Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:19, 28 March 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 27 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 25 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 73 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country

A few hours ago @Dennis Brown closed a discussion about merging Republic of Crimea (country) into Republic of Crimea (a federal subject). I believe this was an erred decision as the two entities are completely different things.

For this reason I have created the following diagram which explains the situation:

As you can see the confusion strives on using the same name for two different things. Let me explain:

1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a subdivision of Ukraine completely separate from the city of Sevastopol.
2. These two subdivisions decided to merge to form a new independent sovereign country called "Republic of Crimea". Which we hosted at Republic of Crimea (country).
3. Then, this new independent country requested accession to the Russian Federation.
4. However, the accession was granted separately: one for the Autonomous Republic, and another for Sevastopol.
5. The short-lived "Republic of Crimea" (as a country) was never acceded to Russia.
6. The Autonomous Republic, as it was now a federal subject rather than an autonomous republic, changed its name to "Republic of Crimea" (which we host at Republic of Crimea).

I strongly believe that redirecting Republic of Crimea (country) → Republic of Crimea would create confusion to our readers.

Furthermore, we already have several articles about short-lived sovereign states which sets a precedent for this kind of articles.

The Republic of Crimea (country) was quite well developed already and explain the situation at hand.

All these arguments were explained in the merge discussion but for some reason they were not considered "qualitative" enough as other arguments as WP:CONSENSUS establishes. I believe this to be an error of judgement and for that reason I do not seek any sanctions against Dennis.

Therefore, having said all this, I hereby request that this merge is reverted and that Republic of Crimea (country) remains as a standalone article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think other things need to be considered beyond just whether they're different. I'd ask, is it practical? Is there much that can be said about one that does not concern the other? I don't think so, really. They are so closely intertwined that if you talk about one, you'd have to twist yourself into all kinds of shapes if you want to avoid infringing on the "topic-territory" of the other. They may be separate entities, but they are only notable in combination, as part of a single historical event. CodeCat (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do believe this is practical. The article about the Republic of Benin (1967) sets that precedent which lasted only one day. In 50 years from now future generations will be looking about information on the Republic of Crimea as a country but they will instead find an article about a federal subject. I believe that what's best for Misplaced Pages is to keep a standalone article on the country so that when future generations search for this information they find an article focused solely on the short-lived nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • But what information is there, that is not already covered by Republic of Crimea, and could not be added to it in the future? CodeCat (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • First, that as soon as you start reading the Republic of Crimea article it states that it is a federal subject. That will be confusing to our readers. Second, that Russia recognized it as an independent sovereign state is a pretty big deal (source USA Today). You don't need to talk about that in an article about the federal subject. And finally, legally alone there are reasons why this article should be kept: this independence is what allowed Crimea and Sevastopol to be annexed. Without this independence they wouldn't have been able to join Russia due to restrictions in international laws and in Russian laws. So, the entity did exist and was notable by its own.. regardless of how short its existence was, for what purpose it was created, or its lack of recognition. We don't know if in the future this might set a precedent and the article is developed further scholarly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental question here, is, is it necessary to have an article which largely duplicated Republic of Crimea, and which was confusing to the reader because of its title "Republic of Crimea (country)"? I think it was unnecessary, especially considering that it was merely a stepping stone into entering the federation. There is no reason, fundamentally, why this cannot be explained in the article Republic of Crimea, and in Sebastopol, centralising the information and making it easier to understand that there was a brief nominal independence where the two were unified. Regardless, this is not the discussion to be having here. The merger discussion is closed. One can talk about whether it was correct or not to close the discussion, but the merits of the arguments themselves are better left for the talk page of Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will only say that my closing was based upon the actual discussion and not outside information, in accordance to standard closing procedure. I feel my closing, while difficult since it went against the count, was inline with the consensus but have no issue with it being reviewed. If my fellow admin feel I should be reverted, I will leave it to their judgement. If we want to discuss new information or anything outside of errors in my closing, this is really the wrong venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are always mentioning the counter but you have never addressed the fact that the Republic of Crimea (country) united both the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol. Your closure denotes that you gave a lot of weight to the belief that they are "the same country" but they are not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Looking at the history there does seem to be some cowboy action going on with those that disagree with the close. It isn't my place to enforce, so an involved admin may want to drop a note or two explaining that we don't unilaterally ignore consensus simply because we disagree. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You need to understand that the reason the article is being reverted is because they are challenging your declaration of consensus. They don't believe that consensus was achieved and I agree with them. Per, WP:IAR they can safely revert your closure. Admin closure is not final especially when it's highly contended. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• But there is a proper way to do it, otherwise you have a revert war, chaos. The proper way is review, not everyone saddling up and playing cowboy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you that Misplaced Pages is not a bureacracy. If you want to go the proper way then you, as the closing admin, should revert the action per WP:NOCONSENSUS as your action has been contested by several editors. But here we are, you are the one allowing this to happen by not reverting your action. People make mistakes. Don't want this to happen? Revert back, and either let the discussion go for more days or declare it as "no consensus". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees with a potential action, it does not mean "unanimity". As WP:CONSENSUS says, discussions are "not a vote". It is often a "less-then-perfect compromise", as the policy states. Dennis was not party to the discussion itself. He is a neutral third party, and he has determined what the consensus is in this particular case. One can contest his determination with a review, but one doesn't just overturn everything because one disagrees. One goes through the appropriate channels. Please do so, rather then demanding that he overturn his decision. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you once again that Misplaced Pages is not a bureacracy. His "determination" is being contested by several editors. I didn't create WP:NOCONSENSUS and that policy is very very clear about what should be done in cases like this. If you want to go through the "proper" channels then go read that policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• But it's not Misplaced Pages is not a bureacracy so I don't have to follow findings I don't agree with. You can challenge the finding but wait until the finding is negated or overturned before acting. --NeilN 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin determined that there was consensus to merge per arguments. However, I noticed the following phrase in policy: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." This opens can of worms and I think should be changed in policy, because it means that all decisions by admins in contentious subject areas can and will be successfully overturned by one of the "sides". Let's not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That depends on whether there was "consensus" or not. This is disputed. I believe that there was a "level of consensus" as that describes. I believe that the piece you are referring to is not with regard to RfCs or discussions, for which their are official channels to dispute, but with regard to individual actions on the part of an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the policy. Dennis is a well-respected administrator. His decision was tough, but he justified it. Everything is contested by "several editors". We must now wait for a third party administrator to review this case, and see what he decides. In the meantime, I suggest we sit tight. Neither of us are fit to determine whether there was "no consensus" or not, as we were involved parties. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There was definitely no consensus. That doesn't automatically mean Dennis Brown was out of line to make the decision he did, but there's no way one can pretend there was any sort of consensus on that merge discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn Merge - Clearly a case of no consensus, the merge was ongoing while a-lot of other high drama was taking place involving the Crimea article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close by Dennis Brown for two reasons. First, essentially per Nytend below. WP:Consensus of small group does not override "Five pillars" of the entire project. Second, I do believe that Dennis Brown was an uninvolved administrator, and he did exactly what he suppose to do: he made closing based on the strength of the arguments, rather than on head count. That is consistent with policy. Dennis Brown was absolutely right. Most important, this is not the place to re-negotiate administrative decisions one does not like, as long all procedures were properly followed.My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, Dennis suggested this was the place to initiate a review of his actions so... --NeilN 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, Dennis was not right.

