that's partly why I brought it up on talk rather than just putting it in myself).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::I think you are supposed to have a remote access to all resources like OUP, Springer, Jstor etc, just ask you IT specialists. According to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/HIST.37.2.49-52 this], Davies is a revisionist, so it would be premature to present his viewpoint as a majority view. In general, he objects to glossing all Allies (not only USSR), and that may be correct, taking into account that the WWII history is still being written mostly from (western) winners' perspective. Therefore, it is not a surprise that some of his statements may be exaggeration.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{re|Paul Siebert}} A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:
{{quote|As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.

This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...

[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...

It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.}}
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes and none of this contradicts the fact that Stalin agreed to join the pact in November 1940.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
{{re|Volunteer Marek}} Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Repeating the same argument without providing evidences is by no means helpful. You just demonstrate that you have no arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: That's not exactly what he's saying:
{{quote|...Hitler had first to examine what might be gained by prolonging the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After all, the Soviets could not have failed to notice Germany’s greatly enhanced position, and Stalin might be persuaded to make some interesting concessions... To this end, Molotov was invited to Berlin in November 1940. He was peculiarly unforthcoming...

Two issues brought negotiations to an impasse. One was Romania, which both Germany and the USSR wished to dominate. The other concerned the conditions on which Stalin might agree to join the Tripartite Pact... Ribbentrop sent a proposal to that effect via Molotov, and in a note of 25 November Stalin provisionally agreed. The devil lay in the details. The Nazis sought to use the Tripartite Pact as an instrument for keeping Stalin out of Europe... Stalin, in contrast, sought to use it as a means of reviving historic Russian claims in the Balkans. Apart from demanding the withdrawal of all German troops from Finland, his note of 25 November envisaged not only a Russo-Bulgarian treaty, but also a Soviet naval base on the Bosporus... Neither Germany nor Italy could tolerate such a prospect. Indeed, Berlin and Rome must have woken up to the fact... that the Soviet Union, once internally stabilized, would prove no less imperialist and aggressive than its tsarist predecessor. No reply was ever sent to Stalin’s note of 25 November. Instead, on 18 December 1940, Hitler drew up Directive 21, ‘Case Barbarossa’...

The implications are obvious... Stalin’s attitudes, no less than Hitler’s, determined the shift towards German-Soviet conflict. The decision to prepare plans for ‘Case Barbarossa’ was driven by ‘the combination of Britain’s refusal to make peace and the expansionist aims of the Soviet Union’.}}
::: There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That doesn’t actually contradict what I (and Davies) say. Also you have a lot of ellipsis in there.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That is close to what Roberts says. I am not sure we need to waste our time further.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::This is a somewhat different discussion. It’s not about the info box but whether this info should be added to the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::*'''Opposed to listing the USSR in the infobox''', Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, [[Polish–Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938|invaded]], clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to Piotrus' and Volunteer Marek's own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me what "my definition" is. My "definition" is very simple. Here it is: '''Do sources refer to Nazi Germany and some other country as "ALLIES" or "CO-BELLIGERENT"?''' Yes? Then we do to. No? Then we don't. There are dozens of mainstream high quality sources which refer to USSR and Nazi Germany as "allies" (or co belligerents) in 1939-1941. There are NO sources which refer in such terms to Poland and Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::* Yep. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Nope.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*Good point. Either Poland should be added to the infobox or (preferably) the USSR should be removed. I would say the same thing about [[European theatre of World War II]], which—''hilariously''—lists Stalin as a "commander and leader" of both the Allies and the Axis.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*:{{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, The last time I checked it was a bloodless invasion that doesn't even have its own article, because it was such a non-notable event (Polish foces simply occupied and a bit of territory with no resistance met). There's the little thing about WWII in Europe starting in 1939, not 1938... Nobody ever considered 1938 events in Czechoslovakia to be a part of WWII military operations. An ultimatum followed by a bloodless annexation hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict', which is required for invoking the term co-belligerence. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::That's a lovely argument, Piotrus. I doubt the 227,399 people who lived in that territory, carved up between Poland and Germany, viewed it the same. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Piotrus, do I understand you correctly that a bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia ''by Germany'' hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict' too?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:*'''Opposed''' As plenty of nations had "confused" alliances at the start of the war. They cooperated on one invasion.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::The point is that whether these were "confused" or not, they DID have them so they should be included in the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
'''Opposed'''. The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland which only took place after the German's secured total victory and the Polish government and army were in the process of fleeing the country [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] . The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 
:I also reinforce here, the Soviet Union is '''appropriately''' present in the infobox as she was [[Co-belligerence|co-belligerent]] for a period, undoubtedly per definiton. No excuse, no whitewash has room about it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
*'''Oppose'''. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Volunteer Marek. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is obviously an embarrassing chapter in Russian and ML history, so its understandable that they've tried to downplay it, but mainstream sources are unambiguous about the extensive collaboration between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to 1941. An agreement to partition a third state is not a simple nonaggression pact. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 08:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' No serious history book that I know of has ever identified the USSR as being an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Given Hitler's attitude to communism, I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone. Anyway, what we would need to include this would be a preponderance of serious (not some random piece in a newspaper), neutral (in this case, that would mean neither Russian nor Polish), ideally academic and other high-quality level sources ([[WP:BESTSOURCES]]) which describe this as a fact - this lacking (there have been few, if any, such sources proposed - and in any case most history books, from the school book vulgarisation up to the most respectable, do not make a case for such a distinction), such an addition would fail [[WP:V]] and probably [[WP:NPOV]] too. Attempts to argue what a co-belligerent is and is not and what would fit under a given definition are rather poor and transparent attempts at [[WP:SYNTH]] (given the failure to find grounding in [[WP:RS]], this could potentially be interpreted as [[WP:POVPUSH]]ING, but editors here seem rather experienced so I assume such behaviour would be below them) which we must ignore per [[WP:NOR]].

:Finally, a word of wisdom from WP:POVPUSH: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact." - simply because it is a fact that the USSR invaded Poland and did so while Nazi Germany was doing it does not make them "co-belligerents" or allies, especially given the wider context of ideological struggles (must it be reminded, that the Nazis were staunch anti-communist?), and we must not entertain this confusion between "facts" and "neutrality". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
**Are you suggesting that historians in Poland, a country that has been a democracy for 30 years, where academic freedom is respected, are unable to form impartial judgements about World War II? Which countries’ historians qualify as “neutral” in your worldview? - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Yes, absolutely, USSR must be described as "co-belligerent", but only until June 1941, i.e. as described here: [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref>. This is for two reasons. First, the cited sources say so. Second, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. This is simply a historical fact, not a personal view by anyone. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Just another war over infoboxes with an attempt to squeeze every possible last ounce of info into them. That's not what they're for. Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland is a very minor part, if a part at all, of understanding the Axis vs Allies dynamic of WWII. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

===USSR was added by IP, with no consensus===
Adding the USSR to the Axis side was added by an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=854616495&oldid=854612284 IP], the same IP also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=800410909 claimed Katyn was part of "Polish Genocide in the Soviet Union"]. The addition of the IP did not undergo serious discussion, was not supported by sources, and is in opposition to how other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] treat the Axis powers. Other reasonable encyclopedias do not list the USSR as an ally or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:I am so embarrassed that this was here for two and a half years. Yikes. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::It was NOT added to the "Axis side". It was listed in the "co-belligerents" section. Please stop mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute, especially since you've been asked previously.
::And that's actually not where it was added. Here is a version from 2016, two years before the IP edit (which simply restored it) where the info is clearly in that section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=714581154]. It goes farther back than that. So, Levivich, I'm sure we all appreciate your deeply felt embarrassment on the part of Wikipedia, but it might not be necessary after all. At least not in this instance.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Temporary extended confirmed protection ==

I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I concur this would be useful ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=prev&diff=1002925818&diffmode=source] and others). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

==Infobox==

I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc).
In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items.
As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:I 100% agree that establishing criteria for infobox and specifically for this category would be useful. One issue is "allies" vs "co-belligerents" vs "client states" (or something similar). For example should we include [[Independent State of Croatia]] anywhere in there? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::Can you please be more focused? Do you agree with my approach to co-belligerence criteria?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::Everything turns on being a special case at some point. Even if we came up with strict criteria as to what belonged in an infobox, we could still have a local consensus that over-rode it, or chose to have specific caveats next to the text.
::The best way of achieving consensus quickly and to the point is for someone to state what they think belongs in the infobox and where they want to see it in the infobox. Then we understand what is being proposed, and can marshal thoughts and arguments appropriately [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::IMO, infoboxes are supposed to present the most essential and commonly accepted information, and special cases should be discussed in the article's body.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think special cases can be discussed in infobox too, with notes. Right now Italy and Croatia have longer notes, but USSR, Iraq and Finland, very short ones. This all started when I simply tried to expand the USSR's note... [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*{{ping|Paul Siebert}} So Vichy France and the USSR are out because nobody declared war on them and they did not declare war, but Finland and Thailand remain? (Iraq is a weird case; I'd have to look it up.) That works for me, but the "co-belligerents" label should go. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I agree we should define the terms for the infobox, then check if various states match them. This is indeed a good approach. However, definition of [[co-belligerence]] in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law doesn't say anything about declaring war (it defines co-belligerents as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." [https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&dq=states+engaged+in+a+conflict+with+a+common+enemy,+whether+in+alliance+with+each+other+or+not&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_7MrCyL3uAhVCK6YKHd7cCBMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=states%20engaged%20in%20a%20conflict%20with%20a%20common%20enemy%2C%20whether%20in%20alliance%20with%20each%20other%20or%20not&f=false]], on a side note, that source also discusses few WWII cases but not Poland of France, unfortunately). With all due respect, I'd rather use the definition from an accepted, academic source than yours, which, surely incidentally, seems almost crafted to exclude USSR since it chose not to declare the war on Poland in '39... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
just crawling through superficially all the discussion (not just this section), reacting also to Gizzy's question, '''Yes''', the Soviet Union is correctly listed by the co-belligerents with note. The current infobox is '''good and accurate''', the main issue was about how to expanding the note, and other possibly technical questions about it. I hope you reach consensus about it the Soviet note expansion issue, but I reiterate, current infobox structure is perfect, as well Independent State of Croatia or Vichy France is in its perfect place. Any outsider editor will be totally confused seeing this wall of text (I don't say it in a negative manner, since these important issues has to be precisely discussed), but I recommend if something is outlined for change/further addition, it should be proposed strictly in a separate section, shortly/sharply, focusing only on that matter, with the most concise and minimal verbiage possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
:{{u|KIENGIR}}, A quick question - maybe needs its own subsection here - why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)Srnec, being belligerent does not mean of necessity of declaration of war, it happened by many instances, not any entity should be excluded because of that. Anyway I don't understand just because a note would have been expanded, why this perfect infobox is speculated to be questioned/changed, seems an unnecessary waste of time (just because the Allies article it had problems, it does not mean here it was not perfect).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
::Piotrus, no problem, open a section for it, if its akin the other listed, I will support to add (just because the list it not complete, it does not mean the structure would be bad).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland. The Soviets only moved into Poland after the Polish military completely collapsed and the government and high command was in flight (at some border town near Romania) [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] .--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 

:::[[User:GizzyCatBella]]], I don't find this your comment appropriate. You ''de facto'' accused that user of being a sock/SPA. Accusations of misbeaviour is a personal attack. If you see some problem with that user, discuss it in some place that is intended specifically for that purpose. And, by the way, instead of reading essays, it might be more fruitful to familiarise yourself with [[WP:BITE|behavioral guidelines]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: [[User:Paul Siebert]], note was triggered by this Vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003297241&oldid=1003296974&diffmode=source] I pointed out that this user had made few or no edits in other topic areas for transparency. It's a standard procedure now in intensely disputed areas. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Such a comment would be relevant if we !voted. There is no voting here, because Wikipedia is not democracy. Do you have any objections/comments on what that user says?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I see. No, I have no comments, just reporting, due to the recent two separate new accounts and IP blocked. This particular account has not made any other edits (a few small ones, 11 in total) before being heavily involved in this and only this topic. I believe it is worth noting so established editors get an accurate idea of the situation. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::So, instead of arguing that [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] essentially reproduced the official Soviet POV, and modern sources look at that at somewhat different angle, you preferred to resort to ''ad hominem'' arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::It did not matter to me what POV and what their position is. The account is new; it reverts without waiting for consensus, hence the note. Drop it, please. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::... and you decided that other experienced users do not know how to use the "contribs" button? Of course, that is the first thing I did when I'd seen that new account. Yes, the views this account is pushing are somewhat obsolete, but they may be a good counter-balance to ultra-revisionist views pushed by some other users. I would be grateful if in future you tried to be more focused at contributions, not contributors.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Paul, I haven't "decided" on anything ... I aimed to make it simpler for established editors involved here to manage this mess, as I told you already. Please drop it. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

* I am seriously disappointed. I started this section to invite others to join a work aimed to select neutral criteria for the Axis co-belligerence - and only Piotrus and VM supported that. All others continue mailing irrelevant posts about some specific country. '''I respectfully ask everybody to refrain from posting anything here that is not relevant to the section's topic.'''
:I propose to discuss the following questions:

* Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?

* This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?

* Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?

* What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?
:I think, the [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ following analysis of Vichy's case] by [https://www.justsecurity.org/author/goodmanryan/ Ryan Goodman] may be helpful for answering some of those questions.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::I think more sources rather than one short (self-published?) piece by a legal scholar considering only US-Vichy relationship would be needed. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::This source was authored by a leading expert in the field, and it was cited by top quality sources, such as [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017)]. Another peer-reviewed source also cites the same SPS as follows:
::::"''For example, the claim that congressional authorization to use force against an enemy includes authorization to use force against that enemy’s co-belligerents is based essentially on one precedent. See Ryan Goodman, Debunking the “Vichy France” Argument on Authorization to Use Force Against Co-Belligerents, JUST SECURITY (Nov. 17, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://just-security.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/. And,in fact, the Vichy France precedent is particularly telling, as there is no indication that any lawyers were present in making the decision whether the attack on Vichy France was consistent with congressional authorization, rendering its use as evidence of legal authority particularly doubtful.''"

:::The source that is being used by top quality peer-reviewed sources deserves a very careful; attention.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, "Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?". but who decides what's controversial? "This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?" When would you say Axis were created? The infobox states 1936... if we want to change the date I'd suggest a separate section for this item only. "Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?" I don't see why not? "What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?" I dn't think we (the Wikipedia editors) should define such a scale. If no reliable source does it, then we should simply stick to the simple definitions of concepts and/or reliable sources that use discussed terms. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Piotrus}} As usual, we decide what is controversial by analysing sources. A typical example is Vichy: per one source, for the first time it was called the Axis co-belligerent in 2005, and the conclusion about co-belligerency was made to justify modern US-military actions, and it expresses US viewpoint (because the authors were working for the US governnent), and that view was not widely cited, and it was criticized by one expert, that criticism was supported by others. That is quite sufficient to call it a controversial case, per our policy.

:::As I already explained, I was wrong, and it seems that the Axis is not the same as the Tripartite Pact. However, if the Axis was a loose and poorly defined formation before 1940, would it be correct to speak about "Axis co-belligerence" before all major actors joined the Tripartite pact? Did China fight against the Axis in 1937, or just against Japan? Did USSR annexed the territory of the Axis state (Romania), or ''just'' Romania? Did USSR fight against the Axis at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol, or just against Japan? And so on. The

:::Actually, the question of threshold is strongly linked to the question of controversy, so I realised it would be incorrect to separate them. So the question is: what is a degree of controversy that precludes inclusion in the infobox?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

'''commnet''' - {{ping|Paul Siebert}} I think all of these problems is dated back from description in [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]]. Yes. "the former Axis power and Co-belligerents" in Allies article, and "Co-belligerents" in naviagtionbox of Axis power. But if you see both articles, there is no such subtitles called "Co-belligerents" except for Kingdom of Italy in Allies article. But, Italy can be categorized as "former Axis power" so it actually means "there is no such category of co-belligerent". So my suggestion is this.

* We should put a country by articles of [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]].
* Co-belligerents is not used in both articles so we should avoid that word.
* Controversial countries should not be included until users agree to put. If we starts putting those countries, it makes matter worse not better

-- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] - What countries are ''"controversial countries"''? Also, why we should avoid the word ''"co-belligerents"'' if RS use that word? Quote from ''"Problems of Communism, Volume 39, Issue 6"'' page 107 - "As a '''co- belligerent''' of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland" [https://books.google.ca/books?id=I5wAEgugOiAC&pg=PA107&dq=As+a+co-+belligerent+of+Nazi+Germany,+the+Soviet+Union+secretly+assisted+the+German+invasion+of+western+and+central+Poland&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_3o6wucDuAhWBMX0KHWYTBCMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=As%20a%20co-%20belligerent%20of%20Nazi%20Germany%2C%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20secretly%20assisted%20the%20German%20invasion%20of%20western%20and%20central%20Poland&f=false] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I think I can answer you by giving my opinions of "Co-belligerents". First, "those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis" or "semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents" one. I think we shouldn't divide countries like that. After all, they were all parts of Axis or Allies. And most of countries according to those criteria are "puppet state" or "government-in-exile". And also, "co-belligerents" are not using broad in WW2 military infobox and usually show contradiction. I think we should talk about that "co-belligerent" issue in other section, because I have lots of things to tell for. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_theatre_of_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1003493738&diffmode=source] until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: Ok. I will stop abput my edition on other pages until users agree. I hope we will get agreement which many can understand. Thanks for listening my views. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Paul,
::::::* to judge what would be controversial, I have to know which instance we are discussing, and it is really confirmed to be controversial, maybe
::::::* you should again specify which entity ou'd refer, the infobox e.g. does not contain any entry that would be not engaged after 1936
::::::* the same....many users move uncertain in such fields, exatly we should know which entity you refer, and when
::::::* formally there would not be a treshold, but again, here a general approach without knowing the exact subject will likely to fail
::::::- about [[co-belligerency]], I already posted above in the Vichy France section.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::::KIENGIR, I deliberately avoid discussing concrete cases, because the only way to create a neutral content is to agree about some general criteria, and only after that check if each concrete case meets them. To create rules for pushing some specific case would be a totally flawed approach.
:::::::I do not want to specify anything, I am just asking what we consider the Axis (in terms of its composition and timeframe): thus, if the Axis is the military alliance, can we speak about the Axis before that alliance was signed? Thus, was a declaration of a war on Germany in September 1939 a declaration of a war on the Axis, or just on Germany? Can Japan be considered an Axis power by September, 1939? What about Romania or Hungary? And so on.

:::::::If there would be no threshold, why Vichy France was not considered a co-belligerent of the Axis until Bradley&Goldsmith claimed that in 2005 to justify some modern military actions of US? BTW, taking into account that Bradley&Goldsmith reflect a US-centric (and contested) viewpoint, it would be non-neutral to include Vichy into infobox unless evidences are provided that non-US scholarly community share that view. If no such evidences are provided, Vichy should be excluded from the infobox, and we should agree that some co-belligerency threshold does exist, at least, in WWII related literature.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not be a database of countries. It's not a table meant to exhaustively list every country and where they fit into the conflict. The infobox should summarize the key facts. It doesn't need to list, at all, all of the countries who supported or opposed in some way; just the key players. If you sat someone down to explain what the Axis powers were, and you said, "The Axis powers were the countries of...", whatever follows is what should be in the infobox. You probably wouldn't mention countries like Thailand or Iraq in that sentence. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:I don't think it should be a "databse" either. I do think it should include the most important cases which are discussed in sources. Like the Soviet Union. Likewise, just because something is "controversial" does not mean we should omit it from the infobox. The very fact that something is "controversial" here means it's notable and pertinent and is something that we should let our readers know. Omitting controversy isn't actually NPOV. Is there a way to include the controversy while noting that it's "controversial"? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*My opinion can be found back in [[Talk:Axis powers/Archive 8|Archive 8]] (Sept. 2020) and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=978790438 this edit]. I am also in complete agreement with {{u|FOARP}}'s comment at [[Talk:Tripartite Pact#Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis"]]. In direct response to Paul Siebert's question: we should not be weighting contributions to determine inclusion, which requires an arbitrary cutoff. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now my position is that IF we have a "co-belligerents" section in the infobox then the USSR most def belongs in there. I'm still mulling over the question of whether such a section should be in the infobox.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:Paul, despite I don't see other way, there may be so many unexpected whereabouts that just theoretically put delimiters will ultimately fail and the outcome will be as well debated, if we see al the set of variables, then we may easier construct a delimiter (despite in theory you have right).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
*{{tq|As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence.}} We should not be taking a formally-defined category and placing things in it ourselves, at least not in an infobox where there is little room for explanations. The ''only'' valid argument for including anything under that term is if someone can demonstrate that that term is widely used to refer to their involvement in the war in reliable sources. I would strenuously oppose including anything in the infobox that cannot be cited to multiple high-quality, mainstream sources using the term "co-belligerent" specifically. If the term is not widely used, then the infobox should not use it either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Should [[Burma]] be added as a co-belligerent? ==

Per my note above, "why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a [[WP:RS]] which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not [[WP:SYNTH]] - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of [[WP:NOR]]... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
:Only if it is universally described using the term in [[WP:RS]]es. Nothing should be listed there without that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Poland ==

I added a section on the Polish-Hitler pact. Poland and Hitler were on friendly terms from 1933 through the end of 1938, and Poland participated in the bullying and hostilities against Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. This cooperation extended also to fascist Italy, in the Munich conference Benito Mussolini proposed the transfer of Czech lands to Poland, Hungary, and Germany.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 15:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:I undid your provocative edit per [[WP:POINT]].(also obvious POV). As a brand new account with very few edits who immediately jumped into controversy I suggest you don't do that in the future.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::Appears relevant and sourced, [[German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]], [[1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania]], [[Munich Agreement]] are all on Wikipedia. I will start a RfC. Certainly as relevant as the USSR to the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact - accomplishing [[Détente]] to not go to war with your neighbour (see also [[Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]]) doesn't necessarily mean 'friendly'. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Much less so, but it does make some sense to discuss foreign relations of Axis with other countries in this article. As long as the section is properly sourced and doesn't include any fringe theories like Soviet/Russian claims that Poland provoked Germany to start WWII I think such a section may --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::I am not aware of any serious Soviet articles/books that blamed Poland of provoking WWII, although agree that fringe theorists are everywhere.

