Template talk:ICC member states

States which are parties and accept the court's jurisdiction
Yes it's true that Palestine has took two separate actions, but I question whether we need to mention both in this summary. All the declaration did is backdate the start of the court's jurisdiction. (By default it's when the Statute enters into force, but can be backdated to the launch of the court.) Legally the situation is no different than would have been the case if the Statute had entered into force for Palestine on 13 June. Since the parties have all ratified at different times, and have different start dates for jurisdiction, this does not seem like a significant detail. Cote d'Ivoire has also submitted a declaration accepting the court's jurisdiction and ratified the Statute, but is not mentioned here. Perhaps the solution is to keep a note on the declaration until the 1 April when the Statute enters into force for Palestine. TDL (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He TDL, I have no problem with the removal at all at the present state of things. When I implemented the change yesterday the depositary notifications of the UN were not yet online; so I felt compelled to show both actions at that moment... L.tak (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll go ahead and remove it.  TDL (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian intent not to become a state party
There seems to be persistent unwillingness to document in Wikipedia the Russian presidential decree that expresses Russia no more has any intent on becoming a state party in ICC.

Although the decree is made public by Russian presidential administration, the UN is yet to receive a formal notification about it. It must be noted however, that whether the UN receives a notification or not, the UN keeps Russia as an ICC signatory and only makes a note of Russia not having any intent to ratify. There are also no further legal implications whether the UN ever receives a formal notification or not. Thus documenting the presidential decree here is warranted as it makes clear Russia has formally rejected ratification of the treaty.
 * Well now that the content you disruptively attempted to edit war in without consensus is actually true, this is somewhat moot. But just to get the facts correct:
 * No, there was no "persistent unwillingness to document in Wikipedia the Russian presidential decree that expresses Russia no more has any intent on becoming a state party in ICC". In fact, I documented it myself at the appropriate location here.
 * There was a persistent unwillingness to a) document errors b) document proposed future events as if they were factual historical events, and c) give undue weight to a largely insignificant event at the expense of far more significant events. This, as explained previously to you, was why your edits were reverted.
 * The content you added contained a number of errors.
 * Here you wrote that Russia had informed the UN of it's intentions on 17 November. This was not true, as it did not take place until November 30
 * Here you wrote that Russia had issued a decree to withdraw from the ICC. This was not true.  It was never a member, so thus clearly could not withdraw.  It only decided not to join.
 * Once you came to understand it was a "development in progress", you continued to edit war insisting that it belonged in the summary. This in spite of the fact that we have entire sections of States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court devoted to the subject of developments in progress. The point of the template is to summarize the current status, not in progress developments.  If we listed all "developments in progress" on the template it would be very long and would cease to function as a summary.  At that point we might as well just delete it and transclude the sections of States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
 * You insisted that this was "too important to be left out", seeming not understanding what had actually happened. The decree authorized a future action, which had not yet taken place.  It was to give notice that Russia didn't intend to something, which it hadn't done for 15 years and which no one expected them to do anyways.  Even the decision itself not to join has no meaningful legal impact.  All told this is really not significant.  Even following formal notification it is only barely notable.  Many other far more notable developments in progress exist (ie in Kenya, Gambia, Uganda, Namibia) which are not discussed here because as explained above it is a summary of current status.  You added almost as much text to the summary on Russia's proposed non-notable action as existed on the 124 states which are actually members, which is far more notable.  Promoting the Russian notice for unexplained reasons is WP:UNDUE.  Developments in progress belong at the full article.
 * Additionally, you were citing Sputnik (news agency), which is not a WP:RS. See for example: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_205.
 * Finally, with regards to WP:CONSENSUS, as explained the burden is on those who wish to change the article to establish consensus for them, not to disruptively attempt to force disputed changes in. No consensus = no change to long-term version.  Next time rather than continuing to edit war errors into the article, listen what is being told to you and if you don't understand or disagree take it to the talk page.  TDL (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)