I examined every single supportive opinion and they all came to the same argument: "they are the same thing, therefore they should be merged". But they are NOT the same thing. The Republic of Crimea (country) united Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic. The Republic of Crimea (federal subject) is the Autonomous Republic but as a federal subject (and without including Sevastopol!). This is huge. Sevastopol's trade and commerce alone doesn't even compare to the Autonomous Republic's thanks to the Port of Sevastopol. This is why we are challenging this determination, because the administrator did not give due weight to this fact.

His very own explanatory closure shows this: "The arguments claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name (a technicality towards unification with Russia) are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country." This clearly shows that the administrator was completely unaware (i) that the Republic of Crimea (country) incorporated both the Autonomous Republic + Sevastopol, that (ii) the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) only includes the Autonomous Republic, and (iii) that the federal subject is not a country but the administrator closed this discussion believing so.

This is a fundamental difference that negates all other arguments. Per WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." But this argument was not considered as qualitative at all by the closing administrator even though it was explained several times in the discussion.

So no, Dennis was not right. And this place, WP:AN, is the place to discuss these matters.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've refuted this argument before. The fact of the matter is, it is irrelevant whether Sebastopol is included or not. Once again, Sebastopol was only included in the temporary republic for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of acceding to Russia, which they did do separately. Functionally, the various systems of governance did not change within the Republic when it acceded to the Russian Federation, nor did they in Sebastopol. They were merely a vehicle that never had a chance to exist on their own, as entities independent of the entities they have now become within the Russian Federation. "Sebastopol's trade and commerce" are largely irrelevant in this situation, as the supposed "independent country" never existed long for this to have any effect. Furthermore, there was never any intent by the so-called country to exist as an independent state. Their only purpose, once again, was to accede to Russia. This was an entirely political matter, and if it concerns you so much that Sebastopol was included in the Republic for a day, then this can be explained in the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol articles, as it already is. Such a fact does not necessitate the need for an article that functionally would have no content of its own, no history independent of the history of either the Republic of Crimea or Sebastopol. Not to mention that such an article would be confusing to readers, as they'd have to go about between Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country), when in reality, they are looking for the history of the process as a whole, not fragmented. RGloucester — ☎ 04:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is where you are incorrect and proof of this is within the treaty itself which states (rough translation) that, "The Republic of Crimea (country) is considered to be adopted in the Russian Federation from the date of signing of this agreement." The systems of governance did change because the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol were now united as a single united nation. This single united nation was the one adopted by the Russian Federation. Then, once adopted, Russia immediately added two new entities into its geopolitical system: the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) and Sevastopol (federal city). Source: "Since the Russian Federation is adopting the Republic of Crimea, the Russian Federation is adding new entities: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol." The purpose is irrelevant. The fact that it was an entity fundamentally different than the Autonomous Republic and fundamentally different than the federal subject makes it unique. Add this uniqueness to its notability plus its historical significant and this is merit enough to warrant a standalone article. These are facts, backed up by reliable sources. This is not an opinion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The territory of Crimean autonomous republic (a part of the Ukraine) was already occupied by Russian army at the moment of declared "independence". Hence it was in fact never an independent country. In this regard, all later official "treaties" with Russia are hardly relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just like the Republic of Benin (1967)'s territory was already occupied by Biafran troops when it declared independence. Puppet states are still relevant entities, and should still have articles about them. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I'm aware of the fact that the entities changed de jure, that is, in law. However, they did not change de facto, that is, in practice. There is no reason to confuse the reader with such technicalities. All the reader wants is an explanation of how the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol came to be at present, how they entered the Russian Federation. This can easily be explained in the article on the Republic, and on Sebastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note - In light of the edit warring that has been taking place at Republic of Crimea (country) since this discussion was closed I've fully protected it for twelve hours to hopefully allow time for things to calm down a bit. Dpmuk (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Dennis was not involved in any of the discussions pertaining to the various Crimean crisis articles. His closure was determined based on the merits of the arguments presented. He was willing to take a tough position for the benefit of the project, which is something too few administrators are willing to do. In past dealings with Dennis, he has always strived to be both impartial and efficient. I appreciate that he has taken initiative on this matter, as the mire of Crimea articles was really dragging down Misplaced Pages's coverage of the crisis there. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Revert merge - There is plenty of information about the independent state to constitute a separate page. For example the pages involving the ascension process and international recognition should be merged into the article about the independent state. Furthermore there was no consensus at all to merge, rather the opinion of 1 editor (dennis) usurped the entire process and arbitrarily decided to close and merge without letting the discussion run its full course.XavierGreen (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Dennis Brown's close. As this discussion is a review of the close, and not another RfC, the question we should be asking is "Was the close consistent with policy, and were there any procedural problems with it?" In this venue, much like at deletion review or move review, arguments about whether to merge should not the focus of discussion. Instead, we should focus on how the close dealt with those arguments. In a contentious debate such as this one, there were always going to be editors who disagree with the close, so "multiple editors disagree with the close" is not a valid reason to overturn it. To me, the close seems a thoughtful summing up of the arguments made, and not in any way a "supervote". At four and a half days, the period allowed for discussion was short by RfC standards, but I think this is reasonable given that the discussion was well-attended. As Dennis implies in the close, it may be reasonable to revisit this debate in a few months when the political situation becomes more stable, but for now I don't think there is any need to overturn Dennis's decision. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have already refuted this above. The reason for this review is not based on arguments but on the process followed by Dennis which was contrarian to WP:CONSENSUS. His closing remarks makes this very clear: "this is actually the same country" when it is not. Per WP:CONSENSUS he must have given due weight to this fact, but he did not. This is why we are here. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge - Clearly no consensus existed to merge. A majority vote in favor of keeping the article was overturned on the basis of a subjective claim by one administrator that he felt like the arguments that the de facto independent Republic of Crimea and the Russian subject Republic of Crimea were the same -- without taking into account the fact those entities claim different territories and had different relationships with the city of Sevastopol. The wordiness of the arguments =/= the validity of the arguments. As I said, there was obviously no consensus, and Dennis Brown should have at least waited rather than wading in early to cast his supervote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a horrid accusation. This was clearly not a supervote, which Dennis would have no interest in, as he is not involved in these Crimea articles at all. Dennis did not ignore any facts, I'm sure, as that would not be like him. He weighed, on balance of policy, whether it would be better for the encyclopaedia to have one article, or two. Whether it would be better for the reader, based on policy concerns. He determined that it would be better to have one. And there one has it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith, and I take Dennis at his word he is uninterested in the content dispute beyond attempting to act as an administrator. I believe he both came to the wrong decision and disregarded WP:NOCONSENSUS in overruling the majority and moving the page in a unilateral action without any apparent consensus. What do you call that but a supervote -- regardless of intention? It certainly doesn't pass the smell test for WP:CONSENSUS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there was consensus. It has always been the case that discussions are based on arguments, not on some sort of voting. I can see how Dennis believed that there was "a consensus". He never said that there was unanimity, which is not what consensus is on Misplaced Pages. RGloucester — ☎ 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen I don't care to get into the intricacies of these things, and remain strictly neutral, but if Dennis was going to close against the number of !votes, I think there should have been a much more detailed rationale. Knowing that Dennis found one side's arguments more convincing than the other is good to know, but his logic could have been spelled out. It was almost inevitable that if you did not give a detailed rationale, people would complain and this indeed is what seems to have happened. I would reopen discussion and in due course, let another admin take a look at it. I should also add that once it was clear (was it ever not) that Dennis's actions would be controversial, it might well have been best for him to step back a bit, not urge enforcement of his decision or advocate that his decision can only be overturned by certain means. I don't argue with what he said in those diffs, but it would have been perhaps better if he had let someone else make them. In this sort of discussion, someone would have.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge the administrator mistakenly confused 'good arguments' with 'his own POV'.--Wester (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Disclaimer: I was the one who submitted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country), at the time unaware of the merge discussion which took place in parallel. The whole Crimean business turned into an unholy mess. The motto "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" soon turned into "encyclopedia where anyone can add their own version of Crimean crisis article". Currently, we have similar or related content at Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country), Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Accession of Crimea to Russia and who knows where; couple of hours ago User:Incnis Mrsi forked another one, Political status of Crimea. Articles were moved, copied and forked contrary to WP:CFORK, WP:CWW, and any reasonable definition of common sense. Our anarchic model failed big time, and we failed to offer consistent information to readers when they needed it most, busy in our esoteric navel-gazing whether the article is about a country, a region, or an event, so we created one for each. If we apply WP:BRD to article text, shouldn't we apply it to new articles as well? When you create a new article and it gets redirected, shouldn't we apply the same principle that onus of proof is on the one who adds the content, not on ones seeking for integrity of the encyclopedia. Somebody has to step in administratively and stop the uncontrolled flourishing of content forks. No such user (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, so-and-such bad Incnis Mrsi made this crap failing to conform with a hatemonger’s favourite multiletter acronyms, I expected some kind of this. Isn’t anything wrong that nine such articles already existed? Isn’t the tenth so ungood only because it started to be built only recently? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• First of all, forking content is more than fine when the articles deal with different subjects. This article is both intrinsically and fundamentally different that all the other articles you mentioned which justifies a content fork so that the article can be quickly brought to life and further developed. If the problem is that attribution was not properly given then notify the author or WP:FIXIT yourself by using {{copied}}.