::::I am not sure standard non-aggression pacts should be included into this article (MRP had specific clauses and a secret protocol that made it not just a usual non-aggression pact).

::::Polish-Lithuanian conflicts do not make the former a German/Axis co-belligerent, just because Germany had never been at war with Lithuania.

::::Munich agreement is also marginally relevant, actually, one have separate annexation of Sudetes from subsequent events (dismemberment and annexation of Czechoslovakia).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note this article covers a period starting in 1936, so any military action or political support would count as relevant for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The article is about the Axis, not WW2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1615050074}}
{{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=14AFE1D}}
This RfC has four questions:
# Poland-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Poland section on Poland] be present?
# Poland-infobox: Should Poland be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
# USSR-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Soviet_Union section on the USSR] be present?
# USSR-infobox: Should the USSR be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
===Poll ===
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section''', but trimming both. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox'''. While Poland's co-bullying of Eastern European states, in cooperation with Hitler, in 1938 was significant and resulted in territorial gains for Poland, it would be inaccurate to summarize Poland's position as a Co-belligerent in the scope of the entire period. It is appropriate to have a section detailing Polish dealings with Hitler and the Axis, but a one line in the infobox is not appropriate here. The same applies to the USSR, even though the case for inclusion for the USSR is even weaker given that the dealings were more limited in time, in parallel to conflict with Japan, and of a clearly temporary nature to both sides. Other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] do not list Poland nor the USSR at all - but they both do cover Finland's cooperation with the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::You got "USSR-section" twice in there. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sorry, fixed.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''' to '''USSR-infobox''' per detailed oppose in previous section, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1003762095 here]. '''No''' (with a hint of [[WP:SNOW]] and reminding others to not be [[WP:POINTY]]) to '''Poland-infobox''' per [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. <s>'''No comment''' on the others since I didn't check through that.</s> [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}} makes a compelling analysis of sources below. This, additionally with the fact that there are virtually only a few sources about that could support "USSR co-belligerence" The Poland proposal is, I'm quite sure, not to be taken seriously, effectively making it a very minor position (bringing [[WP:UNDUE]] into account), leads me to say that dedicated sections on either of Poland or USSR would be out-of-place. Opportunistic bullying (Poland) or taking advantage of weaker neighbours (USSR; no matter how this might offend the sensibilities of some editors) do not make them members of the Axis, and the term co-belligerence being rather rare in academic sources would make this even more out of place. A few short mentions of pre-war diplomatic events (for ex. the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), robustly sourced, remain certainly warranted. Changing to '''No dedicated sections''' on both relevant topics. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' to inclusion of USSR or Poland in the '''infobox''' (per the point of Infobox being that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - Polish and Soviet interactions in activities that aligned with the Axis powers activities not being a Key part of this articles coverage of the Axis powers. '''Yes''' to '''sections''' on USSR and/or Poland interactions with the Axis on the assumption that they follow the sources on the subject and aren't making interferences. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each, but I don't want to imply that either the Poland or USSR sections have to be exactly as they are and can't be edited and further improved. But yes to having a section on each. No the the infoboxes for the reasons I and others have stated above and in previous discussions on this page: basically, it's not true that either Poland or the USSR were co-belligerents of the Axis (at any point in time). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No infoboxes, yes body-content''', per all of the above. — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Where are the sources and what do they say?''' - I have not seen any sources describing Poland as a "co-belligerent" or words to that effect. We do have sources describing the USSR as such. There is controversy about whether the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany. There is not any controversy that I am aware of about whether or not Poland was a co-belligerent of Germany because I am yet to see any reliable source saying that Poland could have been considered such. I see a lot of opinions cited above, but no sources. If you want to add a one-sentence mention of Poland's annexation of a bit of Czech territory in the general history this might be due. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::just in case anyone is in any doubt on this, '''no, a poll cannot be used to overturn [[WP:V]]'''. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, No, Yes, No.''' Same as the other responders, I think the infobox is not the place for this stuff, but the article body is fine. In all cases, the infobox is for straightforward, uncomplicated facts. Anything that's really complicated should be restricted to prose in the article. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* *'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each. But robustly sourced. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to both infobox inclusions''', yes to having content about the various antebellum agreements that both Poland and the USSR had with Germany, but not as presented in the diffs. These sections should have headings that make it clear these two countries were not Axis powers, and the actual content of both should be agreed upon beforehand to avoid any disruption to the article. - [[User:Thewolfchild|wolf]] 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''', '''No''', '''Yes''', '''Yes'''. Some info from "Poland" section might be included somewhere, but this does not justify making such section. Key info: ''"On 31st March 1939 Poland received guarantees from Britain and France, and on 28th April 1939 Hitler repudiated the pact with Poland"''. Same with Poland in the infobox. The story with USSR was very different. Here Hitler and Stalin concluded the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|famous pact of aggression]], and most important, ''acted'' according to their pact by attacking very same Poland together. This is simply a historical fact. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::And which reliable source can you cite which supports this status of USSR as co-belligerent in the wider context, besides what I hope is not just your own [[WP:SYNTH]]? Again, see the diff on my reasoning above. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is described with references in [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref> Yes, that co-belligerence lasted only until June 1941, but it was a key factor for decision by Hitler to attack Poland. More sources? Well, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' A section on Poland, if properly sourced, is helpful. The section on USSR has existed for years and nobody ever disputed it's relevance. As for the infobox, sources have been presented that clearly describe USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, so there's that. But no such sources have been presented for Poland (probably b/c Poland never engaged in military operations on the German side, unlike USSR). Anyway, since no sources are present for Poland being co-belligerent, inclusion of Poland in the infobox would be wrong. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes to the sections''' but they should be improved nonetheless. '''Yes to the USSR-infobox''' with a footnote that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent only until the Operation Barbarossa started. There were joint military meetings and some coordinated operations by Wehrmacht and Red Army in the eastern Poland. That's enough for inclusion. '''No to the Poland-infobox'''. Polish policies in the 1930s were certainly opportunistic but hyenism in neighbourly relations doesn't make Poland a co-belligerent state.--[[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Sort of? No. Yes. Yes (1939).''' The Soviet Union and Germany jointly planned and executed the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939. They were clearly co-belligerents in 1939. This is supported by scholarly sources and the infobox should note that. We should not rely on popular histories that sweep the complexities of the period under the rug in favour of the simple wartime claim of "France, UK, USSR and USA vs Germany, Italy and Japan". Regarding a section on Poland, I'm worried that its going to immediately fall into [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Would prefer to instead expand the existing history section to provide more detail about the division of Czechoslovakia. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, No, Yes, Yes''' This discussion is like voting on a QAnon theory. Poland was not more co-belligerent than the United Kingdom and France, with their appeasement policy and giving all the countries around to Hitler, only to save peace for themselves. Since its victory in 1920, Poland was preparing itself for the next war against the Soviet Union, and since at least 1935 for a war against Nazi Germany - assuming, that these wars are inevitable. They only didn't know which of them will attack first, and certainly, Poles didn't know that they will attack together. [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]]) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)  — '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matrek|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. ([https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206446&oldid=62206341 diff])

* '''Comment''' : Can we have a SNOW close on question number two? Clearly, that one (which, as I pointed out, is a bit on the POINTY side) is not going to pass as no editor amongst all the above (myself included) has !voted yes. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

* I hate polls, because, in this context, they are against [[WP:DEMOCRACY|our policy]]. Instead, I decided to check what a random Wikipedian without any preliminary knowledge of a subject would have learned from sources if they started to search for the answer to this poll's question in Google Scholar. My presumption is that if we put Soviet or Polish flag to the infobox in "Co-belligerent" section, that implies that at least one source clearly says that USSR was the "Axis co-belligerent", AND this opinion represents majority view.
::"USSR "axis co-belligerent""[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=USSR+%22axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG=&oq=USSR+%22Axis+ 7 obscure sources, which are irrelevant to the topic]

::"Finland "Axis co-belligerent"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=finland+%22Axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG= hmmm...]

::Well, just ""Axis co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of the Axis"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22Axis+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+the+Axis%22&btnG= not impressive]. It looks like the concept of the Axis co-belligerence is not popular in scholarly literature at all.

::Ok, although I assume I know virtually nothing about WWII, I still know Finland was a German co-belligerent. Let's check:

::"Finland AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Finland+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= 29 results]; most sources clearly describe Finland as Germany's co-belligerent. If we consider Finland as a "positive control", it demonstrates this search procedure works.

::Now let's try a "negative control". "Vichy AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Vichy+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= yields 2 irrelevant sources]. I checked Bradley&Goldsmith, and I found that that source does not call Vichy "the Axis co-belligerent". The exact wording is "'' had a nexus to the named enemy''". That is, by and large, a confirmation that the idea about Vichy's co-belligerency was proposed by these two authors, and it is not popular.

::Now, let's try USSR. "(Soviet OR USSR) AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%28Soviet+OR+USSR%29+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22&btnG= 29 results], but, the first article (by Gheorghe) is about Romanian co-belligerence, several other sources are about ... Finland co-belligerence, and one source (Blobaum, no citations) is about USSR's co-belligerence.

::My conclusions:

::* The very term "Axis co-belligerent" is virtually non-existing in literature. Such a generalisation is simply not found in sources.

::* The information about the countries that are known to be Germany's co-belligerents can be easily found during a neutral search. Moreover, when I was looking for an information about USSR's co-belligerency, I found information about Finland and Romania despite the fact that that was not my goal.

::* The information about the countries that are generally not considered co-belligerents (Vichy) cannot be found using the same approach. That confirms that that approach is correct.

::* I even didn't try Poland, because it would be obvious that that information cannot be found (except probably veeery obscure sources).

::* The situation with USSR is close to that of Poland: I am sure it is possible to find a source saying that USSR was the Germany's co-belligerent, but the amount of efforts needed for that would be a clear demonstration that the results of that work by no means reflect a commonly accepted/majority viewpoint (obviously, minority views should not be presented in infoboxes).

::To summarise, I suggest to stop this nonsense, remove the "Axis co-belligerent" category altogether, and, probably, add Finland under category "Germany/European Axis co-belligerent" and Thailand to "Japan's co-belligerent".

::It is quite likely my search procedure is far from ideal, but the most important thing here is that I used the same approach for each country. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Mostly agree with this, except to say that characterising Finland as a "co-belligerent" is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government and a minoirty of modern-day Finnish historians (Finland has largely discarded the "driftwood" theory). There is plenty of opinion that characterises them simply as an Axis member/German ally. Membership of the Axis is a contested concept, with people in a number of countries trying to characterise their governments of the era as not having been in the Axis for various reasons that should not necessarily be taken at face value. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Yes, No, Yes, Yes'''. 1) Poland interacted with the Axis for several years, and it can’t hurt the reader to summarize that history. However, 2) Poland did not fight alongside the Axis after 1 September 1939 (!), or even before. 3) The extensive Soviet-Axis (primarily German, but Italian too) rapprochement between August 1939 and June 1941 has to be mentioned, no question. Finally, 4) Soviet participation crossed the threshold of co-belligerence, with joint invasions, co-ordinated annexations, victory parades, intelligence sharing and more. - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::According to which sources? Your !vote reads a lot like [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I would point out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003864187&oldid=1003864106&diffmode=source these sources], as well as the definition of “co-belligerent” provided by the ''Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law'': "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::What does it mean "Poland interacted with the Axis" - use to have diplomatic relations with axis powers? I think all European countries had. Did Poland ever conspire with Hitler like the Soviet Union? No. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''' – on grounds documented and argued previously. While there can be elements of subjectivity in approaching such judgments, the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports my conclusions. Poland was not motivated in its [[Cieszyn Silesia]] action by a desire to collaborate with Germany, but by a felt need to redress what Poland saw as a 1919–20 Czech assault on Poland, which had been fighting for its life; whereas the USSR is generally seen as having been a cobelligerent of Germany – each of them harboring a declared intent to hegemonize Europe and eventually the world – in their joint, coordinated September 1939 invasion of Poland. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, Yes, No, No'''. The case for inclusion of Poland is strong. Poland [https://www.thejc.com/on-this-day-the-german-polish-non-aggression-pact-1.20771 signed the first alliance with Hitler in 1934]. It then spent most of the 30s bullying its neighbors and collecting scraps of territory allocated to it by Hitler. It bullied Lithuanian alongside Hitler in 1938. It [https://books.google.com/books?id=HzrpExvg2XgC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22witnessed+German-Polish+co-operation%22&source=bl&ots=5CGkJ-4PhB&sig=ACfU3U2hyZ2ABZ9CApKwu_JnHZ1YM4XeKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisvObnycXuAhUFC-wKHWiaBJcQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22witnessed%20German-Polish%20co-operation%22&f=false co-operated with Hitler in Czechslovakia], in the Munich conference it was on the side of the Axis overall together with Italy [https://books.google.com/books?id=PS76MzGVjSwC&pg=PA39&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia&f=false]. The allies considered Poland to be in league with Hitler.[https://books.google.com/books?id=nOALhEZkYDkC&pg=PA311&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia+ultimatum+Beck&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia%20ultimatum%20Beck&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=htqsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22Poland+was+viewed+as+complicit%22&source=bl&ots=EB8wPZBwpE&sig=ACfU3U26X-U_KmlKYRWL2wlmCUeJOfmosg&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Poland%20was%20viewed%20as%20complicit%22&f=false]. The case for Soviet inclusion is much smaller. The Soviet agreement was limited to Hitler's previous friend, Poland, which was a long-standing enemy of Russia and that occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (Affirmed by the alliance to belong to the USSR, not Poland). Poland was swiftly overrun by the German forces, and by [https://books.google.com/books?id=ApRHMNS1jtAC&pg=PA42&dq=Polish+commander+in+chief,+Marshal+Edward+Rydz%27Smigly,+ordered+a+general+retreat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmmvjfy8XuAhWSC-wKHX6hCekQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=Polish%20commander%20in%20chief%2C%20Marshal%20Edward%20Rydz'Smigly%2C%20ordered%20a%20general%20retreat&f=false September 10 was in general retreat] with the government in flight. On 17 September, Poland's defeat was manifest and the Germans had already crossed the Vistula, area promised to the USSR, and were racing towards the Bug River. At this late date the USSR decided to enter Poland, so that it would received its Western Ukraine and Belarus territories. The allies welcomed Solviet forces entering Poland as this stopped the Nazi advance east, Churchill himself saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail."[https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] In addition to all this, the USSR was engaged in combat with Japan, an Axis power, and its puppets in September 1939. The USSR entering Poland was a mere footnote, an end to a Polish occupation that began in 1920. Polish-Nazi relations between 1934-38 were significant, and the Polish role in World War II was merely limited to being a line in the sand drawn by the Western Powers. The Polish army was swiftly defeated at a very small cost to the Nazis. The allies chose to declare war over Poland not because of any Polish virtue, Poland was seen by the allies as in league with Hitler up until 1939, but because of Hitler breaking promises (Austria, the post-Munich March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Poland being one state too far. The contribution of the USSR to the alliance was overwhelming, tens of millions of dead ([[World War II casualties of the Soviet Union]]), and most of the war in Europe against Hitler was prosecuted by the USSR.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
::"Pact of non agression" as aa "alliance with Hitler"? What kind of nonsens is this? The USSR conspired with 3rd Reich to devide the entire Eastern Europe between them, not just Poland. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''No''' or '''Likely''' (but calls for improvements) '''No''' (this should not be even debated) '''Yes''' and '''Yes''' (per my prior comments) - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''No to all, very briefly describe Polish and Soviet relations with Nazis but not in current/proposed form'''. This Russian-Polish bickering has now gone way over the top here. Ask yourself the basic question, do other sources covering the Axis Powers as a topic showcase Poland or the Soviet Union as being associated with the Axis? The answer is overwhelmingly no. You can find a source supporting nearly any position on World War II, but the vast majority of sources covering the Axis as a topic do not cover the Soviet Union or Poland as Axis-cooperators (they do cover Axis aggression against them) at all, or if they do they do so briefly. I came here after [[https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia], and in my mind peace in the answer, not fighting over history painting each other as bogeymen.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 08:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''', 1. Poland obviously deserve a section, 2. per Biruitorul 3. Obviously deserve also a section per weight 4. Sure, since for a time it was when more Axis powers attacked Poland.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
* '''Yes''' to sections on both, no to info boxes on both.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Obvious no''' to including Poland, '''obvious yes''' to including USSR. I also need to point out that an RfC cannot be used to completely ignore facts and sources. Poland never fought alongside the Axis powers; Poland was invaded ''by'' Germany and the USSR, operating in unison. That is the very definition of "co-belligerent". Again, this is not really an RfC matter where a "vote" can be pushed for revisionist purposes. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. No.'''. A Polish section is absurd and even more misleading than the USSR in the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. Yes.''' - the proposal for a Polish section appears to be a bit of [[WP:POINT]]y [[Putin]]ite [[whataboutism]] (in the sense that this is a propaganda line that's been pushed by Putin recently, see 6th paragraph [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/ here] for example). For USSR, "co-belligerents" makes more sense for Wikipedia even if most sources use the term "ally". Agree with User:KENGIR somewhere above that the present infobox is fine.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (added sig later)
*'''No to infobox, Maybe to sections''' - The evidence presented thus far suggests that overwhelmingly, academic literature does not describe the USSR or Poland as Axis powers, and should not be listed as such in the infobox. Co-belligerence is not equivalent to membership in the Axis powers unless sources say so. This article can include information in its body about the Axis powers' relations with the USSR, Poland, etc; it's not immediately apparent what degree of depth is appropriate, and should be determined by further editing and not by an RfC at this time. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::The proposal isn't to describe either as an Axis power. No one is proposing that. The proposal is to describe one or the other or both as "co-belligerents". For the Soviet Union, this is supported by sources, as you acknowledge. So I'm not sure if I understand your comment.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm largely swayed by Paul Siebert's argument so far, that based on the level with which it is used in the literature, at the infobox level co-belligerence is a valid way to summarize Finland and Thailand's status at most. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I disagree, but fair enough.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'd say even for Finland this is probably over-stating it, since the idea that Finland was only a co-belligerent is basically the POV of the Finnish wartime government and a minority of modern-day Finnish historians. For Thailand and Finland we have sources explicitly identifying them as Axis members. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I was trying to hedge a bit by saying "at most" because I didn't want to risk poison pilling the discussion by making what we decide for USSR or Poland dependent on changes to Finland, but you're likely correct that even Finland's position as "co-belligerent" isn't well-supported. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section'''. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox''' - The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence. Nevertheless the context collaboration/co-belligerence should be explained within the main body of the article.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::"The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence". I agree. However, do not you think that MP pact leading to the attack by Hitler on Poland (that event started WWII!) and the coordinated attack by USSR to the same Poland two weeks later was an example of MAJOR collaboration/co-belligerence. Hence it must be in infobox.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::How can you say "yes" to section which has no supporting references that would demonstrate why it should be on a page about Axis countries? This poll can't simply be used as a way of disapplying [[WP:V]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Maybe''' to sections for both, '''No''' to infobox. Per Paul Siebert's search, I don't think we can say that this accurately characterizes the weight of scholarly opinion. However, including reasonable length historical background in the article will allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|buidhe]]''' 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' For reasons already stated,[[User:Eccekevin|Eccekevin]] ([[User talk:Eccekevin|talk]]) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. No.''' Poland and USSR fought along with Germany (in Czechoslovakia and Poland, respectively), but there are not widely associated with the Axis, bu with the anti-Axis camp; listing them along countries such as Finland would confuse the regular readers.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 08:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to cramming the infobox, I'm fine with a section on Polish & Soviet activities with Axis powers.''' - The infobox is for summarizing key aspects (as others have pointed out), let the finer details and exceptions be explained by summarizing reliable sources in the body text of the article, not by warring over the top of the page. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to all''' and remove co-belligerant segment from the infobox per [[user:Paul Siebert]]'s analysis. The sections on all cobelligerants can be removed too, because with 111K of readable prose, the articles is [[WP:TOOLONG]].[[User:Mottezen|Mottezen]] ([[User talk:Mottezen|talk]]) 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, no, yes, yes''' (that is, include in the body but not the infoboxes.) They're simply not generally described as "Axis co-belligerents" (whatever that somewhat vague term means) in the sources, so putting it in the infobox, which can't really explain it, is nonsense - things like that in infoboxes need to be extremely, unambiguously clear while also being central to the topic, none of which applies here. I would support removing the co-belligerent bit from the infobox entirely on these grounds - it's just too vague and ultimately feels like [[WP:OR]] in context, especially given the editors trying to come up with their own personal definitions for it above (if the sources don't define it in clear and unambiguous terms, we shouldn't be using it in an infobox.) However, both had agreements with the Axis powers of one sort or another and these should be explained in the appropriate part of the article. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