Your assessment that someone needs to "step in" is highly subjective, specially when this is not an "uncontrolled" creation of content but a very systematic series of edits that are happening as the event itself unfolds. There is a very well-based structure on this ecosystem which exists primarily to give a very clear understanding to readers of all this mess. It is the involvement by admins what is actually causing rifts: the community itself has been very patient and very diplomatic on this subject.. until admins stepped in.

Second, the number of articles we have about the Crimean fiasco is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion as Misplaced Pages is not limited in any way or form about how many articles about one subject. For example: there are about 6–8 articles dealing about the political status of Puerto Rico on Misplaced Pages alone and they all stand on their own. This is the same case for the "Republic of Crimea (country)".

Furthermore, you have no right whatsoever to assert that our anarchic model "failed", that's your opinion and your opinion alone. It is my opinion that the attempt to break that anarchic model what has caused problems here. Let the users work their own way. Admins should only be involved when utterly necessary, not because they believe so.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, and note that I've said absolutely nothing on this issue until now. Any consensus that existed at this discussion for keeping separate articles is worthless, because our project standards do not permit the separate existence of content forks, and consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. When you have people writing entire articles on primary sources, it's absolutely necessary for the discussion to be closed to enforce project standards on the use of secondary sources. Wait for the historians to publish secondary sources on this subject before you decide whether it warrants a separate article — until then, or until we get to the point that the article is long enough that a size split is needed, any local editorial decision is unacceptable because no secondary sources exist that treat immediately-pre- and immediately-post- Russian annexation Crimea as separate subjects. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is not and never was 'community consensus'. There is just administrator who ended an ongoing discussion the hard way.

BTW: 'wikijuridics' never works as an argument. There is simply not a good argument why the short-lived country can't have an own article. We have tons or articles about former Crimean state structures: Crimean oblast, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean Regional Government, Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean People's Republic, Taurida Governorate, ... According Dennis Brown they should all be removed or what?

The Republic of Crimea (country) was recognised by Russia (and some others) as an independent country. The Republic or Crimea as a Russian federal subject is completely different. The latter is not a country but part of Russia. It also don't cover the same area.—Wester (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• By "community consensus", Nyttend is referring to project policy. Dennis based his decision in policy, which is a long-term community consensus, rather than any smaller localised consensus. You should also be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually a valid argument. RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is. If there are hundreds of similar articles than the ruling that this article cannot exist is extremely bias. It's all a mater of consistency. —Wester (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comparisons between the articles you mention are not very useful, and usually inaccurate.

  Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it.

  — WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

  RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend. There are no good secondary sources not only to justify the separate article, but even to reliably claim this territory ever existed as an independent country. This is merely a propaganda stunt. The territory was occupied during "referendum". The referendum even did not include a question about independence: one choice was to join Russia, and another one was to remain as a part of Ukraine. The historians of future will probably decide this is simply annexation. But we do not know it yet. Therefore, we do not need such separate page per "five pillars".My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• The difference between this jurisdiction and others, e.g. the Crimean ASSR and the Taurida Governorate, is that they're discussed as such in secondary sources. No secondary sources can possibly exist on this subject yet — the situation's still ongoing, and by definition a source written at the time of an incident/situation is a primary source. Even the beginning of the incident is way too recent for secondary sources to exist: academic journal articles take months to get approved, and books and other publications are slower yet. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here's your reliable source: AFP: "Putin signs decree recognizing Crimea as independent state." That, in itself, is a treatment of the "Republic of Crimea (country)" as a different subject. Want more? Global Post, The Japan Times, The Washington Post. Second, you know very very well that Misplaced Pages doesn't base its reliable sources solely on historians. We follow WP:RS. In this case, the FOUR reliable sources presented before treat the country as a separate subject. Now that you have been shown reliable sources that treat the subject as a separate subject I request that you do the same for the argument that says that the 'Republic of Crimea (country)' is the same as the 'Republic of Crimea (federal subject)' as the closing admin exposed on his closing remarks. Furthermore, please refrain from referring to this as a content fork as it is not. A content fork, per WP:CFORK, is "a separate article that treats the same subject." You have been proven time and time again, first with reason, and now with reliable sources that the "Republic of Crimea (country)" is NOT the same as the "Republic of Crimea (federal subject)" as the closing admin exposed on his closing remarks. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, I would like to draw attention the apparent bad faith that appears to be springing up as a result of this incident. The account ObamaMan11, clearly some kind of sockpuppet, has gone around redirecting the talk and user pages of various users, such as myself, to Republic of Crimea. I hope that we can all keep a cool head, and stop behaviour that has no place in a rational discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close mainly per Nyttend – WP:CONLIMITED, WP:CFORK and lack of secondary sources. Mojoworker (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• AFP, Global Post, The Japan Times, The Washington Post. WP:CFORK does NOT apply as this is a completely different subject than "Republic of Crimea (federal subject)" as the aforementioned reliable sources show. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Have you even read what we're saying? These are primary sources. History concept 101: primary sources come from the time of the event, and secondary sources are produced later. By definition, nothing produced right now is secondary. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Errrrr...say what now? That's not what "primary source" and "Secondary source" mean on Misplaced Pages. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Nyttend's position seems to be based on a misapprehension of policy. Also, there is such a thing as WP:IAR. Perhaps we should wait for the history books to be printed before writing any article. Further, I would have expected him to have AfD'd the Georgia and Benin articles, as they are not cited, and the Somali article's cites are by and large not written by "scholars". While other crap exists, this seems inconsistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:NEWSORG for why these articles, secondary or not, are to be treated as mostly reliable sources.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the above discussion of my endorsement seems irrelevant – we are discussing Dennis's close, not the merits of the article itself. I framed my endorse as to the arguments supported by policies that Dennis likely took into account. Perhaps I erred in citing lack of secondary sources – it had been more than a day since I reviewed the RfC. But my endorsement of the close remains. Have you all actually looked at the article? What's there that isn't covered elsewhere? I think Fut.Perf. summed it up very well:

It's a common Wikipedian error to treat such questions as matters of ontology rather than as matters of reader-friendliness. The question is not whether the one-day existence of this entity made it into something that is notionally a separate topic. The question is whether we have anything to say about it that we aren't also saying elsewhere. As it is, the "country" article is and will always be 100% redundant to the republic article. We are not doing any of our readers a favour by presenting them this additional wall of text if they won't find any extra information there that they haven't already found elsewhere.