===Call to arms on Polish Wikipedia===
Over at the Polish Wikipedia, [[User:Hanyangprofessor2]] which is a [[User:Piotrus]] alternative account, [https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 posted this call to arms]. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at [[: en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll]]. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there". I posted a note at AN.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Just noting that I take a very dim view of the [[WP:CANVASS]] issues that this discussion now suffers from, per the above. I have [[WP:ECP]]'d this article talk page for one month, which is an extreme measure, to be sure. This is an [[WP:ACDS]] action which I will be recording in the [[WP:AEL|log]] momentarily. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|El_C}} that was a bad idea from Piotrus, but looking at the above discussion I see that all but three accounts in the above discussion are en-wiki EE regulars and pretty much none of them Polish. I don't think any of them have been canvassed. The three accounts which are either brand new or low edit count are the OP, Astral Leap who started this [[WP:POINT]]y RfC and about whom concerns have been expressed previously ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive]), Erin Vaxx, which created an account in Sept 2020, made a couple edits, then immediately jumped into this controversy when it began. These two obviously were not canvassed by Piotrus. The third account is Matrek and I guess it's possible they came here as a result of Piotrus' post on pl wiki though their comment makes a coherent and well thought out argument which means it should be taken at face value.
::Oh yeah. Bob not snob too I guess.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Which means that whatever canvassing happened has had essentially no impact on the outcome here.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, my notice above is just that — a ''notice.'' This isn't the place to discuss this matter at length. The place to do so is at [[WP:AN]], where the discussion remains ongoing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Update: Piotrus has been topic-banned for one month by El_C as an AE; and Astral has been given a one-week block for edit warring with Volunteer Marek (although they're appealing on a technicality - in any case I haven't looked at the specifics, just notifying on this talk page in case anybody missed it/is not aware of the issue). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

*I think that having [[WP:Canvass]] is fine, merely as a fair advice, but enforcing it with topic bans and blocks is damaging for WP. We must encourage, not discourage communications in the project. For example, someone inviting friends from another project to participate here is actually a good idea, assuming that they will contribute constructively. If these "friends" (whoever) will not contribute constructively and will behave badly here, then yes, block ''them'' on spot, very simple. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

::* My personal view is the above poll is simply a [[WP:POINT]]y attempt to get around [[WP:V]]. We simply don't have sources laying out the view of Poland espoused above as being a German ally. We do have (some) sources stating this about the USSR. But ultimately this is a page about the Axis, and we don't have any sources stating that the USSR was an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::*And if (say) he had left a similar message on the Russian wiki about "Polish editors" fine, it would not have been canvassing. But we cannot allow the project to be highjacked by nationalism (and no I never invite friends from another project, even when I think their input might be valuable, its not as if we are a well-kept secret). Would it be OK to (say) post on Stormfront "Hey they are trying to say the nazis killed jews, just pop over and have a look"? No it would not, and this is the point, a rule has to be that, a rule. It cant be a rule only when its conviniant to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I agree: it would not be appropriate to invite "friends" from Stormfront. But I hope that Polish WP is not Stormfront. As about Russian wiki, there are actually many messages out there about disputes on English WP. As you can imagine, many guys on ruwiki are not exactly "pro-Western". Under no circumstances I reported anyone involved in such cross-wiki communications to ANI. And I think that was right. BTW, they had at least two EEML-like affairs on ruwiki, and some participants were editing here. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

*Painting this as a simple attempt to ìnvite "friends from another project" is disingenuous. Piotrus is (like VM and other regulars) certainly aware of the EE ArbCom situation, and justifying it as an attempt to bait a potential sock is no excuse. What AL did is nigh inexcusable, but doesn't change the fact that [[WP:CANVASS]] isn't exactly a secret either... Anyway, this discussion has been had at AN and there's also now a block appeal from AL that needs (IMHO) rejecting, this unfortunate parenthesis should for the time being be closed and the regular course of events hopefully resumed. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

== This article is still too long and has too many parts unreferenced ==

Per [[WP:LENGTH]] if an article has more than 80kb of readable prose it should certainly be split (and if one longer than 60kb it should "probably" be split). Using the prose-length measuring tool I see this page currently has a prose-length of 106kb. 
I'm going to make the [[A Modest Proposal|modest proposal]] right now that any unreferenced content should be cut so we can get this page down to a reasonable size. This is entirely justified by [[WP:V]]. I'm sure the endless fights over who gets the mark of shame in the infobox are entertaining, but it really isn't as important as the basic fact that this article is a garbage-heap in terms of referencing. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, but I disagree one removal and the shortening of the Italy section, it has weight in the article.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
:Yes, the article is long. But no, I do not see how it can be split without damaging the article. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:What unreferenced content?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Having had a quick edit myself in the Indo-China part of the article, some of the sections which are summaries of "Main" articles are thin on referencing.[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::So we just port over a couple of refs from the main articles.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Whole sections of this article have no references at all, or only one. Simply porting over references from the main articles (typically "COUNTRY during WW2" articles) is questionable methodology when the immediate question for some of the countries here that are unreferenced is "why are they on this page?" and that question is not answered on the respective page. For example, there is no explanation really as to why Laos should be included here. No reference is provided for Manchukuo. Iraq is limited to a single reference to the text of Fuhrer Order, when what is really needed is a secondary source telling us that this was a German/Axis-Iraqi alliance of some sort. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::If the material is covered in the main article, and is source it is perfectly acceptable to just port over a ref. Also if it is well sourced in the main article we only need one or two sources here for convenience.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::But that material should support that country being included on this page as a member of the Axis. If it doesn't (and, e.g., for Iraq, it doesn't seem to, since the Fuhrer Order is a primary source requiring interpretation, and the page discusses the course of operations in Iraq in factual terms without providing a source saying "Iraq was an axis ally" or words to that effect). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Does "pro-nazi"count [[https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fworld%2f2019%2f10%2f10%2factually-president-trump-some-kurds-did-fight-world-war-ii%2f]], [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13610702]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Seems like we're still making an interpretation rather than having a secondary source tell us that there was an alliance of some sort. There's no doubt that Rashid was pro-Nazi, no doubt also that the Germans and Italians supported him militarily, no doubt also that he fought against the British, but does this add up to alliance? I'd be much more comfortable if there were a reference saying so. To take another example, the Shah of Iran has been described as being pro-German, and he also fought the allies, is this sufficient for us to say that Iran was an Axis country without having a reference saying that or words to that effect?
:::::::::It seems to me that this area of history has been the subject of enough writing that it should be very simple to find references explicitly saying who was and was not an Axis ally, and if these references can't be found then we should hesitate about saying so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::You seem hung up on the word ally. They received military aid from the Axis, they fought against the British during ww2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What I'm hung up on is sourcing, particularly on a page which is about an alliance. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well then it should only be about those nations who were part of the Axis or allied to the Axis and not just one nation, should it not?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The problem with that is it means excluding countries which the sources are pretty explicit about being part of the Axis such as Finland, which never signed any official alliance with Germany beyond the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Axis does not appear to be a formal alliance with a clear list of signatories. Even the Tripartite Pact was never formally invoked and never really functioned beyond a few technical committees. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::So? either we go with exactly what RS say or we allow some leeway. But this page is Azis powers, not (for example) Nazi Germany (which has its own international relations page). I agree we should not get hung up on the word ally.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==Co-belligerent==
This article is not about WW2, it is not about "the Axis in WW2". Thus I am unsure if Co-beligerant should even be here. After all WW2 was not the only war fought by an Azis power in this period.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Co-belligerents should only be included here if there is a reference saying that they were an ally of Germany/Italy/Japan/the Axis. For example, Iran did fight against the UK and the USSR, but I have not seen a single reference referring to them as having been a German/Japanese/Italian/Axis (or whatever) ally and as such I would not support them being included unless a reference can be provided to support inclusion. On the other hand Finland's wartime government claimed to be simply a co-belligerent of Germany, but this should not be decisive since there is plentiful evidence in reliable sources stating that Finland was basically a German ally and part of the axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::So it has to say, ally, not aided, sided with, helped, accomplice, just ally? This is why this is a bad idea to have this. What is a "co-beligerant"? This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe. It would be best (to my mind and to avoid further conflict) to just remove this from the info box and discuss details in the body.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{tq|"This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe."}} - which period is that? If we're talking about pre-1936 then I think you may be correct. I don't think the sub-headings in the infobox are particularly helpful as it leads to daisy-chain arguments (e.g., "Finland was self-described during the war as a co-belligerent and is included as part of the Axis, therefore any country that was arguably a co-belligerent of the Axis was also part of the Axis").
::The reason to include Finland (and indeed any other country) is not that it was a co-belligerent, it's that reliable sources describe it as having been a German ally and/or axis member regardless of the claims of its wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::And again, does it have to only be ally, or can it also be aided, sided with, helped, accomplice (or even pro)? By not having this heading, and only including actual signed up members we remove the issue.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::But what is an "actual, signed up member"? If this article is restricted to [[Tripartite Pact]] signatories then it becomes simply a duplicate of the [[Tripartite Pact]] article. A review of the sources shows the Axis is defined more widely than the Tripartite Pact. Other alliances of different degrees of formality were involved. Bottom line is if anyone wants to include a country here they need to provide sources supporting that inclusion and they need to be pretty explicit about that country having been an ally of the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::And then we have arguments over what is and is not acceptable criteria. But yes this does begin to look all a bit forky, an article created just to say X or Y was part of the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Even if that wasn't the original intent, and even if (which I believe is possible) the article can be edited so as not to be a [[WP:POVFORK]], {{tq|"an article ... just to say X or Y was part of the axis"}} is what it seems to be right now. This is why we have these repeated, facile arguments about the infobox which are driven entirely by [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour.
::::::This article should be GA at least, but it isn't and stands no chance of becoming so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::maybe this then [[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers]] should be our model, we only include nations that "joined the Axis" rather than just some connection with it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Actually, by using a loose definition of the term "the Axis" (which is not just a Tripartite Pact) and trying to introduce a strict term "Axis co-belligerent" we are making a big mistake. In reality, that division is artificial. Thus, some sources (vide supra) describe Romania as "Germany co-belligerent", despite the fact that it was the Axis member. And that is not a mistake: actually, it is possible to be the Axis member without being Axis co-belligerent (Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR, as far as I know). I agree it would be better to get rid of "co-belligerent" section at all. With regard to Finland, it never formally joined the Tripartite Pact, but, keeping in mind that the term "The Axis" is more loose, I see no reason why cannot it be included as the Axis power (with a reservation that it never signed the Tripartite Pact). That is what EB says:

:"''During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers. They included Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia (after Czechoslovakia had divided in 1939) in November 1940, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in March 1941, and, after the wartime breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia (June 1941). Finland, although it did not formally join the Tripartite Pact, cooperated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union (to which Finland had been forced to cede territory in 1940) and entered the war in 1941.''"

I think if we use a loose definition of the Axis, a division onto the Axis members and co-belligerents should be removed and replaced to "Other states".--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I'd be happy to only include countries which we actually have sources saying were members of the Axis here. The title of the article is "Axis powers" (setting aside what a "power" is ....) this means it should be about Axis countries. The following have no source explicitly identifying them as part of the Axis:
::::*Iraq
::::*Wang Jingwei regime
::::*Denmark
::::*Manchuria (though I note [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Axis_Air_Forces/4PgwCKQQP1gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Wang+Jingwei%22+%22Axis%22&pg=PA259&printsec=frontcover this source at least] identifies them as part of the Axis)
::::*Spain
::::*Ba Maw regime
::::*USSR
::::*Vichy
::::*Albania
::::*Serbia
::::*Greece
::::*Cambodia
::::*Mengjiang
::::*Laos
::::*Vietnam
::::*Philippines
::::The various Japanese puppet states could fairly be covered in a sub-section under the Japan section on the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This would, anyway, bring the focus back to where it belongs and shorten the article to the length where it needs to be (it needs to lose at least 20kb to meet [[WP:LENGTH]]). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:I would rather (to avoid future conflict) just avoid any inclusion of anyone not actually described as a member of the axis powers by RS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support removal of co-belligerents altogether''' — Slater's right, "co-belligerent" only makes sense in the context of a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war. This article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII, some countries' status changes over time, and that seems to be the root of the dispute over whether countries should be listed as co-belligerents. The idea of "Axis co-belligerents" requires more nuance than is possible (or desirable) in an infobox. Listing almost any country as a "co-belligerent" in the infobox gives the reader an incomplete picture at best (at worst, a completely false picture). So, the best move is to just list the Axis powers in the infobox, and not list co-belligerents at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:*This is valid point. However, USSR and Nazi Germany, for example, did attack Poland from two sides, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war". Would not you agree? Speaking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time should be included on this page'' [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*I agree about the infobox, but I do not agree that "this article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII". Specifically, I do not think there is a any clear definition of the Axis not in terms of World War II. It is true that the term originates in the years just before the war, but war trumps diplomacy. "Axis", like "Entente", "Central Powers" and "Allies", refers to one side in a global conflict—and in all cases was a product of the war itself as much as of pre-war diplomacy. The reason we should remove the co-belligerents (''except Finland, which was fully Axis'') is that it is very likely to mislead the casual reader and the infobox is for just such a reader. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- It was "controversial" to put co-belligerence since exist of this term. By its meaning co-belligerence is the state which related to the war which has common enemy. By its vague meaning, I think we shouldn't use the word co-belligerence here. Other states what [[User:FOARP]] mention is puppet-states and they have participated various activities with Axis power (except for Soviets which is controversial right now), so I don't think we should delete them for now. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not proposing deleting them, just grouping them under the heading of their "boss" country if there is no source identifying them as a member of Axis. Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary (governed by a German-installed government after 1944) are described in multiple sources as Axis members, signed the Tripartite pact, so they would remain separate (but noted as governed as puppet states). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any major change on the outline and categorization of the infobox. Professionally and well set modifications possible. I still stand not any general guide may decide inclusion in this complex area, but all entities should be judged and discussed one-by-one.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
*'''SUPPORT removal of co-belligerents from the infobox'''. The title of this article is "Axis powers". Naturally you'd expect the infobox to list countries that we know are Axis power because reliable sources call them that. Is a co-belligerent necessarily a member of the Axis? This is dubious. Finland claimed to be a co-belligerent during the war but plenty of reliable sources simply identify them as a member of the Axis. In the case of Finland, the idea that they were "co-belligerents" is generally just considered to be wartime spin, not undoubted fact. We have sources identifying the USSR as a "German Ally" during the M-R pact, but again this is not the same as sources identifying the USSR explicitly as a member of the Axis. The same goes for puppet states that are not explicitly described as Axis-members in reliable sources, though these may be grouped under their "boss" country title - puppet states that are explicitly described as Axis members in reliable sources should remain in the infobox. The M-R pact can be covered in the article under bilateral relations, a section on Poland is just trolling TBH. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' strongly - for two reasons. First, the page in current state is actually very good and informative. Being only slightly familiar with this subject, I found many things I did not know about on this page, in particular all these complex connections between different countries during WWII. Removing more than 50% of content from this page (as suggested) will dramatically degrade it. Secondly, some countries from the list above do belong to this page. There is no any doubts. For example, USSR and Nazi Germany did both attack Poland, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: such as an actual attack and an actual war". Thinking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time'' should be included on this page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|My very best wishes}} - Including states which fought against the Allies but for which there is no reference at all saying they were in the Axis and which are not presently included on this page (e.g., Iran)? Regarding length, the corresponding article on [[Allies of World War II|the Allies]] is half the length, covers more countries, and is in every way better. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I am saying we must include all countries that collaborated military (or had significant political agreements/pacts) with Axis countries on this page if we want this page to be interesting and informative. And especially such pacts and coordinated military actions (with Nazi Germany) which started the entire WWII. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::* Discussing them on this page in terms of bi-lateral relations with Axis countries, yes, but in the infobox in what is supposed to be a list of Axis countries? I would say that needs a source saying explicitly that they were in the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::*We are not talking about "bi-lateral relations". Everyone had such relations with everyone. We are talking about a ''de facto'' actual military alliance with Axis countries. But, yes, these are not Axis countries, and therefore they are NOT included in in the infobox as Axis countries, but separately. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::*How does it make sense in the infobox for a page about the Axis, to list countries that weren't in the Axis? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think anyone is suggesting removing 50% of the content of the page. This relates solely to the infobox and to if we should use the specific term "co-belligerent"; at least based on most of the opinions I'm seeing here, the more in-depth details on those Axis-adjacent nations and their involvement would remain in the article body without much change. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- Co-belligerence has a rather strict legal meaning, it's not for Wikipedian editors to judge. Do note that the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2213959?seq=1 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland] defines the country as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", not a co-belligerent.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*Agree on Finland. It is not only the peace agreement that says this, either, plenty of historians say the same. The entire idea that being simply a "co-belligerent" of the Axis was a thing is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*100% agree on Finland. It is the whole reason there is a co-belligerents section in the infobox that attracts countries that don't belong. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::*No. As this page correctly tells, "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941-44 Continuation War", and so on. See the photo of Mannerheim with Hitler. Finland absolutely must remain on the page, just as [[Vichy France]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Is this an article about the Tripartite Pact? No. So why is membership of the (never actually invoked, barely ever operated) Tripartite Pact decisive as to whether a country should or should not be described as an Axis member? What is decisive is reliable sources describing Finland as being an Axis member, which means we should keep them there as an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: See, you misunderstood what they've said. Finland and Vichy France, Iraq, Thailand is not a co-belligerent of Axis power. They are Axis power themselves. The countries that belong to "co-belligerent" section should be deleted, and we are going to put it on Axis itself. Like "Tripartite Pact" and "Other countries" -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'd say any country for which sourcing can be found describing them as a member of the Axis should be kept. For Finland and Thailand we have this so they should stay in a list of Axis countries. For Vichy and Iraq we don't have this. In fact it is unclear to me why Vichy and Iraq should be included (and Iran not included) in a list of Axis countries, since we don't have any sources saying they were members of the Axis (and AFAIK we also don't have sources saying they were co-belligerents). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Neutral to removal/keeping the term "co-belligerents", but retain Finland, Thailand, Iraq in the infobox'''- No matter what term is decided on to describe, they cooperated military and declared/waged war in cooperation/alliance with the Axis powers and should be shown in the infobox in some capacity... Neutral on inclusion or not of the USSR --[[User:Havsjö|Havsjö]] ([[User talk:Havsjö|talk]]) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Happy to include both Finland and Thailand as simply Axis members. We can have a footnote for Finland saying it is described by some (not all) as being a co-belligerent. Thailand would need a source saying they were a co-belligerent even for that. Iraq, on the other hand, we both have no sources describing as a "co-belligerent" AND no sources saying they were an Axis-member - so why describe them as being either? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::According to a 2008 ''[[Helsingin Sanomat]]'' poll with 28 history professors ([https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000004606365.html link]), 16 said that Finland was allied with Germany, 6 disagreed and 6 didn't want to take a clear stance. However, the fact that it wasn't a de jure alliance made a difference with things like that the United States never declared war on Finland despite being de facto allied with Germany. So it should stay but the relationship should covered with more detail. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents from the infobox''' unless significant mainstream sources can be found using the term; the term has very specific meaning, so it's [[WP:OR]] for us to apply it ourselves unless we have sources doing so. However, I don't support removing the related material from the article body - we should avoid the term "co-belligerents" unless directly supported by the sources, but the body of the article can discuss the full depth of involvement other nations had in the Axis war effort while following the sources more closely. It's only the infobox, which has trouble reflecting the full nuance of the sources, that is the problem. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== [[Independent State of Croatia]] ==

The page describes Croatia as a puppet state (three sources).[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is however [[:Category:Client states of Nazi Germany]] and [[Client state]]. Some consistency would be nice.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Something may be founded/created as a puppet state, which after will be a client state.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
:::This, plus if the sources say "puppet state" then that's what we're calling it - we don't typically second-guess reliable sources. "Puppet state" is (according to our article) a kind of "Client state", but not all client states are puppet states if our article is to be believed. What a category is called is not decisive of anything because it is often not based on the sources. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Axis powers

2021-02-06T20:11:46Z

Pudeo: /* Co-belligerent */ re

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=high|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=C

|B-Class-1=no

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes
|Japanese-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|Italian-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=C|importance=high|milhist=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}}
{{WikiProject Italy|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Romania|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=C|importance=Mid|no-todolist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=c}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
{{WikiProject Judaism}}
}}
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History|anchor=World War II (72 articles)}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=b}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Axis powers/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Status of Vichy France ==