I think the proposal by Ahnoneemoos to merge into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation also has merit (and as someone pointed out, would likely been merged there eventually anyway). But we are discussing whether or not the close was proper, not whether or not we agree with the outcome. Mojoworker (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Mojoworker: I understand where you are coming from but you need first to understand how the close was performed and what the content of the article was to understand why the close did not follow proper procedure. Per WP:CONSENSUS, one of our core policies, when determining consensus, one must "consider the quality of the arguments the history of how they came about." One must also understand that, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." The policy then punctuates that, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue."

Our argument is based on the fact that the closing admin performed a decision to merge based on the closing remark that, the Republic of Crimea (country) and the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) are "the same country" (look at the closing remarks, he stated that explicitly).

That is why we are here: at least three editors pointed out in the conversations that although they have the same name, they are completely different things because first and foremost: one is a country while the other is a federal subject, but secondly, and most importantly, the country included Sevastopol while the federal subject does not. That in itself, and taking into accord other facts, make both subjects intrinsically and fundamentally different and unique. But the admin did not take that argument into account in contraversion to what WP:CONSENSUS establishes, as explained above.

Therefore, the merge must be reverted because it did not follow proper procedure.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge based on the fact that I believe that there was no consensus in the merge discussion. I would have posted an 'oppose' comment myself, but because I believed that the discussion was going that way, I didn't see the need. I'm going to write my reasons now, which really belong in the original discussion. You could say that it is too late to do so, but as far as I am aware, there is no way of knowing when exactly these discussions are actually going to close (or, indeed, what the outcome will be). Arguably they should never actually be locked shut even after whatever action is decided.

Anyway, my first reason to oppose the merge was that it is my belief that the duration of the country's existence should have no bearing on the validity of the article. If the country lasted for ten years before accession, then surely there would not even be a need for this discussion, and people would recognise that there should not be a merge. Now, I realise that if a country lasted for ten years there would be a huge difference between the kinds of governance that that country would have had and the kind that there would have been for a country lasting a day. However, I believe that that should only be reflected in the length of a country's article, and not whether that country has an article at all. In my opinion, if a country is its own technical political entity, then that is enough reason for an article (assuming it meets standards), and it should not matter whether the country lasts for one day, ten days, ten years or one hundred years.

My second point is that I do think that this will be of historical significance. I kind of get the feeling that a lot of editors are of the opinion of 'oh no, not another Crimea article!' Maybe they are right, but that does not mean that merging must therefore take place, somewhere. The fact that the article is about a very short-lived country puts it in a good position to be merged, relative to some of the other articles floating around. However, I believe that we mustn't lose sight of what content is right, no matter how it is spread over a number of articles. This particular article is about an independent country, and, however much of a technicality that might be, in ten years from now I can easily imagine readers coming to find this article and being shocked to find that it's not there. It may not have lasted long, but I believe that it was an important and historical part of the process that Crimea has gone through to come under Russian ownership.

My third point is an important point, and it is one that has already been made many times; the short-lived country does not correspond with the article that it was merged into. They cover different territories, so it doesn't really make sense. Actually, it would probably make as much sense to merge it into Sevastopol. So far, I have to say that I have not seen any reason to satisfy my concerns about this issue from those who support the merge. This, in particular, was a large contributing factor to my shock in seeing that there was judged to be a consensus to merge.

My fourth point will no doubt be seen as silly by some. However, it is what I believe, so I shall say it, whether or not it has much value. I have been imagining a user browsing the article about the list of shortest-lived sovereign states. The user decides to find out more about Crimea, seeing as it is right up there. However, unfortunately for the user, there is no page to satisfy their interest. I believe that Misplaced Pages should do better (and this is where people will think that this is a silly point). I would say that it has a purpose to quench people's thirst for knowledge, but it is held back as it is forever bound to conform to its existence as an encyclopaedia. I would have said that the fact that Crimea is right up there on the list of shortest-lived countries is something that adds some notability in itself. However, I accept that people may not feel that way.

My fifth point is another important one, and it is to do with the content that a restored article could have. Indeed, it is to do with potential new content. The repetition that the article had from other articles has been cited as a reason to merge. Given the arguments that I have already put forward, I don't actually think that this is a good enough reason in itself to merge. There should be enough differences once it has been clearly established what the territory is, and its short-lived nature. However, I have been interested in this article, and I was going to use it to add a 'military' section myself. If you watch the video, then you can clearly see that Aksyonov views Crimea to be independent in some way and therefore, the army is, at that point, specifically for Crimea only. It is neither Ukrainian nor Russian. It is only designed to be absorbed into the Russian forces at a later date. As a result of this, I would definitely say that here we have content that could go into a restored article. The Crimean army was always destined by its nature to be short-lived, and that matches the country, so I can't think of a better place for this content to be added. By the way, I think that this content is absolutely encyclopaedic.

Before I finish, I'd just like to make a couple of smaller points.

Some people were saying that the title could be confusing. To be honest, I'd dispute that, because I can't really think what else it could be confused with.

Finally, though I didn't follow it anywhere near as closely as I followed this discussion, I think that there was a fairly lengthy debate about the main Crimea article at the same time. It could be argued that while that was going on, it was drawing most of the attention and could have left this discussion relatively neglected, and so its closure was premature. It's a small point to make, as I say, but I think that appeals have been upheld for even smaller points than that. RedvBlue 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Redv, paragraph breaks are your friend! This is unreadable...no one is going to read all of the way through this wall of text. Liz 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Many apologies. I could see that, but I wasn't sure of the protocol with regards to large postings. I've put it into paragraphs, and I'll add these bullet points as well. Hopefully that's a bit more reader friendly! Thanks for your help.

• I believe that there was no consensus in the original discussion.
• I oppose the merger due to five main reasons:

• Length of country's existence is irrelevant.
• The country has historical significance, and should not be part of a 'Crimea article clean-up'.
• Key differences between the country and the article that it was merged in to.
• The article is interesting.
• I've suggested additional content which could differentiate the article from others.

• Two further points:

• I don't believe that the topic is confusing.
• Other discussions may have detracted from the one about this, which could have made it skewed, and the discussion was closed too early before this could be corrected. RedvBlue 00:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Much better and on point, Redv! It's always preferable to be concise, direct and to not take edits and editing decisions personally. Liz 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert Merger. There was no consensus to carry out the merger, and there is strong precedent in other articles for including short lived states, even those that are puppet states, or whose primary purpose is eventual annexation. These include the Republic of Benin (1967), a one-day long state often referred to as a puppet state, the State of Somaliland, which lasted for 5 days, and whose sole purpose was annexation into Somalia, and the Republic of Georgia (1861) whose primary purpose was annexation into the Confederacy. The primary argument of the pro-merger side seems to be that the article on the country would be unnecessary/confusing, but as the graph at the start of this discussion illustrates, the country and the claimed federal subject are in fact verifiably different entities, that existed at different times, and claimed different things. Hence, it would in fact be confusing to readers NOT to include a separate article about the country. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's strong precedent because secondary sources exist on those entities, treating them as individual entities. Wait for scholars to produce secondary sources, which cannot yet exist on this subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been explained to you before on this very same discussion, Misplaced Pages does not base itself solely on what scholars say. We have provided independent, third-party, secondary sources that treat the "Republic of Crimea (country)" as a separate entity. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• You completely fail to understand what a secondary source is; kindly educate yourself on the definitions of primary and secondary sources before telling us that you have provided something that, by definition, cannot exist yet. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• This http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/17/crimea-vote-russia-ukraine-sanctions/6513905/ qualifies perfectly as a secondary source, since it was written by a neutral news organization, covering the topic. See WP:NEWSORG, ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Even with the merge, the article should be written in a way such that distinguishes the alleged independent country (immediately after secession, and made agreement with Russia) from the Russian federal subject. Perhaps the history section could be divided into subsections that clearly shows the stages of Crimean secession and then accession to Russia. Abstractematics (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It is sad that anybody didn’t consider a merger of the “country” topic into some reasonable target: either “political status of Crimea” as I proposed in the original discussion, or possibly into 2014 Crimean crisis. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: not only Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now redirects to an article that says Crimea is Russia, and is indefinitely protected. Every competent person (I am sure: there are several competent editors here, at least guys who edited articles rather recently) realizes what does it signify. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did make one change to the close, "to the main article" to "elsewhere". I didn't mean for it to come across as it must be redirected to a specific article, just that it needed to become a redirect, based on the community's input. I know that isn't the main point of contention here, but I still wanted to note here that I clarified the closing statement to be more in line with my thinking, that the final destination should be upon the community, not me. My single revert was technical, demonstrated by my contrib immediately after. If time allows, I will poke back in later. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• The initial question was: whether should “Republic of Crimea (country)” be merged to “Republic of Crimea”. Since nobody posed a question whether should the article be replaced with an unspecified redirect, hence no solution that imposes this specific restriction but leaves the question unsolved may be considered a valid outcome of the discussion. If no specific solution is reached, then the legitimate discussion should continue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• I have to agree with @Incnis Mrsi, the question was whether "Republic of Crimea (country)" should be merged to Republic of Crimea (the federal subject). I mean, it even says so in the header: "Proposal to merge article titled "Republic of Crimea (country)" into this article." I don't know what is not clear about that. If you are now divagating into whether the redirect should point somewhere else then it's obvious that you were not aware of what was going on, and that your decision might have been based on not having an article about a country that lasted one day rather than on whether that country should be merged into one of the two federal subjects that it was converted to.

Furthermore, your closing remarks explictly say that "The arguments claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country". But users in that discussion explained you very clearly that they are different because of the annexation and eventual separation of Sevastopol. You then also stated that you, "must conclude that there is a consensus to merge."