Some sources, including [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iEVYAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2281&lpg=PA2281&dq=vichy+france+co-belligerent++Bradley+%26+Goldsmith&source=bl&ots=oA0RDO5skt&sig=ACfU3U0JraVK_03zmQwE1i3YZUsRt9sscQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmzb2JvprtAhVYxzgGHTVgB6Y4ChDoATAAegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=vichy%20france%20co-belligerent%20%20Bradley%20%26%20Goldsmith&f=false this] legal study of the law of co-belligerency, consider Vichy France a co-belligerent on the Axis side. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its fine to have it there then.[[User:Isabella Emma|Isabella Emma]] ([[User talk:Isabella Emma|talk]]) 23:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:Have cited it. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Havsjö|Beyond My Ken}} Vichy France waged war against Britain (which ''is'' co-belligerence with the Axis), but I am inclined to agree with removal from the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:If they were a co-belligerent, why remove it? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
::Because "co-belligerence" alone is a low bar? Finland and Germany fought side by side. Japan and Thailand fought side by side invading Burma. The Soviets and the Germans simultaneously invaded Poland. Germany and Italy even provided air support to Iraq. But Vichy France received less support that Iraq and unlike Iraq was technically in a state of war with Germany. (Unless I'm misremembering something.) Vichy France was not treated like post-armistice Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were by the Allies. It meets only the barest definition of a co-belligerent: "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy". But I don't have a strong opinion on the infobox provided it isn't outright false. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:::We say what the reliable sources say, we don't decide based on what level you (or I) personally think the bar is set at. We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick. Certainly no-one who wants to avoid being blocked will continue to delete reliable academic sources that disagree with their personal view. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I didn't remove any sourced information, nor did I question the source you quoted. Drop the attitude. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Vichy France was most certainly not in the state of war with Germany. An armistice is less than a full fledged peace treaty but it can end state of war as well. Vichy France was most certainly an ally or a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Vichy France was most certainly in a state of war with Germany (and Italy). That is how contemporaries saw it. That is why French POWs remained POWs. The same thing applies, ''inter alia'', to Italy and the Allies after 1943. (Citations can be provided.) The armistice does not end the state of war, just the shooting. I do not deny that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany in the technical sense, only that its active belligerence was ''minimally'' coordinated with that of the other Axis powers, far less so than any of the other co-belligerents listed (even the USSR and Iraq). Or is there some act of belligerence I'm missing? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Srnec}}, I think you are right, but where do we draw the line? We can agree it was less co-belligerent than USSR (until the invasion of USSR at least) but see how much opposition is there to the listing of USSR below. I think the line should be simply based on what RS say. If they say France was co-belligerent, and if there is no description of such viewpoint as fringe, then we just report what the sources say. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:In her [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", ''Yale Journal of International Law'' (2017)], Rebecca Ingber cites [https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/HUMR5503/h09/undervisningsmateriale/bradley_goldsmith.pdf Bradley&Goldsmith], and puts that article into a proper context. It says that Bradley&Goldsmith (who worked for the US government) wrote their work to justify US action against the states that supported Al Qaida, and they used Vichy as a precedent. However, according that that article, there are serious problem with their arguments, and [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ this York University School of Law web site] provides a convincing counter-arguments against Vichy's co-belligerence. Importantly, according to the NYU school of law article, Bradley&Goldsmith were ''originators'' of the idea of Vichy co-belligerency, therefore, we can conclude that that view didn't exist before that date, and, most likely, it still reflects mostly US view. Therefore, Vichy France should be removed from the infobox, and its potential co-belligerency should be discussed in a separate section devoted to controversial cases.
:Interestingly, although Bradley&Goldsmith's article is being [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9987766149056998138&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en widely cited], majority references are not in a context of Vichy France (only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=5%2C33&sciodt=0%2C33&cites=9987766149056998138&scipsc=1&q=vichy+france+&btnG= 13 documents] from that list mention Vichy), which means Vichy France is not a focus of that article. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Maybe the issue is controversial, but per the mother article's definiton ([[co-belligerence]]), certainly there was a period when she was like that.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::Wikipedia is not a RS. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I know, but terminologies and articles should be consisntent in it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::AFAIK, Vichy never attacked the Allies, they were just fighting back, which is consistent with a behaviour of truly neutral states. Anyway, I got no reasonable counterarguments, so I remove Vichy. Please, do not restore it without providing better sources.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::And I have reverted your edit. Ignoring arguments from other people that do not fit in your POV is not the way consensus works. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::I saw no arguments, and, importantly, no sources. Per WP:ONUS, responsibility is on those who adds a contested material. please, self-revert addition of poorly sourced material that is contested by reliable sources and is definitely non-neutral. If no arguments, supported by reliable sources, will follow in next week, I am going to revert you.
:::::::In addition, [[WP:NPA|accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack]]. I suggest you either provide evidences or to refrain form accusing me of POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Inclusion of USSR in the infobox ==

USSR was already present (I don't have time to check who added it), so I expanded the note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=999720829]. This was challenged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002614947&oldid=1002614763]. I concur USSR was never recognized as an Axis power, but per quote added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002618127&oldid=1002616357] it acted as an important German ally in the early years. I think it is more reasonable to include it in the 'Co-belligerent' list but this was challenged as well ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078]) with a request for an explicit citation. Well, the source explicitly states it was an ally so... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Here's a reliable (academic journal) source that uses the term co-belligerent in the relevant context: [https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext] "The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland." --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 08:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Source says: "It is worth clarifying that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not an alliance as such, it was a treaty of non-aggression". Short term arrangement with Germany is not the same as entire Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Yes but it also says "Hitler and Stalin were allies in all but name" - in other words, Moorehouse is saying that it wasn't an "alliance" on paper but that is what it was indeed.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This [https://books.google.com/books?id=MktdDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false] also uses the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and that's from a historian pretty sympathetic to SU under Stalin.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=umQqmFXTosMC&pg=PA84&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwA3oECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (political scientist).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Here, [https://books.google.com/books?id=maEfAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=%20alliance&f=false pages 116-7, 156-158].[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=MYqFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK8rbB3bbuAhWNVc0KHQZEAbsQ6AEwCHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::And [https://books.google.com/books?id=uroiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik5pD53rbuAhWHbs0KHUtiA2U4ChDoATABegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (also historian).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:And [https://books.google.com/books?id=giMfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=%22Nazi-Soviet+alliance%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ8fLl37buAhXGWM0KHSFgA0IQ6AEwBHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Nazi-Soviet%20alliance%22&f=false here] (professor of Holocaust Studies).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This source [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&div=75&id=&page=] refers to them as "co-belligerents", 2nd page. Here's the text: ''"As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17"''.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Thanks, particularly for the second RS for co-belligerent. I think it is a better term than an ally, technically, and I'd support just moving USSR to the co-belligerent section, that mas my initial intention anyway. The term 'ally' is IMHO both less correct and more controversial (but since it is a common term it is more widely used than the technical term co-belligerent). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:Those sources are in a minotrity, and discuss Nazi-Soviet relations and not the Axis Powers. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::This info has been in article for many many years so you need WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. Second, please show that "these sources are in the minority". Above I listed prominent historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars who say otherwise. Third, obviously at various points the Axis was opposed to SU etc., which is what these sources say. However, during 1939-1941 they were allies and co-belligerents.
::I should also mention that if someone reverts with an edit summary that says "discussion is ongoing" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1002631212] THE LEAST they can do is to actually... bother participating in the discussion before blind reverting.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:In an alliance, the citizens of the two countries know about the connection. The explicit agreement to cooperate is widely known. The USSR and Germany did not have this arrangement. The historians who are comparing the division of Poland to an alliance are using hyperbole. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Um, I'm not sure where you're getting this from - sounds like your own original research - but "citizens of the two countries know about the connection" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be an "alliance". In fact it has nothing to do with it and I've never seen a source define it this way. I have seen however, and provided above, numerous sources which refer to it as an "alliance". The fact that you think "historians are (...) using hyperbole" is neither here nor there. We go with sources not with whether some editor thinks those sources are wrong.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
*Obviously, the secret codicil to divide Poland between them complicates assessing the nature of the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]]. Without it, it's simply a non-aggression pact, similar to the one which Nazi Germany had with Poland, and we would not list Poland as an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis Powers on that basis. With the codicil, the agreement has at least one aspect that is alliance-like. However, as the quote provided by Piotrus quite clearly says, as close as it might have come to being one (which really wasn't very close at all) it was '''''not''''' an alliance, it was essentially an agreement to look the other way while each party took the part of Poland that had been agreed to. To me, that does not qualify the Soviet Union as either an ally or a co-belligerent.{{pb}}I'd make the comparison with Roosevelt's dealings with the UK prior to Pearl Harbor. He took the US as close as possible to being an ally or co-belligerent as a neutral power could do, and historians all, make note of that, but none go so far as to call the US an ally or co-belligerent of the UK until after Germany declared war on the US and the US responded in kind.{{pb}}History is hardly ever clean and clear-cut, and it's up to historians to make evaluations of the nature of things based on the evidence presented. I haven't looked at the cites Volunteer Marek has presented above, but I have no doubt that they say what VM says they do, however the '''''consensus''''' of historians do not agree that the USSR was ever an ally of Nazi Germany, nor a co-belligerent, and some carefully selected citations does not change that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again, let's leave original research out of this please (no, the agreement was not similar to the one with Poland). Likewise, the comparisons with UK and US are original research. Did US invade Germany when it went to war with UK in 1939? No. If IT HAD we would most certainly call US an ally or a co-belligerent in 1939. This is a false analogy, again. We go with sources. And what the source quoted by Piotrus says is that while it wasn't an alliance on paper, in practice it very much was. Additionally we have numerous other sources which refer to this as an alliance or to SU as "co-belligerents". You are asserting that "consensus of historians" doesn't agree with the sources I presented but you haven't actually provided any sources of your own (ones which say "no, it wasn't an alliance"). If you wish to make this argument then you need to provide sources of your own, not just blithely dismiss the ones I provided (since they are RS). EVEN THEN - if you did provide such sources - we would obviously have to list both views. But right now, only one view has sources for support and it's the "allies/co-belligerents" one.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::You've mistaken a talk page discussion for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia articles, only material supported by citations from reliable sources are acceptable, but a talk page consensus discussion is a different animal altogether. It is perfectly legitimate to use analogies and other rhetorical devices to attempt to convince others of the validity of one's point. For myself, a good coherent argument is certainly to be preferred over a handful of cherry-picked citations which do notaccurately represent the consensus of experts on the subject, and a misinterpretation of a quote which says, point blank, that it was '''''not''''' an alliance, and that Germany and the Soviet Union were '''''not''''' allies, to mean that they '''''were''''' allies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, The quote clearly says they were not legally allies but acted like allies and were allies in all but a name. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::BMK, no, I'm sorry but that's not how this works. The talk page is NOT a place to post your own personal original research and on that basis decide what article content should be. We follow sources. The talk page is for providing sources which support your view. You have not done that AT ALL. You've only asserted, without basis, that the sources *I* provided "do not represent consensus of experts". How do we know they don't? Because you said so? Sorry, not good enough. Provide sources to back that up. Otherwise Wikipedia policy says we follow the sources we do have.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, First, I concur that the case for co-belligerence is much stronger than for the alliance. Second, we have presented two reliable academic sources that explicitly describe USSR as a co-belligerent. This is what you asked for in the edit summary here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002621468&oldid=1002620078&diffmode=source]. Now that the sources saying this have been presented, are you raising the bar higher? And with what? Do you have any RS that say USSR should not be considered a co-belligerent? We have two sources for and zero against such a description. I think the reasonable compromise is to describe USSR as a co-belligerent for the period 1939-1941 (and not as an ally). Lastly, common sense can be invoked. Definition of co-belligerence is "the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance." Soviet Union invaded Poland and fought a number of battles against Polish military. What else would you call it if not co-belligerence? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) PS. I would like to quote [[User:Peacemaker67]] who in a section right above (concerning the term co-belligerence being used for Vichy) said "We have an academic international legal study that says they were a co-belligerent. Either produce similar standard sources that say they weren't one, in which case we will compare and contrast the sources, or drop the stick." How is this case any different? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::She article is about the Axis Powers, not about Nazi Germany. So, if the cites presented call the USSR a "co-belligerent"''''' with the Axis Powers''''' (which you'll remember did not fight in the invasion of Poland), then go ahead and add them to the infobox, but if they only say that the USSR was (briefly) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany only for the invasion of Poland. Since the infobox is supposed to be a precis of facts presented in the article, add to the article that because of such-and-such, so-and-so and so-and-so classify the USSR as a co-belligerent with the Axis Powers. But, again, if only to Nazi Germany, it's not germane to this article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, Are you saying Nazi Germany was not an Axis Power? Or that the Axis Power did not exist in September 1939? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::No, I am saying that although Nazi Germany was at the core of the Axis, it's not necessarily that case that a country with X relationship with Nazi Germany had X relationship with the Axis Powers. Of course, any country which fought side-by-side with the Axis against the Allies should be examined for consideration as being an Axis Power, but even that doesn't necessarily make it the case. Finland, for instance, is almost never considered to be an Axis Power, although its status here as a co-belligerent is a reasonable conclusion. The same for Vichy France, if a bit less obviously. The thing is that these relationships are hardly ever black and white. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, I don't follow how you can be ok with including Finland here but not USSR. What is the difference? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Finland fought for years against an ally, the Soviet Union, with German assistance. German troops were on Finnish soil, participating in the war.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to also remind everyone that this info was in the article for YEARS. Piotrus tried to offer a clarification, BMK reverted him and then proceeded to completely remove the info altogether. In absence of consensus we go back to what the original version was until the dispute is resolved.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Indeed. Since the lasted revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002785076&oldid=1002776256&diffmode=source] mentioned lack of references, here they are: 1) {{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}} 2) {{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Regarding adding sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=1002826669&oldid=1002786397&diffmode=source] (which I think is a good practice, of course) may I suggest adding relevant quotations? I provided two relevant in my previous post just above. Also, I wonder - you added Hager (2017) but not Blobaum (1990)? Any reason for the omission? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::I didn't wanna ref bomb it but I think that can be added as well.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail.” [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) 07:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
:::*[[WP:V]] is quite clear that any unsourced material in a Wikipedia artifcle can be removed at will, regardless of how long it's been in the article. The information I removed was "referenced" only by a "see" pointer to another Wikipedia article, and [[WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]], so, in other words, it was never referenced at all, and should have been removed ages ago. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Yes but this is moot since multiple sources HAVE BEEN provided.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] - Please do not remove sourced data as you did here twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&diff=1002839165&oldid=1002838319&diffmode=source] Thank you. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:IT is perfectly legitimate to remove material which is sourced with citations which do not '''''directly support''''' the claims being made, and that is the case here. To include the USSR as an "Axis Power", one needs a citation which says '''''explicitly''''' that "'he USSR was an Axis power". To say that the USSR was a "co-belligerent" with the Axis powers, a source which says '''''specifically''''' that the USSR "was a co-belligerent with the Axis powers", and so on. Citations cannot make some vaguely related claim, they '''''must''''' say '''''exactly''''' what is being claimed in the article. This is really basic Wikipedia stuff, which you and VM and Piotrus know like the backs of your hands, so please please stop castigating other editors for following basic Wikipedia policies. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sigh. BMK, NO ONE IS SAYING USSR WAS AN AXIS POWER!!! Please stop it with the false strawman. The USSR is being is listed as a "co-belligerent" Just like Finland, Vichy France etc. which were also NOT Axis Powers. The sources have been provided.
:::This is extremely frustrating.
:::First long standing info is removed. When someone restores it, it's reverted again with edit summaries which claim that this is new info.
:::Then the info is removed again under the pretense of no sources. When it's restored with sources it's removed anyway.
:::When the sources are provided to directly support the text, it is then falsely claimed that... no sources have been provided.
:::It's hard to see how this is constructive. How exactly are we suppose to resolve a dispute with this kind of argumentation?
::Let's keep the article at the state it's been in, except now with the info properly sourced and finish the discussion here first.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] - [[German–Soviet Axis talks]] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, It's splitting hair. Nazi Germany was an Axis Power. We have sources that say USSR was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany. It's simple logic that a co-belligerent of a country A that belongs to an grouping (alliance?) B makes said co-belligerent also co-belligerent to that other grouping. Or think about it the other way. Poland was an Ally, right? Who fought Allies in WWII?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::^^^^ Original research ^^^^^. When the Soviet Union entered Poland on 17 September, the Polish military and government were in a state of collapse, not much fighting. The allies did not recognize this as an act of war against the alliance. Neither [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::No, it’s not. As already pointed out Britannica and USHMM are TERTIARY sources (whose target audience is school children so it’s unsurprising they simplify and omit some info), here we use SECONDARY sources which explicitly call Soviet Union “allies” and “co-belligerents” of Nazi Germany in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Piotrus|Volunteer Marek}} The terms "Axis" and "Allies" refer to specific groups (or blocks) of countries that fought each other to the end of the war, and AFAIK the USSR is only ever considered part of the latter. If we're to claim otherwise we need sources that state so ''explicitly''; the USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war is not enough to establish that association, and would indeed constitute [[WP:OR]]. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::One more time, no one is saying that USSR was part of the Axis. Quit it with the [[strawman]] already. The text is about USSR being a "co-belligerent" or an ally of Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in this entire discussion myself and Piotrus are the ONLY editors to have actually bothered to provide sources. Everyone else opposing this is just posting their own personal feelings and original research on the matter.

Folks, '''you need to provide sources'''. That's how Wikipedia works. If you can't provide actual sources to support your position then you're just wasting talk page space. The talk page that right at the top says ''"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."''

Sources please.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
: Both Astral Leap ({{tq|Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power... Both make the opposite point...}}) and Erin Vaxx (Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'') cite sources. I'll add Weinberg's ''World at Arms'', which explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War'', which gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders... etc. Now can we lay this to rest? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Both Astral Leap and Erin Voxx (especially that one) are new accounts which jumped right into controversial topics. Neither of them have cited sources to support their point of view. They mentioned sources which ... don't say anything either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I show you a source which says "X is true" and you come back to me and show me a source which ... doesn't say anything about X either way, then that does not mean that X is not true. Obviously.
::Find a source which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies or co-belligerents between 1939 and 1941.
::And now we have a whole freakin' brigade of sockpuppets on this article.
::[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I've actually checked Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica), and they both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source, albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same. My contributed sources (Weinberg, Snyder and Gilbert) are also explicit on this.
::: I would gladly find you a source {{tq|which says that USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies}}, but you already had me in {{tq|absence of evidence is not evidence of absence}}. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Again, no one's disputing that USSR and US/UK were Allies '''after 1941'''. Question is about '''1939-1941''' as anyone who even glances at this discussion should be able to figure out. Stop it with the strawman.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And please, by all means, find me that source. I've been asking for it repeatedly so it's about someone actually tried.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::VM, your question (if I understand it correctly) is incorrectly formulated. Noone has to provide a source saying USSR was not Nazi Germany's ally. Moreover, even if such a source would be provided, that cannot be an ultimate proof that it was not, because such a source may represent a minority viewpoint. A correct approach would be to determine how 1939-41 Soviet-Nazi relations are described in majority sources. To do that, let's try the approach proposed by me. This approach is as follows: using different sets of neutrally selected keywords, find sources on that subject, and then check which sources are cited by those sources. Based on the information found in those sources, new search phrases are formulated, and the procedure repeated. If this iterative process repeatedly yields the same set of sources, we can conclude that the procedure has converged, so we identified a set of sources that represent a majority viewpoint (or a set of significant minority viewpoints).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No, because your reasoning implies that “if not every source says X then X is not true”. You will have some sources which simplify. You will have other sources which focus on some other aspect of the topic. You can’t expect all or even most sources to say X. At the end of the day you can only look at whether sources say “X” or “not X”. And right now all we have is sources which say X where X=USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939-1941.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I concur we don't need sources to prove the negative. But we have sources that say the Soviet Union was a Nazi ally (or co-belligerent) and no sources to dispute them. To be clear, nobody is disputing USSR status as an Ally and part of the Big Three. But there is no contradiction in being in both camps, changing sides. Well, just to be clear, nobody is also arguing USSR was part of the Axis. Co-belligerence (or being an ally) of a group is not the same as being a part of the group, and we have a section here called co-belligerence. Why shouldn't USSR be in it? They co-invaded Poland (an Ally) together with Nazi Germany and this led to many scholars calling them an ally or co-belligerent of Nazi Germay. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Piotrus, we are not proving a logical syllogism here. We are simply trying to figure out what sources say. The question “were Nazi Germany and USSR allies in 1939-1941” is pretty straight forward and of obvious academic interest to historians. If it’s controversial then you would naturally expect some sources to say “yes they were” and some to say “no they weren’t” and some to not address the question at all (cuz they focus on something else). But here we actually only have sources which say “yes they were” and some which don’t address the question. To draw the conclusion from that that they weren’t, when No sources which say “no they weren’t” have been provided is kind of absurd.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I would say there are three groups of sources: (i) the sources that describe Nazi-Soviet relationship as a ''de facto'' military alliance; (ii) the sources that apply the word "alliance"/"ally" in its colloquial meaning (i.e. they say Nazi-Soviet relationships were relatively frendly, but they do not say it was a real military alliance), and (iii) the sources saying otherwise. The fact that the group (iii) do not dispute with group (i) sources may mean that the (iii) group sources represent a fringe viewpoint, or that they represent majority/mainstream views. Based on the information available to me, I conclude the second explanation is the most plausible. However, I propose to clarify that question by doing a joint literature search.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I am not sure how this can be done quantitatively. Why don't you reply to my earlier queries about how can we justify the Soviet invasion of Poland as not fitting into the plain English definition of co-belligerence? We have RS for this being described and such and it fits the definition to a letter. What do we need a literature review for? To prove this is not a fringe view? That again seems like a request to prove the negative. Which reliable sources say it is a fringe view? If not, it's sufficient we have sources for co-belligerence. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::To clarify, the section that I created below is partially inspired by this your post.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*I am opposed to removing the USSR from the infobox so long as we insist on subdividing it and including a "co-belligerents" section. I would have no problem removing the USSR, Iraq and Vichy France and simply collapsing the remaining states into a single undivided list. But everybody seems to prefer their lists divided. And Finnish propaganda. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::I always thought Vichy France was a neutral state, and all her military incidents with the Allies were a result of non-provoked attacks by the Allied forces. I am not familiar with Iraq history, so I have no opinion about that.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What do RS say?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
: {{re|Slatersteven}} {{tq|Weinberg's ''World at Arms''... explicitly mentions the USSR "outside" the Axis powers; Gilbert's ''The Second World War''... gives the details of the Tripartite negotiations and both Ribbentrop's and Molotov's scepticism about them; ''The Routledge atlas of the Second World War'' (also by Gilbert) lists the USSR among the "eastern Allies"; Timothy Snyder's ''Bloodlands'' mentions Stalin among the Allies' leaders.}}; {{tq|Astral Leap's sources (the USHMM and Britannica)... both list the USSR among the allies. Erin Vaxx's source (Churchill, as quoted in Carlton's ''Churchill and the Soviet Union'' -FR), albeit contemporaneous-primary, believed the same.}} You can see more from Gilbert and Davies in the thread below. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Can you provide an actual quote from Weinberg (page numbers etc)? Because what I see him saying is the following:
::''"The French government was understandably shaken and disappointed about the Soviet Union '''aligning herself with Germany'''''
::Also calls Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany on page 54.
::Also calls the fall of Poland in 1939 a "joint victory" of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (page 57)
::Also spends several pages discussing the economic, intelligence and military support the Soviet Union provided to Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940
::Also states that the reason Soviet Union did not end up joining the Tripartite Pact is because Germany (not USSR) aborted the negotiations.
::Also states that Soviet Union would have "preferred" to join the Tripartite Pact if Germany had agreed to it (pg 249)
::Also states that the Soviet Union trying its best to join the Tripartite Pact in 1940 was a "serious offer" (pg 201)
::Also states that the Soviet Union made "massive economic offers" to Nazi Germany to persuade it to let them join the Axis (ditto)
::Also states that the Soviet Union agreed to commit to fight alongside Nazi Germany in any potential war with Nazi Germany.
::So can you provide a quote which says that the USSR was NOT allied with Nazis Germany in 1939-1940, because '''everything I see in this source actually says the opposite!''' [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::
::So actually it seems Weinberg calls it an alliance too!
::Yes I know, now I want to see some RS saying they were part of the Axis powers, not allied with Germany, party to the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Again. The argument is NOT over whether USSR was part of the Axis. It's whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Absolutely no one here is claiming that USSR was part of the axis. Francois Robere keeps trying to use this line as a [[strawman]] despite the fact that he's been asked to drop it since that's not what the discussion is about.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']]
::::And neither France nor the UK declared war on Russia, thus is was not part of the same conflict.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Well, there was no "Russia" but I'm not sure if this is relevant anyway. All that matters is whether sources call Soviet Union "allies" of Nazi Germany or not.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No it's whether or not they are called Allies or co-belligerents of the axis, NAzi Germany is not the Axis, it was part of it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

Weiberg, ''World at Arms'', p. 26: "The Soviet Union alone outside the Axis accepted the disappearance of Czechoslovakia and anticipated the disappearance of other countries." I don't quite have the leisure at the moment to go through the pages you cited above. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, the Soviet Union was not in the Axis. No one is saying they were. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1003136212 I *just* asked you] to stop misrepresenting the debate in such terms, yet here you are doing it again.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing the USSR in the Axis column (as an ally, co-belligerent or however labelled), from 36-39 (or any period of time), based on there being a treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany, makes no sense. If we listed countries as allies/co-belligerents/whatever based on treaties (even treaties with secret codicils), we'd be in the weird position of listing countries (like the USSR) on both sides of the conflict. For example, if the 1939 [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]] makes the USSR a co-belligerent or ally of Germany, then the 1939 [[Munich Agreement]] would make the UK and France a co-belligerent or ally of Germany. But listing countries on both sides like this would be nonsensical, and extremely confusing to the reader. Yes, these agreements and the complicated, changing relationships of the parties before and during the war are obviously all content that is and should be covered in the article, but the ''infobox'' is supposed to give people a quick overview and some basic facts about the topic. If the topic is "Axis powers", the USSR should not be listed anywhere in the same column as the Axis powers. The USSR should be listed on the ''other'' column, where we list the countries that were opposed to the Axis powers, and the reason for this is simple: the USSR and Germany fought on opposite sides in World War II. Duh. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:If there is a timestamp intervall and an appropriate chart with note inside the infobox, it should not be a problem.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

=== {{Font color||yellow|PLEASE NOTE}} - Discussion is '''NOT''' about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power===
[[File:Axis infobox.png|thumb|right|200px]]
I feel compelled to emphasize that the discussion here is NOT about whether Soviet Union should be listed as an Axis Power, because a couple users insist on falsely framing the disagreement in those terms. This is a [[strawman]] fallacy.

The discussion is whether Soviet Union should be listed as an "ally" of Nazi Germany/Axis or a "co-belligerent" '''for the period in 1939-1941''' before Hitler broke the alliance and attacked them (multiple high quality sources for this have been provided)

The infobox has three parts (image on right):

#"Tripartite Powers" - no one is saying USSR should go here
#"States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact" - while the Soviet Union had agreed to join the Tripartite Pact it ended up never joining because Nazi Germany broke off the negotiations. However no one is saying USSR should go here
#Co-belligerent states - '''this is what the argument is about''' Should USSR be included here?

Please address the issues actually raised and not SOME OTHER dispute which doesn't actually exist. Thank you.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you, some editors are possibly confused. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 22:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

== Slovakia? ==

Slovakia was a puppet state so it could be put in a separate category. [[User:Hawkillglu|Hawkillglu]] ([[User talk:Hawkillglu|talk]]) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Hawkillglu}}, Which category? Are you talking about the infobox? [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::Slovakia is already accurately described as a Tripartite Pact signatory. That they were a puppet state during the war is already described in great detail in the article. No need to introduce a more subjective term into the infobox - particularly given e.g., Hungary also having had a government imposed on it. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact ==

While we're here, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the Soviet Union agreed (provisionally) to join the Tripartite Pact in November 1940. Stalin asked for a naval base on the Bosporus (and some other stuff) and Nazi Germany decided that it wasn't worth it so went with Barbarossa instead.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Hitler '''''always''''' intended to "go with Barbarossa", and '''''never''''' seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act. In any case, whatever was agreed to "provisionally", they never jined, so the information is irrelevant here. Countries consider doing many things, what they actually '''''do''''' is what's important. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is actually not true and not backed by any sources. Hitler was willing to have Soviets join the Axis if they were willing to stay in Asia. Nazi Germany explicitly offered the Soviets control over Middle East and Persian Gulf. Ribbentrop, on behalf of Hitler, explicitly invited Stalin to join the Tripartite Pact. Stalin agreed but with demands for a naval base on the Bosporus. At that point Hitler changed his mind (this was as late as December 1940) and green lit Barbarossa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Sure, both monsters had similar plans for each other, but that doesn't mean they didn't cooperate at the beginning of the war. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 08:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, But what they consider, while of lesser importance, is often notable and relevant. Hence why we have articles about treaties that have not been signed/ratified yet, etc. (And in some cases, never will be - ACTA, etc.). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, Makes sense. I'd support addition this (with a reliable source, of course). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Talks that ended with naught, no deal.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::What do you mean “no deal”? Fact that Stalin accepted joining the pact is surely significant.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::The pact had never been signed. Negotiations failed, similarly to 1939 Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations. Do you propose to add both?

::::Moreover, USSR ''initiated'' triple negotiations, and it was a position of UK and France that lead to their failure. With regard to Soviet-Axis talks, initiative came from Ribbentrop, and Molotov disagreed with German proposal, which ignored Soviet interest in Balkans.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Well, yes, both should be mentioned. But here we're talking about USSR agreeing to join the Tripatrite Alliance in 1940, not 1939. And I think you have it backwards - USSR was willing to join the Axis if it was given interests in the Balkans but it was the Germans who at that point ignored the Soviets. Last diplomatic note on the subject was Moscow --> Berlin, not vice versa.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Not "agreeing", but "negotiating in a responce to Hitler's invitation". "Agreeing" is misleading, because it sounds like USSR agreed to join the Axis, but Hitler rejected that idea. In reality, a situation was different: Hitler and Molotov were discussing possible Soviet membership in the Axis, but Hitler's conditions didn't satisfy Stalin, and Stalin's conditions were rejected by Hitler. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::He did agree though.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed to what?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::To join the Tripartite Pact.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::To claim that, you need (i) to provide the source that explicitly says so, and (ii) to demonstrate that that source represents a majority viewpoint. I tried to find that information, but 10 minute googling provided no sources (instead, I found several interesting sources saying otherwise), which demonstrates that the viewpoint you are pushing is a minority view. You either provide evidences (vide supra) or stop POV pushing.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Beyond My Ken}} you are right Hitler always intended to "go with Barbaross, and never seriously considered the USSR as a member of the Tripartitie Act.

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, led to one of the most brutal campaigns of World War II: of the estimated 70 million people who died in World War II, over 30 million died on the Eastern Front. Although it has previously been argued that the campaign was a pre-emptive strike, in fact, Hitler had been planning a war of intervention against the USSR ever since he came to power in 1933. Using previously unseen sources, acclaimed military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller shows that Hitler and the Wehrmacht had begun to negotiate with Poland and had even considered an alliance with Japan soon after taking power. Despite the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, at the declaration of war in September 1939, military engagement with the Red Army was still a very real and imminent possibility. In this book, Muller takes us behind the scenes of the Wehrmacht High Command, providing a fascinating insight into an unknown story of World War II.

Rolf-Dieter Muller is Professor of Military History at Humboldt University, Berlin; Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Institute in Potsdam; and Coordinator of the 'The German Reich and the Second World War' project. He is the author of numerous publications on World War II including The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers (I.B.Tauris).
https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-East-Hitlers-Secret-Invade/dp/178076829X[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what your point is.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler always wanted to do a operation Barbarossa just like he always wanted to do a General plan ost on the polish people.[[Special:Contributions/70.54.168.41|70.54.168.41]] ([[User talk:70.54.168.41|talk]]) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Maybe. We actually don't know what "Hitler always wanted". What we do know is that Hitler asked Stalin to join the Tripatrite Pact, Stalin agreed, but then Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, we actually do know what "Hitler always wanted" because he had been saying as much for decades. That was the entire point of wanting [[Lebensraum]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::And yet he invited Stalin to join the Axis. And Stalin agreed. And then Hitler changed his mind. Or maybe he didn't, who knows, maybe it was just stalling. Who cares? The point is that Hitler asked and Stalin agreed and there's no dispute about that. And that's a cold hard fact rather than speculation about "what Hitler always wanted" or how he wanted to get it. Anyway. Show me sources.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Gilbert's ''The Second World War'' states that "Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis", and suggests that the Soviets were aware of the German preparations for invasion owing to a spy operating in Tokyo. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: This is true but it doesn't change the basic facts. Pretty much any country/leader will pursue several strategies at once so as to have options and respond to events as they unfold. Hitler was preparing for a possible war with USSR just as he was asking them to join the Axis. Both things are true. In the end, while he asked them to join the Tripartite Pact and Stalin agreed, Hitler chose to go with the invasion.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: What's your source for Stalin agreeing to join? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::let's be more precise: Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin. For further details (and to avoid cherry-picking), I looked at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Molotov+berlin+1940+Axis&btnG= the sources] (I believe there will be no objections to my keywords choice), and representative sources are Roberts, Gorodetsky and Watson. At least, these will be the sources any good faith Wikipedian with no preliminary knowledge of the subject would find. Of course, if someone wants to push some specific POV, they can cherry-pick a source saying that Stalin's dream was an alliance with Hitler. However, we all want to stay neutral, aren't we?
::::What these representative sources say? We already know that Roberts says that Stalin was shocked after fall of France, and he sent Molotov to Berlin partially to figure out Hitler's intentions. It was more a political game than a sincere desire to join the Axis.
::::Gorodetsky says that "''it is not sufficiently stressed that rather than participating in the dismembering of the British Empire, Molotov stubbornly insisted on the Soviet short-term strategic aim of securing a buffer zone in the Baltic and in particular in the Balkans, where the Germans now posed a serious threat to Russia. The negotiations indeed broke down over Germany's declared interests in Finland, Romania and Bulgaria''". That even remotely resembles Molotov's agreement to join the Axis, which Hitler refused to accept.

::::Watson, whose article is devoted specifically to Molotov's role as a minister of foreign affairs in 1939-, mentions his visit to Berlin in passing.

::::In summary, I see no proof that Stalin's agreement to join the Axis (which never happened due to Hitler's refusal) is a popular concept. However, I am ready to consider your evidences (presented in a neutral and logically correct manner).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's in Davies' "No Simple Victory" and a few other sources. You'll have to wait for me to brave the raging pandemic and make it to my office for more specifics (that's partly why I brought it up on talk rather than just putting it in myself).[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::I think you are supposed to have a remote access to all resources like OUP, Springer, Jstor etc, just ask you IT specialists. According to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/HIST.37.2.49-52 this], Davies is a revisionist, so it would be premature to present his viewpoint as a majority view. In general, he objects to glossing all Allies (not only USSR), and that may be correct, taking into account that the WWII history is still being written mostly from (western) winners' perspective. Therefore, it is not a surprise that some of his statements may be exaggeration.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{re|Paul Siebert}} A longer quote from Gilbert, which sits well with what you found:
{{quote|As to Russia, [Hitler's Directive 18] stated, ‘all preparations for the East... will be continued’, and further directives would follow... ‘as soon as the basic operational plan of the Army has been submitted to me and approved’.

This clear indication that an invasion of Russia remained Hitler’s goal coincided with the visit to Berlin of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov... Molotov wanted to know what Russia’s part would be in the New Order of Germany, Italy and Japan, as created by the Tripartite Pact, and where matters stood in the Balkans and Roumania, with regard to Russia’s interests. Hitler had no answer, telling Molotov that they must break off their discussion...

[The next day] Molotov continued his talks with Ribbentrop, who proposed that the Soviet Union become a partner in the Tripartite Pact. Molotov was dubious of Soviet adherence to the Axis, referring to Italy’s setbacks... and telling Ribbentrop he thought that ‘the Germans were assuming that the war against England has already been won’... [Some time later] British bombers came over Berlin yet again, and they had to... continue their talks in Ribbentrop’s own air-raid shelter... Rubbing salt in the wound, Molotov said that ‘he did not regret the air raid alarm’, as it had provided the occasion for an ‘exhaustive’ discussion...

It was something else, however, that Molotov said to Ribbentrop... which convinced Hitler that he would only be put further and further in difficulties by Soviet ambitions if the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 were to remain the basis of German policy... Molotov went so far as to tell Ribbentrop that Russia could never entirely give up its interest in the western approaches to the Baltic: the waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, once under Danish, but under German control since May.}}
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes and none of this contradicts the fact that Stalin agreed to join the pact in November 1940.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
{{re|Volunteer Marek}} Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davies doesn't state that the USSR joined the Axis. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again. USSR agreed to join the Tripartite Pact. It never did join it because Hitler changed his mind.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Repeating the same argument without providing evidences is by no means helpful. You just demonstrate that you have no arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: That's not exactly what he's saying:
{{quote|...Hitler had first to examine what might be gained by prolonging the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After all, the Soviets could not have failed to notice Germany’s greatly enhanced position, and Stalin might be persuaded to make some interesting concessions... To this end, Molotov was invited to Berlin in November 1940. He was peculiarly unforthcoming...

Two issues brought negotiations to an impasse. One was Romania, which both Germany and the USSR wished to dominate. The other concerned the conditions on which Stalin might agree to join the Tripartite Pact... Ribbentrop sent a proposal to that effect via Molotov, and in a note of 25 November Stalin provisionally agreed. The devil lay in the details. The Nazis sought to use the Tripartite Pact as an instrument for keeping Stalin out of Europe... Stalin, in contrast, sought to use it as a means of reviving historic Russian claims in the Balkans. Apart from demanding the withdrawal of all German troops from Finland, his note of 25 November envisaged not only a Russo-Bulgarian treaty, but also a Soviet naval base on the Bosporus... Neither Germany nor Italy could tolerate such a prospect. Indeed, Berlin and Rome must have woken up to the fact... that the Soviet Union, once internally stabilized, would prove no less imperialist and aggressive than its tsarist predecessor. No reply was ever sent to Stalin’s note of 25 November. Instead, on 18 December 1940, Hitler drew up Directive 21, ‘Case Barbarossa’...

The implications are obvious... Stalin’s attitudes, no less than Hitler’s, determined the shift towards German-Soviet conflict. The decision to prepare plans for ‘Case Barbarossa’ was driven by ‘the combination of Britain’s refusal to make peace and the expansionist aims of the Soviet Union’.}}
::: There's a lot more there, but these seem like the most relevant parts. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That doesn’t actually contradict what I (and Davies) say. Also you have a lot of ellipsis in there.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::That is close to what Roberts says. I am not sure we need to waste our time further.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think this discussion is off track. Nobody is saying USSR was part of the Axis. Obviously, it wasn't, and the 1940 negotiations which didn't conclude are just historical trivia. What is relevant is whether USSR was an ally or co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany (and by the extension, Axis) due to its invasion of Poland in 1939. We have a number of sources saying that they were, and not a lot of sources (zero?) arguing otherwise (particularly for the term co-belligerent, which is what is used in the current infobox, as the term ally is I think more problematic and best ignored). [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::This is a somewhat different discussion. It’s not about the info box but whether this info should be added to the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::*'''Opposed to listing the USSR in the infobox''', Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, [[Polish–Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938|invaded]], clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to Piotrus' and Volunteer Marek's own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me what "my definition" is. My "definition" is very simple. Here it is: '''Do sources refer to Nazi Germany and some other country as "ALLIES" or "CO-BELLIGERENT"?''' Yes? Then we do to. No? Then we don't. There are dozens of mainstream high quality sources which refer to USSR and Nazi Germany as "allies" (or co belligerents) in 1939-1941. There are NO sources which refer in such terms to Poland and Nazi Germany.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::* Yep. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Nope.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*Good point. Either Poland should be added to the infobox or (preferably) the USSR should be removed. I would say the same thing about [[European theatre of World War II]], which—''hilariously''—lists Stalin as a "commander and leader" of both the Allies and the Axis.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::*:{{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, The last time I checked it was a bloodless invasion that doesn't even have its own article, because it was such a non-notable event (Polish foces simply occupied and a bit of territory with no resistance met). There's the little thing about WWII in Europe starting in 1939, not 1938... Nobody ever considered 1938 events in Czechoslovakia to be a part of WWII military operations. An ultimatum followed by a bloodless annexation hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict', which is required for invoking the term co-belligerence. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::That's a lovely argument, Piotrus. I doubt the 227,399 people who lived in that territory, carved up between Poland and Germany, viewed it the same. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::Piotrus, do I understand you correctly that a bloodless annexation of Czechoslovakia ''by Germany'' hardly even meets the definition of 'conflict' too?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:*'''Opposed''' As plenty of nations had "confused" alliances at the start of the war. They cooperated on one invasion.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::The point is that whether these were "confused" or not, they DID have them so they should be included in the article.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
'''Opposed'''. The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland which only took place after the German's secured total victory and the Polish government and army were in the process of fleeing the country [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] . The USSR fought against Japan and Romania during the period as well.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 
:I also reinforce here, the Soviet Union is '''appropriately''' present in the infobox as she was [[Co-belligerence|co-belligerent]] for a period, undoubtedly per definiton. No excuse, no whitewash has room about it.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
*'''Oppose'''. The alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent of the Axis is a minority position held by those with a Polish-centric viewpoint. The alliance did not regard the Soviet Union settling its unresolved issues in Eastern Poland/Western USSR as an act of war against the alliance. During 1939-41 the USSR also fought Japan and Romania, which were on the Axis side.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Volunteer Marek. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is obviously an embarrassing chapter in Russian and ML history, so its understandable that they've tried to downplay it, but mainstream sources are unambiguous about the extensive collaboration between Germany and the Soviet Union prior to 1941. An agreement to partition a third state is not a simple nonaggression pact. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 08:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' No serious history book that I know of has ever identified the USSR as being an ally or co-belligerent with the Axis. Given Hitler's attitude to communism, I don't think that should come as a surprise to anyone. Anyway, what we would need to include this would be a preponderance of serious (not some random piece in a newspaper), neutral (in this case, that would mean neither Russian nor Polish), ideally academic and other high-quality level sources ([[WP:BESTSOURCES]]) which describe this as a fact - this lacking (there have been few, if any, such sources proposed - and in any case most history books, from the school book vulgarisation up to the most respectable, do not make a case for such a distinction), such an addition would fail [[WP:V]] and probably [[WP:NPOV]] too. Attempts to argue what a co-belligerent is and is not and what would fit under a given definition are rather poor and transparent attempts at [[WP:SYNTH]] (given the failure to find grounding in [[WP:RS]], this could potentially be interpreted as [[WP:POVPUSH]]ING, but editors here seem rather experienced so I assume such behaviour would be below them) which we must ignore per [[WP:NOR]].

:Finally, a word of wisdom from WP:POVPUSH: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact." - simply because it is a fact that the USSR invaded Poland and did so while Nazi Germany was doing it does not make them "co-belligerents" or allies, especially given the wider context of ideological struggles (must it be reminded, that the Nazis were staunch anti-communist?), and we must not entertain this confusion between "facts" and "neutrality". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
**Are you suggesting that historians in Poland, a country that has been a democracy for 30 years, where academic freedom is respected, are unable to form impartial judgements about World War II? Which countries’ historians qualify as “neutral” in your worldview? - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Yes, absolutely, USSR must be described as "co-belligerent", but only until June 1941, i.e. as described here: [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref>. This is for two reasons. First, the cited sources say so. Second, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. This is simply a historical fact, not a personal view by anyone. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Just another war over infoboxes with an attempt to squeeze every possible last ounce of info into them. That's not what they're for. Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland is a very minor part, if a part at all, of understanding the Axis vs Allies dynamic of WWII. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

===USSR was added by IP, with no consensus===
Adding the USSR to the Axis side was added by an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&type=revision&diff=854616495&oldid=854612284 IP], the same IP also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katyn_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=800410909 claimed Katyn was part of "Polish Genocide in the Soviet Union"]. The addition of the IP did not undergo serious discussion, was not supported by sources, and is in opposition to how other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] treat the Axis powers. Other reasonable encyclopedias do not list the USSR as an ally or co-belligerent.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:I am so embarrassed that this was here for two and a half years. Yikes. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::It was NOT added to the "Axis side". It was listed in the "co-belligerents" section. Please stop mischaracterizing the nature of the dispute, especially since you've been asked previously.
::And that's actually not where it was added. Here is a version from 2016, two years before the IP edit (which simply restored it) where the info is clearly in that section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=714581154]. It goes farther back than that. So, Levivich, I'm sure we all appreciate your deeply felt embarrassment on the part of Wikipedia, but it might not be necessary after all. At least not in this instance.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 02:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Temporary extended confirmed protection ==

I asked for Temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent what appears orchestrated edit wars and trolling by new accounts and VPN-generated IPs. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
:I concur this would be useful ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&oldid=prev&diff=1002925818&diffmode=source] and others). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

==Infobox==

I have a feeling that the above infobox discussion(s) is being conducted in a totally disorganized manner ("My source says X, so we should include it into the infobox" - "No, my source says Y, so we should not include your statement in the infobox", etc).
In reality, this discussion should be a two-step process. First, we should achieve some consensus about general criteria of inclusion/exclusion of some information into the infobox. Second, we must apply these criteria to all items.
As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence. I think, keeping in mind that WWII was a large scale and global conflict, this threshold should be high, so small scale military incidents and/or the incidents that didn't lead to war declaration should not be included (otherwise a reader may be confused). Do you have any comments on that?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:I 100% agree that establishing criteria for infobox and specifically for this category would be useful. One issue is "allies" vs "co-belligerents" vs "client states" (or something similar). For example should we include [[Independent State of Croatia]] anywhere in there? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::Can you please be more focused? Do you agree with my approach to co-belligerence criteria?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::Everything turns on being a special case at some point. Even if we came up with strict criteria as to what belonged in an infobox, we could still have a local consensus that over-rode it, or chose to have specific caveats next to the text.
::The best way of achieving consensus quickly and to the point is for someone to state what they think belongs in the infobox and where they want to see it in the infobox. Then we understand what is being proposed, and can marshal thoughts and arguments appropriately [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::IMO, infoboxes are supposed to present the most essential and commonly accepted information, and special cases should be discussed in the article's body.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I think special cases can be discussed in infobox too, with notes. Right now Italy and Croatia have longer notes, but USSR, Iraq and Finland, very short ones. This all started when I simply tried to expand the USSR's note... [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*{{ping|Paul Siebert}} So Vichy France and the USSR are out because nobody declared war on them and they did not declare war, but Finland and Thailand remain? (Iraq is a weird case; I'd have to look it up.) That works for me, but the "co-belligerents" label should go. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Paul Siebert}}, I agree we should define the terms for the infobox, then check if various states match them. This is indeed a good approach. However, definition of [[co-belligerence]] in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law doesn't say anything about declaring war (it defines co-belligerents as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not." [https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&dq=states+engaged+in+a+conflict+with+a+common+enemy,+whether+in+alliance+with+each+other+or+not&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_7MrCyL3uAhVCK6YKHd7cCBMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=states%20engaged%20in%20a%20conflict%20with%20a%20common%20enemy%2C%20whether%20in%20alliance%20with%20each%20other%20or%20not&f=false]], on a side note, that source also discusses few WWII cases but not Poland of France, unfortunately). With all due respect, I'd rather use the definition from an accepted, academic source than yours, which, surely incidentally, seems almost crafted to exclude USSR since it chose not to declare the war on Poland in '39... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
just crawling through superficially all the discussion (not just this section), reacting also to Gizzy's question, '''Yes''', the Soviet Union is correctly listed by the co-belligerents with note. The current infobox is '''good and accurate''', the main issue was about how to expanding the note, and other possibly technical questions about it. I hope you reach consensus about it the Soviet note expansion issue, but I reiterate, current infobox structure is perfect, as well Independent State of Croatia or Vichy France is in its perfect place. Any outsider editor will be totally confused seeing this wall of text (I don't say it in a negative manner, since these important issues has to be precisely discussed), but I recommend if something is outlined for change/further addition, it should be proposed strictly in a separate section, shortly/sharply, focusing only on that matter, with the most concise and minimal verbiage possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
:{{u|KIENGIR}}, A quick question - maybe needs its own subsection here - why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)Srnec, being belligerent does not mean of necessity of declaration of war, it happened by many instances, not any entity should be excluded because of that. Anyway I don't understand just because a note would have been expanded, why this perfect infobox is speculated to be questioned/changed, seems an unnecessary waste of time (just because the Allies article it had problems, it does not mean here it was not perfect).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
::Piotrus, no problem, open a section for it, if its akin the other listed, I will support to add (just because the list it not complete, it does not mean the structure would be bad).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
The actual alliance, France and the UK, welcomed the Soviet move into Poland. The Soviets only moved into Poland after the Polish military completely collapsed and the government and high command was in flight (at some border town near Romania) [https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] .--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 

:::[[User:GizzyCatBella]]], I don't find this your comment appropriate. You ''de facto'' accused that user of being a sock/SPA. Accusations of misbeaviour is a personal attack. If you see some problem with that user, discuss it in some place that is intended specifically for that purpose. And, by the way, instead of reading essays, it might be more fruitful to familiarise yourself with [[WP:BITE|behavioral guidelines]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: [[User:Paul Siebert]], note was triggered by this Vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003297241&oldid=1003296974&diffmode=source] I pointed out that this user had made few or no edits in other topic areas for transparency. It's a standard procedure now in intensely disputed areas. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::Such a comment would be relevant if we !voted. There is no voting here, because Wikipedia is not democracy. Do you have any objections/comments on what that user says?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::I see. No, I have no comments, just reporting, due to the recent two separate new accounts and IP blocked. This particular account has not made any other edits (a few small ones, 11 in total) before being heavily involved in this and only this topic. I believe it is worth noting so established editors get an accurate idea of the situation. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::So, instead of arguing that [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] essentially reproduced the official Soviet POV, and modern sources look at that at somewhat different angle, you preferred to resort to ''ad hominem'' arguments.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::It did not matter to me what POV and what their position is. The account is new; it reverts without waiting for consensus, hence the note. Drop it, please. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::... and you decided that other experienced users do not know how to use the "contribs" button? Of course, that is the first thing I did when I'd seen that new account. Yes, the views this account is pushing are somewhat obsolete, but they may be a good counter-balance to ultra-revisionist views pushed by some other users. I would be grateful if in future you tried to be more focused at contributions, not contributors.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Paul, I haven't "decided" on anything ... I aimed to make it simpler for established editors involved here to manage this mess, as I told you already. Please drop it. - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

* I am seriously disappointed. I started this section to invite others to join a work aimed to select neutral criteria for the Axis co-belligerence - and only Piotrus and VM supported that. All others continue mailing irrelevant posts about some specific country. '''I respectfully ask everybody to refrain from posting anything here that is not relevant to the section's topic.'''
:I propose to discuss the following questions:

* Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?

* This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?

* Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?

* What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?
:I think, the [https://www.justsecurity.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/ following analysis of Vichy's case] by [https://www.justsecurity.org/author/goodmanryan/ Ryan Goodman] may be helpful for answering some of those questions.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::I think more sources rather than one short (self-published?) piece by a legal scholar considering only US-Vichy relationship would be needed. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::This source was authored by a leading expert in the field, and it was cited by top quality sources, such as [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=faculty_scholarship "Co-Belligerency", Yale Journal of International Law (2017)]. Another peer-reviewed source also cites the same SPS as follows:
::::"''For example, the claim that congressional authorization to use force against an enemy includes authorization to use force against that enemy’s co-belligerents is based essentially on one precedent. See Ryan Goodman, Debunking the “Vichy France” Argument on Authorization to Use Force Against Co-Belligerents, JUST SECURITY (Nov. 17, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://just-security.org/17516/debunking-vichy-france-argument-authorization-force-co-belligerents/. And,in fact, the Vichy France precedent is particularly telling, as there is no indication that any lawyers were present in making the decision whether the attack on Vichy France was consistent with congressional authorization, rendering its use as evidence of legal authority particularly doubtful.''"

:::The source that is being used by top quality peer-reviewed sources deserves a very careful; attention.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, "Do we agree that the infobox should contain only uncontroversial statements, and all controversial content should be moved to the article's body?". but who decides what's controversial? "This article is not about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy, but about their formal military alliance. In connection to that, can we call those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis "the Axis co-belligerents"?" When would you say Axis were created? The infobox states 1936... if we want to change the date I'd suggest a separate section for this item only. "Can semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents?" I don't see why not? "What is a threshold for hostilities scale (in terms of duration and the number or troops) that warrants inclusion?" I dn't think we (the Wikipedia editors) should define such a scale. If no reliable source does it, then we should simply stick to the simple definitions of concepts and/or reliable sources that use discussed terms. [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 06:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Piotrus}} As usual, we decide what is controversial by analysing sources. A typical example is Vichy: per one source, for the first time it was called the Axis co-belligerent in 2005, and the conclusion about co-belligerency was made to justify modern US-military actions, and it expresses US viewpoint (because the authors were working for the US governnent), and that view was not widely cited, and it was criticized by one expert, that criticism was supported by others. That is quite sufficient to call it a controversial case, per our policy.

:::As I already explained, I was wrong, and it seems that the Axis is not the same as the Tripartite Pact. However, if the Axis was a loose and poorly defined formation before 1940, would it be correct to speak about "Axis co-belligerence" before all major actors joined the Tripartite pact? Did China fight against the Axis in 1937, or just against Japan? Did USSR annexed the territory of the Axis state (Romania), or ''just'' Romania? Did USSR fight against the Axis at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol, or just against Japan? And so on. The

:::Actually, the question of threshold is strongly linked to the question of controversy, so I realised it would be incorrect to separate them. So the question is: what is a degree of controversy that precludes inclusion in the infobox?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

'''commnet''' - {{ping|Paul Siebert}} I think all of these problems is dated back from description in [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]]. Yes. "the former Axis power and Co-belligerents" in Allies article, and "Co-belligerents" in naviagtionbox of Axis power. But if you see both articles, there is no such subtitles called "Co-belligerents" except for Kingdom of Italy in Allies article. But, Italy can be categorized as "former Axis power" so it actually means "there is no such category of co-belligerent". So my suggestion is this.

* We should put a country by articles of [[Allies of World War II]] and [[Axis power]].
* Co-belligerents is not used in both articles so we should avoid that word.
* Controversial countries should not be included until users agree to put. If we starts putting those countries, it makes matter worse not better

-- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] - What countries are ''"controversial countries"''? Also, why we should avoid the word ''"co-belligerents"'' if RS use that word? Quote from ''"Problems of Communism, Volume 39, Issue 6"'' page 107 - "As a '''co- belligerent''' of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of western and central Poland" [https://books.google.ca/books?id=I5wAEgugOiAC&pg=PA107&dq=As+a+co-+belligerent+of+Nazi+Germany,+the+Soviet+Union+secretly+assisted+the+German+invasion+of+western+and+central+Poland&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_3o6wucDuAhWBMX0KHWYTBCMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=As%20a%20co-%20belligerent%20of%20Nazi%20Germany%2C%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20secretly%20assisted%20the%20German%20invasion%20of%20western%20and%20central%20Poland&f=false] - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 05:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I think I can answer you by giving my opinions of "Co-belligerents". First, "those powers who were involved in hostilities before creation of the Axis" or "semi-independent states or states that were not recognised as such be listed as co-belligerents" one. I think we shouldn't divide countries like that. After all, they were all parts of Axis or Allies. And most of countries according to those criteria are "puppet state" or "government-in-exile". And also, "co-belligerents" are not using broad in WW2 military infobox and usually show contradiction. I think we should talk about that "co-belligerent" issue in other section, because I have lots of things to tell for. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 06:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: @[[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] well, sorry, I disagree, but I respect your position. Can I ask you to halt changing other articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_theatre_of_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1003493738&diffmode=source] until we reach some agreement here? Thanks - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 06:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: Ok. I will stop abput my edition on other pages until users agree. I hope we will get agreement which many can understand. Thanks for listening my views. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Paul,
::::::* to judge what would be controversial, I have to know which instance we are discussing, and it is really confirmed to be controversial, maybe
::::::* you should again specify which entity ou'd refer, the infobox e.g. does not contain any entry that would be not engaged after 1936
::::::* the same....many users move uncertain in such fields, exatly we should know which entity you refer, and when
::::::* formally there would not be a treshold, but again, here a general approach without knowing the exact subject will likely to fail
::::::- about [[co-belligerency]], I already posted above in the Vichy France section.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

:::::::KIENGIR, I deliberately avoid discussing concrete cases, because the only way to create a neutral content is to agree about some general criteria, and only after that check if each concrete case meets them. To create rules for pushing some specific case would be a totally flawed approach.
:::::::I do not want to specify anything, I am just asking what we consider the Axis (in terms of its composition and timeframe): thus, if the Axis is the military alliance, can we speak about the Axis before that alliance was signed? Thus, was a declaration of a war on Germany in September 1939 a declaration of a war on the Axis, or just on Germany? Can Japan be considered an Axis power by September, 1939? What about Romania or Hungary? And so on.

:::::::If there would be no threshold, why Vichy France was not considered a co-belligerent of the Axis until Bradley&Goldsmith claimed that in 2005 to justify some modern military actions of US? BTW, taking into account that Bradley&Goldsmith reflect a US-centric (and contested) viewpoint, it would be non-neutral to include Vichy into infobox unless evidences are provided that non-US scholarly community share that view. If no such evidences are provided, Vichy should be excluded from the infobox, and we should agree that some co-belligerency threshold does exist, at least, in WWII related literature.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not be a database of countries. It's not a table meant to exhaustively list every country and where they fit into the conflict. The infobox should summarize the key facts. It doesn't need to list, at all, all of the countries who supported or opposed in some way; just the key players. If you sat someone down to explain what the Axis powers were, and you said, "The Axis powers were the countries of...", whatever follows is what should be in the infobox. You probably wouldn't mention countries like Thailand or Iraq in that sentence. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 19:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:I don't think it should be a "databse" either. I do think it should include the most important cases which are discussed in sources. Like the Soviet Union. Likewise, just because something is "controversial" does not mean we should omit it from the infobox. The very fact that something is "controversial" here means it's notable and pertinent and is something that we should let our readers know. Omitting controversy isn't actually NPOV. Is there a way to include the controversy while noting that it's "controversial"? [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

*My opinion can be found back in [[Talk:Axis powers/Archive 8|Archive 8]] (Sept. 2020) and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=978790438 this edit]. I am also in complete agreement with {{u|FOARP}}'s comment at [[Talk:Tripartite Pact#Relationship between this agreement and "The Axis"]]. In direct response to Paul Siebert's question: we should not be weighting contributions to determine inclusion, which requires an arbitrary cutoff. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now my position is that IF we have a "co-belligerents" section in the infobox then the USSR most def belongs in there. I'm still mulling over the question of whether such a section should be in the infobox.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:Paul, despite I don't see other way, there may be so many unexpected whereabouts that just theoretically put delimiters will ultimately fail and the outcome will be as well debated, if we see al the set of variables, then we may easier construct a delimiter (despite in theory you have right).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
*{{tq|As a first step, I propose to discuss criteria for co-belligerence.}} We should not be taking a formally-defined category and placing things in it ourselves, at least not in an infobox where there is little room for explanations. The ''only'' valid argument for including anything under that term is if someone can demonstrate that that term is widely used to refer to their involvement in the war in reliable sources. I would strenuously oppose including anything in the infobox that cannot be cited to multiple high-quality, mainstream sources using the term "co-belligerent" specifically. If the term is not widely used, then the infobox should not use it either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Should [[Burma]] be added as a co-belligerent? ==

Per my note above, "why is [[Burma]] not in the infobox? It has its own section in the article under ' Bilateral agreements with the Axis Powers' and all four other countries in that section are listed as co-belligerents." Let's discuss this in the new section for transparency. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 02:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:I suggest you all (not directed at anybody in particular) stop opening different sections to argue different spins of the same thing and instead get a single centralized discussion to resolve this obviously rather annoying issue. As to "why is Burma not in the infobox", what is required is a [[WP:RS]] which identifies it as a co-belligerent (or equivalents of that term), not [[WP:SYNTH]] - this is the only way to resolve the issue to a satisfactory level for everybody, as otherwise I have the feeling you'll get bogged down into details of what is and what is not a co-belligerent, which is a waste of everybody's time as it would fall well foul of [[WP:NOR]]... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I agree RandomCanadian. If you want to do something with that "co-belligerent" stuff, then you should open "co-belligerent of WW2" in military history section first, not to mention whole the country which you think as co-belligerent in each talk page.... What a waste of time exactly.... -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 07:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I asked Piotrus to open a new section, since already the opened sections having deteriorated with many cross-reference and soon the whole would be hard to trace. So yes, hotch-potch should be continued in the already opened sections, but for any clear-cut proposal a new section is necessary and anything should be as concise as possible.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
:Only if it is universally described using the term in [[WP:RS]]es. Nothing should be listed there without that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== Poland ==

I added a section on the Polish-Hitler pact. Poland and Hitler were on friendly terms from 1933 through the end of 1938, and Poland participated in the bullying and hostilities against Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. This cooperation extended also to fascist Italy, in the Munich conference Benito Mussolini proposed the transfer of Czech lands to Poland, Hungary, and Germany.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 15:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:I undid your provocative edit per [[WP:POINT]].(also obvious POV). As a brand new account with very few edits who immediately jumped into controversy I suggest you don't do that in the future.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::Appears relevant and sourced, [[German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]], [[1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania]], [[Munich Agreement]] are all on Wikipedia. I will start a RfC. Certainly as relevant as the USSR to the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact - accomplishing [[Détente]] to not go to war with your neighbour (see also [[Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact]]) doesn't necessarily mean 'friendly'. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Much less so, but it does make some sense to discuss foreign relations of Axis with other countries in this article. As long as the section is properly sourced and doesn't include any fringe theories like Soviet/Russian claims that Poland provoked Germany to start WWII I think such a section may --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::I am not aware of any serious Soviet articles/books that blamed Poland of provoking WWII, although agree that fringe theorists are everywhere.

::::I am not sure standard non-aggression pacts should be included into this article (MRP had specific clauses and a secret protocol that made it not just a usual non-aggression pact).

::::Polish-Lithuanian conflicts do not make the former a German/Axis co-belligerent, just because Germany had never been at war with Lithuania.

::::Munich agreement is also marginally relevant, actually, one have separate annexation of Sudetes from subsequent events (dismemberment and annexation of Czechoslovakia).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note this article covers a period starting in 1936, so any military action or political support would count as relevant for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The article is about the Axis, not WW2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== RFC, inclusion of Soviet and Poland as Axis Co-belligerent states ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1615050074}}
{{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=14AFE1D}}
This RfC has four questions:
# Poland-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Poland section on Poland] be present?
# Poland-infobox: Should Poland be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
# USSR-section: Should the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=1003762716#Soviet_Union section on the USSR] be present?
# USSR-infobox: Should the USSR be designated as an Axis Co-belligerent state in the infobox?
16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
===Poll ===
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section''', but trimming both. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox'''. While Poland's co-bullying of Eastern European states, in cooperation with Hitler, in 1938 was significant and resulted in territorial gains for Poland, it would be inaccurate to summarize Poland's position as a Co-belligerent in the scope of the entire period. It is appropriate to have a section detailing Polish dealings with Hitler and the Axis, but a one line in the infobox is not appropriate here. The same applies to the USSR, even though the case for inclusion for the USSR is even weaker given that the dealings were more limited in time, in parallel to conflict with Japan, and of a clearly temporary nature to both sides. Other encyclopedic sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers Britannica] nor [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/axis-alliance-in-world-war-ii United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] do not list Poland nor the USSR at all - but they both do cover Finland's cooperation with the Axis.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::You got "USSR-section" twice in there. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Sorry, fixed.--[[User:Astral Leap|Astral Leap]] ([[User talk:Astral Leap|talk]]) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''' to '''USSR-infobox''' per detailed oppose in previous section, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=prev&oldid=1003762095 here]. '''No''' (with a hint of [[WP:SNOW]] and reminding others to not be [[WP:POINTY]]) to '''Poland-infobox''' per [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. <s>'''No comment''' on the others since I didn't check through that.</s> [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}} makes a compelling analysis of sources below. This, additionally with the fact that there are virtually only a few sources about that could support "USSR co-belligerence" The Poland proposal is, I'm quite sure, not to be taken seriously, effectively making it a very minor position (bringing [[WP:UNDUE]] into account), leads me to say that dedicated sections on either of Poland or USSR would be out-of-place. Opportunistic bullying (Poland) or taking advantage of weaker neighbours (USSR; no matter how this might offend the sensibilities of some editors) do not make them members of the Axis, and the term co-belligerence being rather rare in academic sources would make this even more out of place. A few short mentions of pre-war diplomatic events (for ex. the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), robustly sourced, remain certainly warranted. Changing to '''No dedicated sections''' on both relevant topics. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' to inclusion of USSR or Poland in the '''infobox''' (per the point of Infobox being that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - Polish and Soviet interactions in activities that aligned with the Axis powers activities not being a Key part of this articles coverage of the Axis powers. '''Yes''' to '''sections''' on USSR and/or Poland interactions with the Axis on the assumption that they follow the sources on the subject and aren't making interferences. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each, but I don't want to imply that either the Poland or USSR sections have to be exactly as they are and can't be edited and further improved. But yes to having a section on each. No the the infoboxes for the reasons I and others have stated above and in previous discussions on this page: basically, it's not true that either Poland or the USSR were co-belligerents of the Axis (at any point in time). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No infoboxes, yes body-content''', per all of the above. — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Where are the sources and what do they say?''' - I have not seen any sources describing Poland as a "co-belligerent" or words to that effect. We do have sources describing the USSR as such. There is controversy about whether the USSR was effectively an ally of Germany. There is not any controversy that I am aware of about whether or not Poland was a co-belligerent of Germany because I am yet to see any reliable source saying that Poland could have been considered such. I see a lot of opinions cited above, but no sources. If you want to add a one-sentence mention of Poland's annexation of a bit of Czech territory in the general history this might be due. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::just in case anyone is in any doubt on this, '''no, a poll cannot be used to overturn [[WP:V]]'''. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, No, Yes, No.''' Same as the other responders, I think the infobox is not the place for this stuff, but the article body is fine. In all cases, the infobox is for straightforward, uncomplicated facts. Anything that's really complicated should be restricted to prose in the article. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* *'''No to the infoboxes''', '''yes to a section''' on each. But robustly sourced. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to both infobox inclusions''', yes to having content about the various antebellum agreements that both Poland and the USSR had with Germany, but not as presented in the diffs. These sections should have headings that make it clear these two countries were not Axis powers, and the actual content of both should be agreed upon beforehand to avoid any disruption to the article. - [[User:Thewolfchild|wolf]] 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''', '''No''', '''Yes''', '''Yes'''. Some info from "Poland" section might be included somewhere, but this does not justify making such section. Key info: ''"On 31st March 1939 Poland received guarantees from Britain and France, and on 28th April 1939 Hitler repudiated the pact with Poland"''. Same with Poland in the infobox. The story with USSR was very different. Here Hitler and Stalin concluded the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|famous pact of aggression]], and most important, ''acted'' according to their pact by attacking very same Poland together. This is simply a historical fact. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::And which reliable source can you cite which supports this status of USSR as co-belligerent in the wider context, besides what I hope is not just your own [[WP:SYNTH]]? Again, see the diff on my reasoning above. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This is described with references in [[Co-belligerence#Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union_as_co-belligerents_in_Poland]] with refs: <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hager|first=Robert P.|date=2017-03-01|title=“The laughing third man in a fight”: Stalin’s use of the wedge strategy|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/cpcs/article-abstract/50/1/15/607/The-laughing-third-man-in-a-fight-Stalin-s-use-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.002|issn=0967-067X|quote=The Soviet Union participated as a cobelligerent with Germany after September 17, 1939, when Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blobaum|first=Robert|date=1990|title=The Destruction of East-Central Europe, 1939-41|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/probscmu39&id=686&div=&collection=|journal=Problems of Communism|volume=39|pages=106|quote=As a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union secretly assisted the German invasion of central and western Poland before launching its own invasion of eastern Poland on September 17|via=}}</ref> Yes, that co-belligerence lasted only until June 1941, but it was a key factor for decision by Hitler to attack Poland. More sources? Well, I do not think that any serious mainstream historians disputed the fact that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union concluded the MR pact (the secret protocols) and acted accordingly, and not only military [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20170949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' A section on Poland, if properly sourced, is helpful. The section on USSR has existed for years and nobody ever disputed it's relevance. As for the infobox, sources have been presented that clearly describe USSR as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, so there's that. But no such sources have been presented for Poland (probably b/c Poland never engaged in military operations on the German side, unlike USSR). Anyway, since no sources are present for Poland being co-belligerent, inclusion of Poland in the infobox would be wrong. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes to the sections''' but they should be improved nonetheless. '''Yes to the USSR-infobox''' with a footnote that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent only until the Operation Barbarossa started. There were joint military meetings and some coordinated operations by Wehrmacht and Red Army in the eastern Poland. That's enough for inclusion. '''No to the Poland-infobox'''. Polish policies in the 1930s were certainly opportunistic but hyenism in neighbourly relations doesn't make Poland a co-belligerent state.--[[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Sort of? No. Yes. Yes (1939).''' The Soviet Union and Germany jointly planned and executed the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939. They were clearly co-belligerents in 1939. This is supported by scholarly sources and the infobox should note that. We should not rely on popular histories that sweep the complexities of the period under the rug in favour of the simple wartime claim of "France, UK, USSR and USA vs Germany, Italy and Japan". Regarding a section on Poland, I'm worried that its going to immediately fall into [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Would prefer to instead expand the existing history section to provide more detail about the division of Czechoslovakia. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, No, Yes, Yes''' This discussion is like voting on a QAnon theory. Poland was not more co-belligerent than the United Kingdom and France, with their appeasement policy and giving all the countries around to Hitler, only to save peace for themselves. Since its victory in 1920, Poland was preparing itself for the next war against the Soviet Union, and since at least 1935 for a war against Nazi Germany - assuming, that these wars are inevitable. They only didn't know which of them will attack first, and certainly, Poles didn't know that they will attack together. [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]]) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)  — '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matrek|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. ([https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206446&oldid=62206341 diff])

* '''Comment''' : Can we have a SNOW close on question number two? Clearly, that one (which, as I pointed out, is a bit on the POINTY side) is not going to pass as no editor amongst all the above (myself included) has !voted yes. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

* I hate polls, because, in this context, they are against [[WP:DEMOCRACY|our policy]]. Instead, I decided to check what a random Wikipedian without any preliminary knowledge of a subject would have learned from sources if they started to search for the answer to this poll's question in Google Scholar. My presumption is that if we put Soviet or Polish flag to the infobox in "Co-belligerent" section, that implies that at least one source clearly says that USSR was the "Axis co-belligerent", AND this opinion represents majority view.
::"USSR "axis co-belligerent""[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=USSR+%22axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG=&oq=USSR+%22Axis+ 7 obscure sources, which are irrelevant to the topic]

::"Finland "Axis co-belligerent"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=finland+%22Axis+co-belligerent%22&btnG= hmmm...]

::Well, just ""Axis co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of the Axis"" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22Axis+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+the+Axis%22&btnG= not impressive]. It looks like the concept of the Axis co-belligerence is not popular in scholarly literature at all.

::Ok, although I assume I know virtually nothing about WWII, I still know Finland was a German co-belligerent. Let's check:

::"Finland AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Finland+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= 29 results]; most sources clearly describe Finland as Germany's co-belligerent. If we consider Finland as a "positive control", it demonstrates this search procedure works.

::Now let's try a "negative control". "Vichy AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Vichy+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22%29+&btnG= yields 2 irrelevant sources]. I checked Bradley&Goldsmith, and I found that that source does not call Vichy "the Axis co-belligerent". The exact wording is "'' had a nexus to the named enemy''". That is, by and large, a confirmation that the idea about Vichy's co-belligerency was proposed by these two authors, and it is not popular.

::Now, let's try USSR. "(Soviet OR USSR) AND ("Germany's co-belligerent" OR "co-belligerent of Nazi" OR "Germany co-belligerent")" yields [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%28Soviet+OR+USSR%29+AND+%28%22Germany%27s+co-belligerent%22+OR+%22co-belligerent+of+Nazi%22+OR+%22Germany+co-belligerent%22&btnG= 29 results], but, the first article (by Gheorghe) is about Romanian co-belligerence, several other sources are about ... Finland co-belligerence, and one source (Blobaum, no citations) is about USSR's co-belligerence.

::My conclusions:

::* The very term "Axis co-belligerent" is virtually non-existing in literature. Such a generalisation is simply not found in sources.

::* The information about the countries that are known to be Germany's co-belligerents can be easily found during a neutral search. Moreover, when I was looking for an information about USSR's co-belligerency, I found information about Finland and Romania despite the fact that that was not my goal.

::* The information about the countries that are generally not considered co-belligerents (Vichy) cannot be found using the same approach. That confirms that that approach is correct.

::* I even didn't try Poland, because it would be obvious that that information cannot be found (except probably veeery obscure sources).

::* The situation with USSR is close to that of Poland: I am sure it is possible to find a source saying that USSR was the Germany's co-belligerent, but the amount of efforts needed for that would be a clear demonstration that the results of that work by no means reflect a commonly accepted/majority viewpoint (obviously, minority views should not be presented in infoboxes).

::To summarise, I suggest to stop this nonsense, remove the "Axis co-belligerent" category altogether, and, probably, add Finland under category "Germany/European Axis co-belligerent" and Thailand to "Japan's co-belligerent".

::It is quite likely my search procedure is far from ideal, but the most important thing here is that I used the same approach for each country. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::Mostly agree with this, except to say that characterising Finland as a "co-belligerent" is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government and a minoirty of modern-day Finnish historians (Finland has largely discarded the "driftwood" theory). There is plenty of opinion that characterises them simply as an Axis member/German ally. Membership of the Axis is a contested concept, with people in a number of countries trying to characterise their governments of the era as not having been in the Axis for various reasons that should not necessarily be taken at face value. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Yes, No, Yes, Yes'''. 1) Poland interacted with the Axis for several years, and it can’t hurt the reader to summarize that history. However, 2) Poland did not fight alongside the Axis after 1 September 1939 (!), or even before. 3) The extensive Soviet-Axis (primarily German, but Italian too) rapprochement between August 1939 and June 1941 has to be mentioned, no question. Finally, 4) Soviet participation crossed the threshold of co-belligerence, with joint invasions, co-ordinated annexations, victory parades, intelligence sharing and more. - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 04:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::According to which sources? Your !vote reads a lot like [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I would point out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axis_powers&diff=1003864187&oldid=1003864106&diffmode=source these sources], as well as the definition of “co-belligerent” provided by the ''Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law'': "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] [[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]] 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::What does it mean "Poland interacted with the Axis" - use to have diplomatic relations with axis powers? I think all European countries had. Did Poland ever conspire with Hitler like the Soviet Union? No. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''' – on grounds documented and argued previously. While there can be elements of subjectivity in approaching such judgments, the preponderance of evidence, I believe, supports my conclusions. Poland was not motivated in its [[Cieszyn Silesia]] action by a desire to collaborate with Germany, but by a felt need to redress what Poland saw as a 1919–20 Czech assault on Poland, which had been fighting for its life; whereas the USSR is generally seen as having been a cobelligerent of Germany – each of them harboring a declared intent to hegemonize Europe and eventually the world – in their joint, coordinated September 1939 invasion of Poland. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 06:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes, Yes, No, No'''. The case for inclusion of Poland is strong. Poland [https://www.thejc.com/on-this-day-the-german-polish-non-aggression-pact-1.20771 signed the first alliance with Hitler in 1934]. It then spent most of the 30s bullying its neighbors and collecting scraps of territory allocated to it by Hitler. It bullied Lithuanian alongside Hitler in 1938. It [https://books.google.com/books?id=HzrpExvg2XgC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22witnessed+German-Polish+co-operation%22&source=bl&ots=5CGkJ-4PhB&sig=ACfU3U2hyZ2ABZ9CApKwu_JnHZ1YM4XeKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisvObnycXuAhUFC-wKHWiaBJcQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22witnessed%20German-Polish%20co-operation%22&f=false co-operated with Hitler in Czechslovakia], in the Munich conference it was on the side of the Axis overall together with Italy [https://books.google.com/books?id=PS76MzGVjSwC&pg=PA39&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia&f=false]. The allies considered Poland to be in league with Hitler.[https://books.google.com/books?id=nOALhEZkYDkC&pg=PA311&dq=Poland+1938+Czechoslovakia+ultimatum+Beck&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poland%201938%20Czechoslovakia%20ultimatum%20Beck&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=htqsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22Poland+was+viewed+as+complicit%22&source=bl&ots=EB8wPZBwpE&sig=ACfU3U26X-U_KmlKYRWL2wlmCUeJOfmosg&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Poland%20was%20viewed%20as%20complicit%22&f=false]. The case for Soviet inclusion is much smaller. The Soviet agreement was limited to Hitler's previous friend, Poland, which was a long-standing enemy of Russia and that occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (Affirmed by the alliance to belong to the USSR, not Poland). Poland was swiftly overrun by the German forces, and by [https://books.google.com/books?id=ApRHMNS1jtAC&pg=PA42&dq=Polish+commander+in+chief,+Marshal+Edward+Rydz%27Smigly,+ordered+a+general+retreat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmmvjfy8XuAhWSC-wKHX6hCekQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=Polish%20commander%20in%20chief%2C%20Marshal%20Edward%20Rydz'Smigly%2C%20ordered%20a%20general%20retreat&f=false September 10 was in general retreat] with the government in flight. On 17 September, Poland's defeat was manifest and the Germans had already crossed the Vistula, area promised to the USSR, and were racing towards the Bug River. At this late date the USSR decided to enter Poland, so that it would received its Western Ukraine and Belarus territories. The allies welcomed Solviet forces entering Poland as this stopped the Nazi advance east, Churchill himself saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail."[https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false] In addition to all this, the USSR was engaged in combat with Japan, an Axis power, and its puppets in September 1939. The USSR entering Poland was a mere footnote, an end to a Polish occupation that began in 1920. Polish-Nazi relations between 1934-38 were significant, and the Polish role in World War II was merely limited to being a line in the sand drawn by the Western Powers. The Polish army was swiftly defeated at a very small cost to the Nazis. The allies chose to declare war over Poland not because of any Polish virtue, Poland was seen by the allies as in league with Hitler up until 1939, but because of Hitler breaking promises (Austria, the post-Munich March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Poland being one state too far. The contribution of the USSR to the alliance was overwhelming, tens of millions of dead ([[World War II casualties of the Soviet Union]]), and most of the war in Europe against Hitler was prosecuted by the USSR.--[[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]]) 07:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — [[User:Erin Vaxx|Erin Vaxx]] ([[User talk:Erin Vaxx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erin Vaxx|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
::"Pact of non agression" as aa "alliance with Hitler"? What kind of nonsens is this? The USSR conspired with 3rd Reich to devide the entire Eastern Europe between them, not just Poland. -[[User:Matrek|Matrek]] ([[User talk:Matrek|talk]])
*'''No''' or '''Likely''' (but calls for improvements) '''No''' (this should not be even debated) '''Yes''' and '''Yes''' (per my prior comments) - [[User:GizzyCatBella|'''GizzyCatBella''']][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|🍁]] 07:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''No to all, very briefly describe Polish and Soviet relations with Nazis but not in current/proposed form'''. This Russian-Polish bickering has now gone way over the top here. Ask yourself the basic question, do other sources covering the Axis Powers as a topic showcase Poland or the Soviet Union as being associated with the Axis? The answer is overwhelmingly no. You can find a source supporting nearly any position on World War II, but the vast majority of sources covering the Axis as a topic do not cover the Soviet Union or Poland as Axis-cooperators (they do cover Axis aggression against them) at all, or if they do they do so briefly. I came here after [[https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 seeing this call to arms on the Polish Wikipedia], and in my mind peace in the answer, not fighting over history painting each other as bogeymen.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 08:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes''', 1. Poland obviously deserve a section, 2. per Biruitorul 3. Obviously deserve also a section per weight 4. Sure, since for a time it was when more Axis powers attacked Poland.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
* '''Yes''' to sections on both, no to info boxes on both.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Obvious no''' to including Poland, '''obvious yes''' to including USSR. I also need to point out that an RfC cannot be used to completely ignore facts and sources. Poland never fought alongside the Axis powers; Poland was invaded ''by'' Germany and the USSR, operating in unison. That is the very definition of "co-belligerent". Again, this is not really an RfC matter where a "vote" can be pushed for revisionist purposes. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. No.'''. A Polish section is absurd and even more misleading than the USSR in the infobox. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No. No. Yes. Yes.''' - the proposal for a Polish section appears to be a bit of [[WP:POINT]]y [[Putin]]ite [[whataboutism]] (in the sense that this is a propaganda line that's been pushed by Putin recently, see 6th paragraph [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/ here] for example). For USSR, "co-belligerents" makes more sense for Wikipedia even if most sources use the term "ally". Agree with User:KENGIR somewhere above that the present infobox is fine.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (added sig later)
*'''No to infobox, Maybe to sections''' - The evidence presented thus far suggests that overwhelmingly, academic literature does not describe the USSR or Poland as Axis powers, and should not be listed as such in the infobox. Co-belligerence is not equivalent to membership in the Axis powers unless sources say so. This article can include information in its body about the Axis powers' relations with the USSR, Poland, etc; it's not immediately apparent what degree of depth is appropriate, and should be determined by further editing and not by an RfC at this time. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::The proposal isn't to describe either as an Axis power. No one is proposing that. The proposal is to describe one or the other or both as "co-belligerents". For the Soviet Union, this is supported by sources, as you acknowledge. So I'm not sure if I understand your comment.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm largely swayed by Paul Siebert's argument so far, that based on the level with which it is used in the literature, at the infobox level co-belligerence is a valid way to summarize Finland and Thailand's status at most. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I disagree, but fair enough.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 04:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I'd say even for Finland this is probably over-stating it, since the idea that Finland was only a co-belligerent is basically the POV of the Finnish wartime government and a minority of modern-day Finnish historians. For Thailand and Finland we have sources explicitly identifying them as Axis members. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I was trying to hedge a bit by saying "at most" because I didn't want to risk poison pilling the discussion by making what we decide for USSR or Poland dependent on changes to Finland, but you're likely correct that even Finland's position as "co-belligerent" isn't well-supported. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' to '''Poland-section''' and '''USSR-section'''. '''No''' to '''Poland-infobox''' and '''USSR-infobox''' - The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence. Nevertheless the context collaboration/co-belligerence should be explained within the main body of the article.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::"The infobox should be used to summarize instances of only major and long term collaboration/co-belligerence". I agree. However, do not you think that MP pact leading to the attack by Hitler on Poland (that event started WWII!) and the coordinated attack by USSR to the same Poland two weeks later was an example of MAJOR collaboration/co-belligerence. Hence it must be in infobox.[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::How can you say "yes" to section which has no supporting references that would demonstrate why it should be on a page about Axis countries? This poll can't simply be used as a way of disapplying [[WP:V]]. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Maybe''' to sections for both, '''No''' to infobox. Per Paul Siebert's search, I don't think we can say that this accurately characterizes the weight of scholarly opinion. However, including reasonable length historical background in the article will allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|buidhe]]''' 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. Yes.''' For reasons already stated,[[User:Eccekevin|Eccekevin]] ([[User talk:Eccekevin|talk]]) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes. No. Yes. No.''' Poland and USSR fought along with Germany (in Czechoslovakia and Poland, respectively), but there are not widely associated with the Axis, bu with the anti-Axis camp; listing them along countries such as Finland would confuse the regular readers.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 08:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''No to cramming the infobox, I'm fine with a section on Polish & Soviet activities with Axis powers.''' - The infobox is for summarizing key aspects (as others have pointed out), let the finer details and exceptions be explained by summarizing reliable sources in the body text of the article, not by warring over the top of the page. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No to all''' and remove co-belligerant segment from the infobox per [[user:Paul Siebert]]'s analysis. The sections on all cobelligerants can be removed too, because with 111K of readable prose, the articles is [[WP:TOOLONG]].[[User:Mottezen|Mottezen]] ([[User talk:Mottezen|talk]]) 04:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''No, no, yes, yes''' (that is, include in the body but not the infoboxes.) They're simply not generally described as "Axis co-belligerents" (whatever that somewhat vague term means) in the sources, so putting it in the infobox, which can't really explain it, is nonsense - things like that in infoboxes need to be extremely, unambiguously clear while also being central to the topic, none of which applies here. I would support removing the co-belligerent bit from the infobox entirely on these grounds - it's just too vague and ultimately feels like [[WP:OR]] in context, especially given the editors trying to come up with their own personal definitions for it above (if the sources don't define it in clear and unambiguous terms, we shouldn't be using it in an infobox.) However, both had agreements with the Axis powers of one sort or another and these should be explained in the appropriate part of the article. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

===Call to arms on Polish Wikipedia===
Over at the Polish Wikipedia, [[User:Hanyangprofessor2]] which is a [[User:Piotrus]] alternative account, [https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikiprojektu:Militaria&diff=62206341&oldid=62195693 posted this call to arms]. Piotrus is blaming "Russian editors" for comparing the USSR to Poland and "starting a vote" at [[: en: Talk: Axis_powers # Poll]]. Piotrus is calling Polish editors to vote and saying that if English is a problem they should: "the Google translation from Polish to English works very well, right button in Chrome and you can translate the whole discussion, and it is also easy to translate your comment / voice from Polish to English and paste there". I posted a note at AN.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Just noting that I take a very dim view of the [[WP:CANVASS]] issues that this discussion now suffers from, per the above. I have [[WP:ECP]]'d this article talk page for one month, which is an extreme measure, to be sure. This is an [[WP:ACDS]] action which I will be recording in the [[WP:AEL|log]] momentarily. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|El_C}} that was a bad idea from Piotrus, but looking at the above discussion I see that all but three accounts in the above discussion are en-wiki EE regulars and pretty much none of them Polish. I don't think any of them have been canvassed. The three accounts which are either brand new or low edit count are the OP, Astral Leap who started this [[WP:POINT]]y RfC and about whom concerns have been expressed previously ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive]), Erin Vaxx, which created an account in Sept 2020, made a couple edits, then immediately jumped into this controversy when it began. These two obviously were not canvassed by Piotrus. The third account is Matrek and I guess it's possible they came here as a result of Piotrus' post on pl wiki though their comment makes a coherent and well thought out argument which means it should be taken at face value.
::Oh yeah. Bob not snob too I guess.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Which means that whatever canvassing happened has had essentially no impact on the outcome here.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, my notice above is just that — a ''notice.'' This isn't the place to discuss this matter at length. The place to do so is at [[WP:AN]], where the discussion remains ongoing. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Update: Piotrus has been topic-banned for one month by El_C as an AE; and Astral has been given a one-week block for edit warring with Volunteer Marek (although they're appealing on a technicality - in any case I haven't looked at the specifics, just notifying on this talk page in case anybody missed it/is not aware of the issue). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

*I think that having [[WP:Canvass]] is fine, merely as a fair advice, but enforcing it with topic bans and blocks is damaging for WP. We must encourage, not discourage communications in the project. For example, someone inviting friends from another project to participate here is actually a good idea, assuming that they will contribute constructively. If these "friends" (whoever) will not contribute constructively and will behave badly here, then yes, block ''them'' on spot, very simple. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

::* My personal view is the above poll is simply a [[WP:POINT]]y attempt to get around [[WP:V]]. We simply don't have sources laying out the view of Poland espoused above as being a German ally. We do have (some) sources stating this about the USSR. But ultimately this is a page about the Axis, and we don't have any sources stating that the USSR was an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::*And if (say) he had left a similar message on the Russian wiki about "Polish editors" fine, it would not have been canvassing. But we cannot allow the project to be highjacked by nationalism (and no I never invite friends from another project, even when I think their input might be valuable, its not as if we are a well-kept secret). Would it be OK to (say) post on Stormfront "Hey they are trying to say the nazis killed jews, just pop over and have a look"? No it would not, and this is the point, a rule has to be that, a rule. It cant be a rule only when its conviniant to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I agree: it would not be appropriate to invite "friends" from Stormfront. But I hope that Polish WP is not Stormfront. As about Russian wiki, there are actually many messages out there about disputes on English WP. As you can imagine, many guys on ruwiki are not exactly "pro-Western". Under no circumstances I reported anyone involved in such cross-wiki communications to ANI. And I think that was right. BTW, they had at least two EEML-like affairs on ruwiki, and some participants were editing here. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

*Painting this as a simple attempt to ìnvite "friends from another project" is disingenuous. Piotrus is (like VM and other regulars) certainly aware of the EE ArbCom situation, and justifying it as an attempt to bait a potential sock is no excuse. What AL did is nigh inexcusable, but doesn't change the fact that [[WP:CANVASS]] isn't exactly a secret either... Anyway, this discussion has been had at AN and there's also now a block appeal from AL that needs (IMHO) rejecting, this unfortunate parenthesis should for the time being be closed and the regular course of events hopefully resumed. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

== This article is still too long and has too many parts unreferenced ==

Per [[WP:LENGTH]] if an article has more than 80kb of readable prose it should certainly be split (and if one longer than 60kb it should "probably" be split). Using the prose-length measuring tool I see this page currently has a prose-length of 106kb. 
I'm going to make the [[A Modest Proposal|modest proposal]] right now that any unreferenced content should be cut so we can get this page down to a reasonable size. This is entirely justified by [[WP:V]]. I'm sure the endless fights over who gets the mark of shame in the infobox are entertaining, but it really isn't as important as the basic fact that this article is a garbage-heap in terms of referencing. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well, but I disagree one removal and the shortening of the Italy section, it has weight in the article.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
:Yes, the article is long. But no, I do not see how it can be split without damaging the article. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] [[User talk:The Banner|talk]] 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:What unreferenced content?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::Having had a quick edit myself in the Indo-China part of the article, some of the sections which are summaries of "Main" articles are thin on referencing.[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 12:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::So we just port over a couple of refs from the main articles.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Whole sections of this article have no references at all, or only one. Simply porting over references from the main articles (typically "COUNTRY during WW2" articles) is questionable methodology when the immediate question for some of the countries here that are unreferenced is "why are they on this page?" and that question is not answered on the respective page. For example, there is no explanation really as to why Laos should be included here. No reference is provided for Manchukuo. Iraq is limited to a single reference to the text of Fuhrer Order, when what is really needed is a secondary source telling us that this was a German/Axis-Iraqi alliance of some sort. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::If the material is covered in the main article, and is source it is perfectly acceptable to just port over a ref. Also if it is well sourced in the main article we only need one or two sources here for convenience.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::But that material should support that country being included on this page as a member of the Axis. If it doesn't (and, e.g., for Iraq, it doesn't seem to, since the Fuhrer Order is a primary source requiring interpretation, and the page discusses the course of operations in Iraq in factual terms without providing a source saying "Iraq was an axis ally" or words to that effect). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Does "pro-nazi"count [[https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fworld%2f2019%2f10%2f10%2factually-president-trump-some-kurds-did-fight-world-war-ii%2f]], [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13610702]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Seems like we're still making an interpretation rather than having a secondary source tell us that there was an alliance of some sort. There's no doubt that Rashid was pro-Nazi, no doubt also that the Germans and Italians supported him militarily, no doubt also that he fought against the British, but does this add up to alliance? I'd be much more comfortable if there were a reference saying so. To take another example, the Shah of Iran has been described as being pro-German, and he also fought the allies, is this sufficient for us to say that Iran was an Axis country without having a reference saying that or words to that effect?
:::::::::It seems to me that this area of history has been the subject of enough writing that it should be very simple to find references explicitly saying who was and was not an Axis ally, and if these references can't be found then we should hesitate about saying so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::You seem hung up on the word ally. They received military aid from the Axis, they fought against the British during ww2.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What I'm hung up on is sourcing, particularly on a page which is about an alliance. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well then it should only be about those nations who were part of the Axis or allied to the Axis and not just one nation, should it not?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The problem with that is it means excluding countries which the sources are pretty explicit about being part of the Axis such as Finland, which never signed any official alliance with Germany beyond the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Axis does not appear to be a formal alliance with a clear list of signatories. Even the Tripartite Pact was never formally invoked and never really functioned beyond a few technical committees. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::So? either we go with exactly what RS say or we allow some leeway. But this page is Azis powers, not (for example) Nazi Germany (which has its own international relations page). I agree we should not get hung up on the word ally.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==Co-belligerent==
This article is not about WW2, it is not about "the Axis in WW2". Thus I am unsure if Co-beligerant should even be here. After all WW2 was not the only war fought by an Azis power in this period.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:Co-belligerents should only be included here if there is a reference saying that they were an ally of Germany/Italy/Japan/the Axis. For example, Iran did fight against the UK and the USSR, but I have not seen a single reference referring to them as having been a German/Japanese/Italian/Axis (or whatever) ally and as such I would not support them being included unless a reference can be provided to support inclusion. On the other hand Finland's wartime government claimed to be simply a co-belligerent of Germany, but this should not be decisive since there is plentiful evidence in reliable sources stating that Finland was basically a German ally and part of the axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::So it has to say, ally, not aided, sided with, helped, accomplice, just ally? This is why this is a bad idea to have this. What is a "co-beligerant"? This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe. It would be best (to my mind and to avoid further conflict) to just remove this from the info box and discuss details in the body.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::{{tq|"This article covers at least 3 years without a significant war in Europe."}} - which period is that? If we're talking about pre-1936 then I think you may be correct. I don't think the sub-headings in the infobox are particularly helpful as it leads to daisy-chain arguments (e.g., "Finland was self-described during the war as a co-belligerent and is included as part of the Axis, therefore any country that was arguably a co-belligerent of the Axis was also part of the Axis").
::The reason to include Finland (and indeed any other country) is not that it was a co-belligerent, it's that reliable sources describe it as having been a German ally and/or axis member regardless of the claims of its wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::And again, does it have to only be ally, or can it also be aided, sided with, helped, accomplice (or even pro)? By not having this heading, and only including actual signed up members we remove the issue.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::But what is an "actual, signed up member"? If this article is restricted to [[Tripartite Pact]] signatories then it becomes simply a duplicate of the [[Tripartite Pact]] article. A review of the sources shows the Axis is defined more widely than the Tripartite Pact. Other alliances of different degrees of formality were involved. Bottom line is if anyone wants to include a country here they need to provide sources supporting that inclusion and they need to be pretty explicit about that country having been an ally of the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::And then we have arguments over what is and is not acceptable criteria. But yes this does begin to look all a bit forky, an article created just to say X or Y was part of the axis.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Even if that wasn't the original intent, and even if (which I believe is possible) the article can be edited so as not to be a [[WP:POVFORK]], {{tq|"an article ... just to say X or Y was part of the axis"}} is what it seems to be right now. This is why we have these repeated, facile arguments about the infobox which are driven entirely by [[WP:POINT]]y behaviour.
::::::This article should be GA at least, but it isn't and stands no chance of becoming so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 15:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::maybe this then [[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Axis-Powers]] should be our model, we only include nations that "joined the Axis" rather than just some connection with it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Actually, by using a loose definition of the term "the Axis" (which is not just a Tripartite Pact) and trying to introduce a strict term "Axis co-belligerent" we are making a big mistake. In reality, that division is artificial. Thus, some sources (vide supra) describe Romania as "Germany co-belligerent", despite the fact that it was the Axis member. And that is not a mistake: actually, it is possible to be the Axis member without being Axis co-belligerent (Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR, as far as I know). I agree it would be better to get rid of "co-belligerent" section at all. With regard to Finland, it never formally joined the Tripartite Pact, but, keeping in mind that the term "The Axis" is more loose, I see no reason why cannot it be included as the Axis power (with a reservation that it never signed the Tripartite Pact). That is what EB says:

:"''During the war a number of other countries joined the Axis, induced by coercion or promises of territory or protection by the Axis powers. They included Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia (after Czechoslovakia had divided in 1939) in November 1940, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in March 1941, and, after the wartime breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia (June 1941). Finland, although it did not formally join the Tripartite Pact, cooperated with the Axis because of its opposition to the Soviet Union (to which Finland had been forced to cede territory in 1940) and entered the war in 1941.''"

I think if we use a loose definition of the Axis, a division onto the Axis members and co-belligerents should be removed and replaced to "Other states".--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I'd be happy to only include countries which we actually have sources saying were members of the Axis here. The title of the article is "Axis powers" (setting aside what a "power" is ....) this means it should be about Axis countries. The following have no source explicitly identifying them as part of the Axis:
::::*Iraq
::::*Wang Jingwei regime
::::*Denmark
::::*Manchuria (though I note [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Axis_Air_Forces/4PgwCKQQP1gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Wang+Jingwei%22+%22Axis%22&pg=PA259&printsec=frontcover this source at least] identifies them as part of the Axis)
::::*Spain
::::*Ba Maw regime
::::*USSR
::::*Vichy
::::*Albania
::::*Serbia
::::*Greece
::::*Cambodia
::::*Mengjiang
::::*Laos
::::*Vietnam
::::*Philippines
::::The various Japanese puppet states could fairly be covered in a sub-section under the Japan section on the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This would, anyway, bring the focus back to where it belongs and shorten the article to the length where it needs to be (it needs to lose at least 20kb to meet [[WP:LENGTH]]). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:I would rather (to avoid future conflict) just avoid any inclusion of anyone not actually described as a member of the axis powers by RS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support removal of co-belligerents altogether''' — Slater's right, "co-belligerent" only makes sense in the context of a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war. This article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII, some countries' status changes over time, and that seems to be the root of the dispute over whether countries should be listed as co-belligerents. The idea of "Axis co-belligerents" requires more nuance than is possible (or desirable) in an infobox. Listing almost any country as a "co-belligerent" in the infobox gives the reader an incomplete picture at best (at worst, a completely false picture). So, the best move is to just list the Axis powers in the infobox, and not list co-belligerents at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] [[User talk:Levivich|harass]]/[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]] 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:*This is valid point. However, USSR and Nazi Germany, for example, did attack Poland from two sides, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: as in, in an attack, or a particular war". Would not you agree? Speaking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time should be included on this page'' [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*I agree about the infobox, but I do not agree that "this article isn't limited to the Axis in WWII". Specifically, I do not think there is a any clear definition of the Axis not in terms of World War II. It is true that the term originates in the years just before the war, but war trumps diplomacy. "Axis", like "Entente", "Central Powers" and "Allies", refers to one side in a global conflict—and in all cases was a product of the war itself as much as of pre-war diplomacy. The reason we should remove the co-belligerents (''except Finland, which was fully Axis'') is that it is very likely to mislead the casual reader and the infobox is for just such a reader. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- It was "controversial" to put co-belligerence since exist of this term. By its meaning co-belligerence is the state which related to the war which has common enemy. By its vague meaning, I think we shouldn't use the word co-belligerence here. Other states what [[User:FOARP]] mention is puppet-states and they have participated various activities with Axis power (except for Soviets which is controversial right now), so I don't think we should delete them for now. -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not proposing deleting them, just grouping them under the heading of their "boss" country if there is no source identifying them as a member of Axis. Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary (governed by a German-installed government after 1944) are described in multiple sources as Axis members, signed the Tripartite pact, so they would remain separate (but noted as governed as puppet states). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any major change on the outline and categorization of the infobox. Professionally and well set modifications possible. I still stand not any general guide may decide inclusion in this complex area, but all entities should be judged and discussed one-by-one.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
*'''SUPPORT removal of co-belligerents from the infobox'''. The title of this article is "Axis powers". Naturally you'd expect the infobox to list countries that we know are Axis power because reliable sources call them that. Is a co-belligerent necessarily a member of the Axis? This is dubious. Finland claimed to be a co-belligerent during the war but plenty of reliable sources simply identify them as a member of the Axis. In the case of Finland, the idea that they were "co-belligerents" is generally just considered to be wartime spin, not undoubted fact. We have sources identifying the USSR as a "German Ally" during the M-R pact, but again this is not the same as sources identifying the USSR explicitly as a member of the Axis. The same goes for puppet states that are not explicitly described as Axis-members in reliable sources, though these may be grouped under their "boss" country title - puppet states that are explicitly described as Axis members in reliable sources should remain in the infobox. The M-R pact can be covered in the article under bilateral relations, a section on Poland is just trolling TBH. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' strongly - for two reasons. First, the page in current state is actually very good and informative. Being only slightly familiar with this subject, I found many things I did not know about on this page, in particular all these complex connections between different countries during WWII. Removing more than 50% of content from this page (as suggested) will dramatically degrade it. Secondly, some countries from the list above do belong to this page. There is no any doubts. For example, USSR and Nazi Germany did both attack Poland, after having a preliminary written agreement about it. Hence they indeed were true co-belligerents based on "a specific episode of belligerence: such as an actual attack and an actual war". Thinking logically, any country that was a co-belligerent with Axis countries, ''during any period of time'' should be included on this page. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|My very best wishes}} - Including states which fought against the Allies but for which there is no reference at all saying they were in the Axis and which are not presently included on this page (e.g., Iran)? Regarding length, the corresponding article on [[Allies of World War II|the Allies]] is half the length, covers more countries, and is in every way better. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*I am saying we must include all countries that collaborated military (or had significant political agreements/pacts) with Axis countries on this page if we want this page to be interesting and informative. And especially such pacts and coordinated military actions (with Nazi Germany) which started the entire WWII. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::* Discussing them on this page in terms of bi-lateral relations with Axis countries, yes, but in the infobox in what is supposed to be a list of Axis countries? I would say that needs a source saying explicitly that they were in the Axis. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::*We are not talking about "bi-lateral relations". Everyone had such relations with everyone. We are talking about a ''de facto'' actual military alliance with Axis countries. But, yes, these are not Axis countries, and therefore they are NOT included in in the infobox as Axis countries, but separately. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::*How does it make sense in the infobox for a page about the Axis, to list countries that weren't in the Axis? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:*Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think anyone is suggesting removing 50% of the content of the page. This relates solely to the infobox and to if we should use the specific term "co-belligerent"; at least based on most of the opinions I'm seeing here, the more in-depth details on those Axis-adjacent nations and their involvement would remain in the article body without much change. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents'''- Co-belligerence has a rather strict legal meaning, it's not for Wikipedian editors to judge. Do note that the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2213959?seq=1 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland] defines the country as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", not a co-belligerent.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*Agree on Finland. It is not only the peace agreement that says this, either, plenty of historians say the same. The entire idea that being simply a "co-belligerent" of the Axis was a thing is basically the POV of Finland's wartime government. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::*100% agree on Finland. It is the whole reason there is a co-belligerents section in the infobox that attracts countries that don't belong. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::*No. As this page correctly tells, "Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact, it fought against the Soviet Union alongside Germany in the 1941-44 Continuation War", and so on. See the photo of Mannerheim with Hitler. Finland absolutely must remain on the page, just as [[Vichy France]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Is this an article about the Tripartite Pact? No. So why is membership of the (never actually invoked, barely ever operated) Tripartite Pact decisive as to whether a country should or should not be described as an Axis member? What is decisive is reliable sources describing Finland as being an Axis member, which means we should keep them there as an Axis member. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: See, you misunderstood what they've said. Finland and Vichy France, Iraq, Thailand is not a co-belligerent of Axis power. They are Axis power themselves. The countries that belong to "co-belligerent" section should be deleted, and we are going to put it on Axis itself. Like "Tripartite Pact" and "Other countries" -- [[User:웬디러비|Wendylove]] ([[User talk:웬디러비|talk]]) 01:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'd say any country for which sourcing can be found describing them as a member of the Axis should be kept. For Finland and Thailand we have this so they should stay in a list of Axis countries. For Vichy and Iraq we don't have this. In fact it is unclear to me why Vichy and Iraq should be included (and Iran not included) in a list of Axis countries, since we don't have any sources saying they were members of the Axis (and AFAIK we also don't have sources saying they were co-belligerents). [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Neutral to removal/keeping the term "co-belligerents", but retain Finland, Thailand, Iraq in the infobox'''- No matter what term is decided on to describe, they cooperated military and declared/waged war in cooperation/alliance with the Axis powers and should be shown in the infobox in some capacity... Neutral on inclusion or not of the USSR --[[User:Havsjö|Havsjö]] ([[User talk:Havsjö|talk]]) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Happy to include both Finland and Thailand as simply Axis members. We can have a footnote for Finland saying it is described by some (not all) as being a co-belligerent. Thailand would need a source saying they were a co-belligerent even for that. Iraq, on the other hand, we both have no sources describing as a "co-belligerent" AND no sources saying they were an Axis-member - so why describe them as being either? [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::According to a 2008 ''[[Helsingin Sanomat]]'' poll with 28 history professors ([https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000004606365.html link]), 16 said that Finland was allied with Germany, 6 disagreed and 4 didn't want to take a clear stance. However, the fact that it wasn't a de jure alliance made a difference with things like that the United States never declared war on Finland despite being de facto allied with Germany. So it should stay but the relationship should covered with more detail. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support removal of co-belligerents from the infobox''' unless significant mainstream sources can be found using the term; the term has very specific meaning, so it's [[WP:OR]] for us to apply it ourselves unless we have sources doing so. However, I don't support removing the related material from the article body - we should avoid the term "co-belligerents" unless directly supported by the sources, but the body of the article can discuss the full depth of involvement other nations had in the Axis war effort while following the sources more closely. It's only the infobox, which has trouble reflecting the full nuance of the sources, that is the problem. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

== [[Independent State of Croatia]] ==

The page describes Croatia as a puppet state (three sources).[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is however [[:Category:Client states of Nazi Germany]] and [[Client state]]. Some consistency would be nice.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Something may be founded/created as a puppet state, which after will be a client state.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
:::This, plus if the sources say "puppet state" then that's what we're calling it - we don't typically second-guess reliable sources. "Puppet state" is (according to our article) a kind of "Client state", but not all client states are puppet states if our article is to be believed. What a category is called is not decisive of anything because it is often not based on the sources. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)