So which one is it now? Was there consensus to merge or was there no consensus to merge? Were they the same thing or were they not? Because if the consensus is to merge both articles, and if they are the same thing as you alleged, then one must redirect to the other.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just notifying, nothing more. It would be obvious to redirect to the main article, I'm only saying if a better alternative exists, the community isn't bound by the closing of the RFC, and a fresh discussion on where to redirect would be fine (there seems to be some confusion on that point, which is the only point I'm addressing). The primary question at the RFC was about merging, not redirecting, so I didn't want to answer questions that weren't asked. Again, this is a review of the process, not a fresh RFC (a second bite at the apple, so to speak). Whatever the community decides is fine with me, I'm just not going to debate each point. Nothing I could say would appease some members of the community, so it would be foolish to even try. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why was the discussion closed at all?
I believe RFCs tend to last longer than this one, and it was not inactive (closed less than a day after the last comments). There was no need (e.g. BLP) for an early closure and it was sufficiently close that further discussion probably would be beneficial. The "majority" could have come up with a sufficiently strong argument if one exists (disclaimer: in my opinion they already had, hence my !vote in the related AfD) or the minority could gain support. Either case might lead to less contentious close in a few weeks.
The discussion was active and should be re-opened. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert merge and let the short-lived state have its own article, that briefly describes the political situation surrounding it. If we follow other examples on Misplaced Pages and stay consistent, there should be no lower bounds on the longevity of a state that determine its inclusion as an article. List of shortest-lived sovereign states contains links to a few examples. - Anonimski (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the main topic of this admins’ forum thread isn’t whether reasonanle alternatives to the merge exist (there as an already existing discussion, another discussion, article’s talk page, and others). It is about whether the “closure statement”, both initial and amended by the same Dennis Brown, conform to established procedures and requirements. @Anonimski: do they conform or not? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the proper closure for the merge discussion would have been "no consensus", since apparently there wasn't any. Anonimski (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus rooted in broader policy, as many people have said above. The "short-lived state" argument is tired and useless. We know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question is, does it need to exist, does it benefit the reader in any way to separate out information that could be included at Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol respectively? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? Does it WP:FORK content from Republic of Crimea? These were the questions that were being pondered, and considering policy, it makes sense to therefore merge the article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You might confuse a sense with a consensus. Look at talk:2014 Crimean crisis #What to do after normalization? and talk:Political status of Crimea to read what actual main space contributors think, not protectors-rollbackers-blockers dispatched from dramaboards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, localised consensus on a few talk pages does not override a larger consensus, that is, policy. Secondly, many more people participated in the discussion then have spoken on your various cited talk pages. I do, however, agree that the redirect should be changed. That's a different matter, however. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

An implementation of policy, save exceptional circumstances, is also effected by editors’ will, without stupid protections and tricky closures. No, it is the same matter. Where to place the article’s content and where (if anywhere) to redirect the title was the matter of discussion that was interrupted grossly prematurely. We need a discussion to establish solutions by consensus. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we had this "larger consensus". Was there indication that "community consensus on a wider scale" was to merge the articles? Abstractematics (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because policy supports their merging, as the closing sysop mention in his closure. Policy is "community consensus". RGloucester — ☎ 02:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What policy is this that isn't WP:CONSENSUS policy? I don't think I saw consensus there. If there's no consensus, it's supposed to be left as is. Abstractematics (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile Martin Berka (talk · contribs), another content contributor, supported merging Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), virtually my initial proposal that Dennis Brown threw into the waste basket along other ones. Is here a person bold enough to put the end to the crapfest? The cause of redirecto-protectors with their war on cowboys is lost – few users trust their actions; now just admit it a.s.a.p. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a person bold enough to close this thread as a complete waste of time that no reader in the Real World (the people we're supposed to be serving) could give two pieces of crap about? Drop the stick FFS.DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Move image to Commons

I uploaded commons:File:Banana boat.jpg to use in Banana boat, but it appears there's already an orphaned File:Banana boat.jpg that was intended for Banana Boat, and now the names conflict. Would someone mind moving File:Banana boat.jpg to the Commons? hinnk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi hinnk. I have moved the local file to File:Banana Boat (band).jpg so the Commons file is no longer shadowed. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! hinnk (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Hi, guys.

It's past time for my periodic appeal for copyright help. :)

Some of you may be aware that we very nearly lost User:Wizardman, who has been pulling a lot of weight in copyright cleanup. He threw his hands up in disgust over the apathy towards this problem here and the next day decided to leave altogether. I've very happy that he has decided to come back to some extent, but he's letting copyright work go for now. I support that. Never mind that he deserves to take pleasure in the work here, his loss to the project would be immense for other reasons than copyright. :)

But we nearly lost him because this work isn't getting done, and we need more help. Most of the time, this isn't difficult - it just takes a few simple steps. (Admin tools sometimes required; sometimes not.)

At WP:CP, you compare a flagged article to the source; check copied content for "backwards copying"; check for rewrite; remove copied content (if not compatibly licensed) or replace it with rewritten content, if proposed; check to make sure the user has proper notice and (if repeat offender) is blocked or strongly cautioned if appropriate.

WP:SCV is even simpler. These are new articles, and backwards copying is less of an issue. (When it is, it usually means copying & pasting within Misplaced Pages; check for attribution.) Removing copied content doesn't generally involve taking away anybody else's work other than the person who did the copy-paste. Quite often, this is WP:CSD#G12 territory.

At WP:CCI, you check the links to see if there's signs of copying. If a CCI subject seems to have introduced substantial copied content, you remove it or you flag the article with {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP for handling.

(More detailed directions are available at all three pages if you want them.)

Please, even if you give just like 30 minutes a week or so, we could make this a manageable task, if multiple people do. You don't need to bend to it until you burn out (a condition I've had to manage multiple times over the years). Just chip away a bit now and then. Even if you just take the easy pickings and leave the hard stuff for somebody else, you'll be easing the burden considerably. We have a few good people who toil away in that area, but the work is substantial, and we can't afford to burn out anybody else. --Moonriddengirl 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an underlying problem that keeps the copyvio treadmill going at the speed it does. Far too often I come across editors who add multiple copyvios over an extended period of time, somehow escape community scrutiny and only manage to find their talk pages after I block them. In fact, I indeffed no less than four such editors during the weekend Wizardman left (in fact, this is likely the reason he left). Please pay attention when you are handing out copyvio warnings -- non-communicative copyvio editors should be blocked, not warned. MER-C 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How do they escape scrutiny? What can be done about that? Don't feel you have to answer both questions at once, but it seems this could use some extended discussion. Maybe @Wizardman: also has ideas? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My hypotheses are (1) drive-by warnings -- this is more noticeable with image copyvios -- and (2) editors who remove copyvios not checking who added them and taking the appropriate action. MER-C 13:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm involved in a number of places on Misplaced Pages... Helping out WP:ANI (and trying if possible to reduce the drama), helping at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, reviewing and taking action on WP:PROD and WP:CSD, as well as some specific articles I work on somewhat long-term (both as an editor and as an admin). But Moonriddengirl is someone who has been awesome in the past helping me and many others, and if I can help her a little I will, so I'm going to try to devote at least a little time each week to this, despite my fairly limited background with copyright-related issues. I'm saying all of this because if I can help out, I'm sure others can too. -- Atama頭 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we help ourselves out? When I come across a copyvio image I tag and remove it, check for other contribs, and warn the user accordingly. What I don't do is go back and check the user's future contribs because there's no easy way to "watchlist" them and having a "problematic contributor" list in talk space is frowned upon. So, can we come up with an easier way to monitor contribs of potentially problematic editors? --NeilN 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page too. Twinkle automatically notifies the user without you even seeing his/her talk page. If they have a history of doing the same (two copyvio warnings is enough) then report them at ANI or AIV. MER-C 09:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do check the talk page and report if necessary. What I would like is some kind of Misplaced Pages feature that would remind me to check the future contribs of editors who don't warrant a report. Mr. Stradivarius has some good ideas below. --NeilN 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, you check back in 1 or 2 or 3 months, depending of frequency of edit. We could use an effective automated way of reminding us. Not necessarily everyone the first time, because there are just too many, but certainly after the second. After the second, and certainly after the third, it's a non routine matter and some personal warning outside the notices can get attention--with just the notice people think its like a automatically generated bill, and you can wait till they really start bothering you. Even following up on 1 person is a significant help, if enough of us do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Google has a calendar feature that's handy for this kind of task. You can ask it to send you an email on the day you want to follow up. Microsoft Outlook has a good calendar feature as well -- Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be best if the information found by one editor could be shared between all copyright patrollers. Perhaps we could have a new tool on Labs that creates a queue of users to check. It could schedule checks depending on the frequency and severity of the copyrights that patrollers found. Or perhaps we could integrate this functionality into one or more of the existing recent-changes-patrolling tools like Huggle or STiki. Or we could make it a MediaWiki extension. I'd be interested to hear from West.andrew.g about this, as he is the developer of STiki and I remember that he was doing research about copyvio on Misplaced Pages. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

YES. Not just on copyright. In addition to our watchlists, many of us have our own lists of people to check back on for various specific problems, and it would be nice to have a way of sharing it. (at present mine are kept as lists of Safari bookmarks) DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Quiddity (WMF): Is WP:Flow going to have an automatic following-up/reminder system? I want one. Having a note magically reappear in front of me a month after explaining copyright issues to someone would be very handy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential software problem

When dealing with a user with an obnoxious obfuscated username, I came across what appears to be an error in normalizing strings for display in edit summaries. I've tested it with an edit to my own user page here, where the same text was cut-and-pasted into both the edit window and edit comment. Yet one displays as (what looks like) "Butt", and the other as (what looks like) "Bumm". Can anyone else reproduce this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation: this appears to be a display issue on my brower, appearing in some fonts, but not in others. Perhaps this is an artifact of the typography refresh beta, which I have opted into? -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing this when logged out: this suggests the problem is likely to be related to the typography refresh. Moreover, the correct character seems to be in the HTML page source, even when I'm logged in. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See Serbian cyrillic#Differences from other Cyrillic alphabets, particularly the image (not directly related, but you get an idea what's going on). Not sure what exactly you saw, but there is a typographic difference in normal vs. italic Cyrillic glyphs. No such user (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And at least in Russian, it's used formally; see how ПОЧТА СССР ("Postage USSR") displays at 1 and 2 stamps. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm seeing. The interesting question is why it's different in different fonts -- presumably some support proper Cyrillic italic forms, and others just faux-italicise the Cyrillic letters? -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas

Can some uninvolved editors (admins and non-admins alike) go to Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas and either give their opinion, to help the rather deadlocked discussion forward, or close the discussion which ever way they see fit? The thing is rather contentious, opinions are divided, and no progress is being made (rather the opposite) after more than a month. On the plus side, most of the discussion was civil and no obvious socks have been spotted! Fram (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint: start at the bottom. The question is: may a hook (ALT8) say on the Main page that a politian's father-in-law termed him a "disgrace" in his will (if this is the topic of news, and the politician sued a Greek Wikipedian)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

...Or just read the whole thing, and make up your own mind. The intention was to get uninvolved editors, by giving a neutral invitation. No idea why you felt the need to add your rather non-neutral hint here. Fram (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

ALT7, Gerda, was that fact hook. ALT8 was the milquetoast "observation" hook brought up from one editor's insistence on Misplaced Pages's self-censorship.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed my mistake and came to correct, ALT7 is the one ;) - "Read the whole thing" - you are asking people to waste their time. - I was not involved in the creation of the article, only said a few times (2?) that I think the hook (ALT7!) is ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War/General sanctions

If I wish to file an enforcement request under these sanctions, do I do it at AE or here? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Policy change on WP:BAN needs your input

Feel free to stop over to this proposal on banning specifically related to proxying, and give your input!  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog