Talk:Montediszamble Convention/Archive 1

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

8 December 2020 edit war

There are three distinct discussions still going on here:

  • Should criticism that Yaroslav considers libellous be included on an entry about one of his projects?
  • Is the criticism that Will proposes adding to the article notable enough to be included?
  • Will's op-ed uses Dion's non-micronational name without his consent. Can the op-ed be cited? If not, would Will consider amending the op-ed?

I have taken the liberty of adding three sections to discuss these topics reasonably, politely, and with exclusive reference to the best outcome for this MicroWiki entry. This is not the venue for a wider discussion about the convention or about Will's op-ed. I have also collapsed the existing discussion into a single section for ease of reading. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


This has become out of hand and is starting an edit war! Please, admins of Microwiki! LOCK. IT. DOWN!!!! L. Munroe - King of Atiera 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This is getting out of hand. -- Isaiah (Chat) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the text is simply staying, regardless of the source. If Jonathan proves the source has been banned from MicroWiki, we will simply remove it but keep the text. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 03:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You are not going to stop a huge edit war? Bruh. -- L. Munroe - King of Atiera 03:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
For a wiki admin you're oddly unaware of the wiki's precedent. Essentially you're implying that if I write an article saying that you're a scammer, or that your micronation is a terrorist organization, then I have every right to add it to your MicroWiki articles as "criticism" regardless of whether the accusations are true and whether any evidence for them is provided. And I'm not even talking about Sandus's article being a blatant privacy violation. Yaroslav (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for locking, please add the full text back now that the idiot cannot remove it anymore.
This is an edit war that got heated, though may I remind you there is no need for calling anyone an "idiot". ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 03:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yaroslav: go outside --leon // talk to me 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, write an article "that your micronation is a terrorist organization": not like Pavlov that did so in 2015. Sounds like Yaroslav wishes to cancel criticism that is substantiated with or without a Veritum Sandus article. And yes, please tell me more about the "blatant privacy violation." --KremlumSandus (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding Willy, nobody is better at digging up old grudges than you. So should I write in MicroFrancophonie article that in 2015 it was declared a terrorist organization, or in the Gaius Soergel Publicola article that you have been at the epicenter of every single conflict in this community since 2009? Careful with what you're trying to argue for, it may backfire. Yaroslav (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liammunroe: You are absolutely right. Flag of Baránok.svg/Baránokcoat of arms.jpeg Founder of Baránok and Talcon I. Kvajda  My Talk Page  Contribs  07:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have a criticism section. This isn't Wikipedia, so it doesn't need references; I think we can all objectively agree that the Criticism section as it stands is objectively factual. However, it has already been made abundantly clear that MicroWiki will not be used for the intentional use of someone's macronational name against their express request. If the article wasn't allowed to be posted on the Discord, why would we allow it to be linked to from the wiki? Again, literally all you need to do is use Dion's micronational name. Then there would be no problem at all. Austenasia (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The criticism section simply isn't notable enough for an article which concerns the likes of the Aerican Empire, Ladonia or Westarctica. Would you highlight it on MicroWiki whenever some nobody declares war on Austenasia? Yaroslav (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This is based off a false premise though, you assume that this criticism is "not valid or notable enough", however, high ranking and long-time micronationalists have written articles or agreed to the criticisms of the articles in question about this Convention. I think that warrants enough to have a dedicated topic in this wiki page to consider the criticism. The only thing is, you don't like criticism so naturally, Yaroslav, I'd imagine you wouldn't want it on this wiki page, however you lack one key difference and that is, you don't get to pick and choose what criticism to accept or ignore and deny. You don't get to make that choice on here. So stop it man. Aren't you tired of this? Just stop. --Artemissandus (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The "high ranking and notable micronationalist" in question got banned for posting his article as it doesn't follow the community standards. The other "high ranking and notable micronationalist", whose "criticism" consists of a poorly written blog with numerous spelling errors, joined micronationalism this summer. As I said earlier, perhaps I should write an article calling you and Soergel scammers and post it to your MicroWiki articles? Yaroslav (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I've no problem with the criticism being mentioned. Sandus and Wendatia may be the only ones to have written articles about it, but I know they're not the only ones to hold the views expressed in such. To be fair, though, it is only two sentences long; perhaps it could be included in the introductory main body of text instead, rather than having its own subsection? Austenasia (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yaroslav, you are welcome to write your own criticisms sections on things that I or Sandus have done. I was warned for a violation of Rule 6. I was never told why I was banned, not by the admin/moderator (I don't know which Casper is) and talking with Jonathan suggested to me that I was double banned for the same offence. Again, I refer to what Artemis has pointed out many times: you are being a hypocrite and are attempting to 'cancel' any expression of criticism against the convention, against your friends' bad behaviour, and your bad behaviour that has gotten you banned from many other places associated with MW—as if being banned negates all authority and persuasion of the criticism raised against you and your most recent actions.
Jonathan, I had tried to beef up the criticism section but my edit was undone. --KremlumSandus (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be welcome — and rightfully so! — to write on your MW article that you're a scammer. As of the paragraph that you tried adding, sorry Will but you're not as important as you may think and not everything that I do is about you. The convention doesn't mention Sandus at all, nor any other micronation for that matter. Can you just stop causing trouble for once? Yaroslav (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
While obviously the so-called references of which 1 is banned from placement due to not respecting micronational names and the other is hardly to be named a reference should be removed, I think a paragraph on criticism should be ok, if it is written in an encyclopaedic fashion. The criticism proposed by user KremlumSandus is a near copy of his own OP-ED. Dionisiy (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Bruh my wifi goes doesn for 2 days and everyone is at each other's throats over a page. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yaroslav, if you have substantive edits to make about the criticism that I summarised in the criticism section, I welcome them. I have not described you on this article or any other that you are a scammer or a harasser. --KremlumSandus (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You did call me a harasser and made a number of other baseless accusations, such as of me using the n-word for which you never provided any evidence. Your entire criticism is based on lies. Yaroslav (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
KremlumSandus, you claim we threatened legal charges based on criticism, this is a vile lie. We threatened it over the usage of copyrighted material, this is not rocket science. Just because a picture can be found on Google does not mean it is not copyrighted. Dionisiy (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I urge you to make substantive and constructive edits of the wording of the criticism section, if you believe that the criticism that the section describes is not the criticism that has been raised. --KremlumSandus (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


As suggested by User:Austenasia, I removed the subsection and instead added a line in the introductory body, which I believe is an acceptable compromise. Let's leave it at that and stop the edit war. Yaroslav (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed edit leaves out significant details that are part of my criticism. I believe a separate criticism section is warranted so that readers can grasp the full meaning of my criticism of the convention. --KremlumSandus (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The question however is, is how relevant the criticism of 1 micronation is which was not a signatory in the first place. If the US signs a convention, neither would my criticism be relevant on it. Dionisiy (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The above is one of the worst false-equivalencies I ever heard. It was not the criticism of "one micronation", it was the criticism of many nations and many individuals. Doesn't matter whether if the nation in question is a signatory or not, anyone has the right to express criticism and dissent-something that I understand you're not used too in your own nations. Get over it. --Artemissandus (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you're mistaking MicroWiki for Veritum Sandus. You don't get to just copy your op-ed here, which was banned from distribution on the site due to failure to comply with the standards. Yaroslav (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
D. Tezdzhan-Smahin, That is irrelevant to a section of a publicly accessible, publicly edited encyclopedia. Criticism has been made, whether the criticism was made by a signatory or not is immaterial and irrelevant to the question. Yaroslav, I did not copy my op-ed here. A summary of my criticism in the op-ed—which does not include the sensitive parts that you have previously highlighted—is what you find here. --KremlumSandus (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, replace "copy" with "re-write" then. The point still stands. Yaroslav (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The point does not still stand, then. I have summarised my op-ed with the relevant bits of criticism. I have bulked up this section so that now it is inappropriate to be simply lumped in as a single sentence or a few in the body of the article—and certainly not with the rather simplistic summary you gave previously. KremlumSandus (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Your op-ed was blocked from distribution here over your refusal to respect the privacy of a micronationalist and the unsubstantiated allegations for which you refused to provide evidence. Now you're trying to bypass the block by repeating the same accusations here and referencing other links which were equally blocked from distribution for privacy violation. Seriously Will, do you have nothing better to do with your life? Do you see me posting rants about Sandus or about yourself, or edit-warring on the Augusta Accord page? Seems like following and commenting on whatever I do is the only thing that keeps your interest in micronationalism. Yaroslav (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the strong irony in this latest response. Seriously, ad hominem attacks? Geesh. All we've been trying to do is voice 'valid' criticism of this convention and you keep censoring and trying to suppress any information that is not to your liking. Everyone could simply ask you the same questions besides don't you have like a job trying to attract tourists and not scaring them away? Or represent Lotisland instead of censoring? Put up and shut up at this point, dude. --Artemissandus (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The only line that could be reasonably considered valid criticism I copied it and added to the preamble, as suggested by Jonathan. The rest of the paragraph consists of outright lies and links that violate micronational privacy and were already deleted from MIcroWiki before. Yaroslav (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
These "lies" you speak of, are only "lies" because you say they are, whereas, they're complete fact to a good portion of the community. Its not even an open-secret anymore. As for the other thing, its only now that you've been suddenly interested in "privacy", where you've never really respected anyone's privacy before. How curious. As for what you deem "reasonable" is often times very unreasonable. Go figure. Keep it up, sport. --Artemissandus (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The line you copied also erased the entire historical context that demonstrates why this convention was written in bad faith. KremlumSandus (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The points that you are referring to in the op-ed are not copied here, making the edits in question irrelevant and thus they should stay. The links make no similar references to an individual's publicly accessible, generally known name. I could ask the same of you, whether you have nothing better to do than to begin an edit war simply because you cannot tolerate criticism. Do not think of yourself so innocent that you have not had a part to play: this issue is all of your making, not mine. I have only expressed my opinion that, so far, you have successfully 'cancelled' in contravention of your own convention that you wrote. KremlumSandus (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
They are not "lies" they are allegations, and the text itself is neutral, and never says the allegations are true. Not to mention, they are referenced. We will not remove it because you personally hate the source or individuals who wrote them. How it works, is since Mar challenged the text it means we take it to the talk page and discuss whether or not it should stay; you do not remove the text without consensus unless it is on a biography. The text stays until it is resolved. We find consensus for why the text should be removed, not why it should be added. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 16:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, as Dionisiy pointed out, we do in fact need to find out what counts as relevant criticism. Though, I do believe they are reliable sources from well-established micronationalists and in large numbers. Thus, I believe it to be relevant. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 16:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Should criticism that Yaroslav considers libellous be included on an entry about one of his projects?

I think the best option would be not to include it. The micronational community has plenty of newspapers, I think a better option would be for a neutral party to write a news article which either omits that criticism or includes it in such a manner that makes it clear he disagrees with it. MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

MicroWiki is effectively a neutral party. Certainly, it is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. I strongly believe that MicroWiki should "include it [the criticism] in such a manner that makes it clear he disagrees with it" provided that it is notable. The test of notability is being discussed below. Can you expand on why neutral mentions of notable criticism are more suitable for newspapers than encyclopaedia entries? —Ives Blackwood (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No. The accusations are not substantiated by evidence, and the blog that published them is biased - which is not exactly a problem, but fails to make an analysis of the text, limited to talking about only one of the co-writers and one of the signatories and that definitely does not invalidate neither the effort nor the principles of the others participants in this initiative. I don't even think that personal issues can produce critical material for political initiatives, unless the criticism is extended to all authors and signatories, which would be problematic to do. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the only person who challenged was the person being accused, at least initially. Whether or not they are true or untrue is not a problem, they are "allegations". MicroWiki takes opinions from various viewpoints and words them in a neutral environment, giving each opinion a fair spot - of course the source is biased! Unless it is blatant conspiracy, spam or harassment, it is reliable and notable. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! This is a wiki. As long as the paragraph citing said text is neutral, then there is absolutely no issue. Sertor (Chat) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the merits of the criticism have no bearing on whether or not they should be included in the entry. If I were to write a Home-made Crown Journal article arguing that the convention was secretly written by Robert Lethler whilst high in Jon's basement, and that criticism gained traction as something a significant number of people believed, it should be included. If I claimed that I wrote the convention and lots of people believed me, that would merit a mention. Stating that X has said Y in the entry does not mean that MicroWiki is endorsing Y, stating that Y is true, or anything else. All it means is that X said Y. The only relevant test is notability—and that is being discussed below. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the "accusations" that Yaroslav Mar considers to be "libellous" (i.e., that he harassed several French micronationalists in 2015 and 2016) are not referred to by the text of the criticism that I added. The criticism quoted refers to the historical events of October and such and how the text of the convention does not comport with their behaviour. KremlumSandus (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No. The "op-ed" writen by Will is not criticism of the articles of the Convention itself, but its writers, which has nothing to do with the Convention. It doesn't use Dionisiy's pseudonym, which is called doxxing. Doxxing should not be included on the wiki page. Its just blatant disrespect. Also don't bring up "but he disrespected someone's pronouns", since revenge is not the way to deal with it, its wasting everyone's time and is actually hurting someone. "The best revenge is no revenge. Just forget they exist" -Buddha. Thank you all. (Chat)

The op-ed (which really was an opinion piece, so you don't need quotation marks) was not criticism of the convention's text, that is true, but of its author and the circumstances surrounding its creation. That does have something to do with the convention.
Again, I would happily point out that it is not a pseudonym: it is in fact a homophone, so there is nothing "ψευδές" about it. It is also not doxxing to refer to information that is, as I have maintained, common knowledge, publicly accessibly, and is found on media from Lostisland and involving Pavlov itself. It does not hurt anyone, let alone the author of his own doing, by pointing to bad behaviour and actions that are, to my understanding, still not admitted and apologised for.
Disrespect, sure, but do not think that quoting some uncited passage attributed to the Buddha will be encourage me to stop pointing out what has been bad behaviour for years: harassing LGBTQ+ people, using racial slurs, and just generally bad and unprofessional behaviour. The Buddha also taught the law of cause and effect, and in this case then my own actions have had their own causes and effects. KremlumSandus (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided a shred of evidence of me "harassing LGBTQ+ people and using racial slurs". As of Dionisiy's real name, it has never been used in Pavlov - this is yet another of your lies - and the name he uses in Lostisland is Denys Tezdzhanenko. Yaroslav (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The "criticism" in question is not the criticism of the convention. In fact, it was published nearly a month before the publication of the convention, the convention has nothing to do with it and doesn't reference it - Soergel may argue that the convention is a reaction to what he and his friends posted about me, but I'm afraid that he is flattering himself and exaggerating his influence on the convention's signers. It also has epithets such as "miserable dogs", i.e. is an outright defamation, in addition to using the real name of a micronationalist without his permission. It is irrelevant to the article, violates the MicroWiki standards, and is not supplied by any evidence. It is also worth noting that two of the original signatories of this ridiculous "denunciation", namely Hrafnarfjall and Misberia, later withdrew their signatures and apologized for their involvement. Yaroslav (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the criticism that Will proposes adding to the article notable enough to be included?

No, as the criticism comes from a blog which can’t be considered a source in this case, since express more a personal view of the signatories then critics to the text per se. The other reference is a google document which also uses the non-micronational name without that person’s consent, and uses language such as “miserable dogs” - an ad hominem argument that don't add nothing to any discussion. In addition, two of the original co-signers of this document later revoked their signatures and apologized for their involvement. If we are going to include such accusations to MicroWiki articles even when they are not backed by evidence, then as Yaroslav said, anyone will be able to publish however ridiculous accusation in their blog and add it as “criticism” to an article about a micronation, micronational organization, etc. The reference to the “historic context” of the convention is neither relevant nor notable either: there is no relation between the convention that we signed and the MicroWiki arguments, nor does the convention reference any such arguments. Nevertheless, I insist on saying that what is happening is personal criticism, not the content of the treaty. Even though, however relevant Sandus may be, and however passionate the defense of his theses may be, I see the premise with equal concern: a micronation called Wendatia published "criticisms" limited to a few lines, based solely on the text of Sandus, and denoting mere personal opinion. More than relevant or not, we must pay attention to the quality of criticism. And in this case, when referring to quality, I do not mention textual quality, but the target of the text, which is not that of the treaty, but that of one of the co-authors and one of the signatories. Last and not least, if this text has the participation of Lostisland and Pavlov and the past attitudes of these micronational entities went against what is expressed in that text, I'm tempted to note that there was maturity of the parties involved, instead of accusing "hypocrisy", something beyond our ability to judge. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MicroWiki does not have expansive policies nor guidelines on reliable references or criticisms, nor relevance, though this news sources were not created today or with the sole purpose of defamation of Mar, which may I remind you the article is talking about the convention, not Mar personally. The criticism is also backed by a second source and countless individuals, which I would say is largely notable, and may I remind editor we have no limits on length of citations. No matter who wrote it, it is an "allegation" after-all, and the source itself is reliable. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article is in fact rather notable, and is even itself cited by various secondary sources. There are also zero referemce policies here by design, and as such that argument is null. Sertor (Chat) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The idea that anything can be posted on the wiki just because it is referenced on a third-party website simply doesn't stand scrutiny. If this is the MW policy now, it means I can write an article about how Will and his friends are fraudsters, post it on Lostisland's website - nobody could argue in good faith that the source isn't notable - then ask Dionisiy to write another article on Pavlov's website, where he basically repeats the same accusations, and post something like that to the article about the Augusta Accord:

The Accord has garnered some criticism against it from other micronations such as Lostisland and Pavlov. Common points of criticisms allege that the convention is a ploy to draw attention away from the fraudulent activity of its authors Gaius Soergel Publicola and Joseph Kennedy. Yaroslav Mar of Lostisland and Alexander IV of Pavlov have argued in their op-eds on Lostisland News and Pavlovian Gazette that Soergel and Kennedy were accused by several micronationalists of defrauding a 76 y.o. trans woman and embezzling money which they collected supposedly for helping the LGBT community. This context demonstrates that the accord was written in bad faith.

Of course, I'm not going to do anything like that, and heck, it would be against the convention that I myself wrote. But assuming that I did it, and posted it as criticism of the Augusta Accord, how would you justify its deletion? All the arguments in favor of keeping this section would equally apply: the allegation does exist, the source which published it wasn't created today nor for the sole purpose of defamation of Soergel and Kennedy, the article is talking about the accord, not Soergel and Kennedy personally, the criticism is backed by a secondary source, and the criticism section doesn't say that the allegation is necessarily true.

And yet, such "criticism" would be rightfully deleted, and me and Dionisiy would be most likely banned from the wiki. It would be deleted because there is no evidence for the allegation, and because it has no relevance to the Augusta Accord. In other words, it would be deleted for the same reasons I'm arguing that this section should be deleted. Yaroslav (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Veritum Sandus is not just some "third party website": the op-ed had evidence for the behaviour of Mar and D. Tezdzhan-Smahin in October 2020 and argued that this context and your actions subsequent to it call into question your good faith in authoring the convention. Whether you like it or not, the criticism is relevant to the convention and should remain on this page. The "libellous" accusations you like to latch on to, Yaroslav, are no where featured in this article on MicroWiki—nor were they key points in my op-ed. Here and elsewhere on this discussion page, you are claiming that people are arguing things that they are not truly arguing, and you are moving the goal posts of this conversation to wherever suits you: stop it. Make some actually good arguments for why there should be no criticism section on this article that respects the neutrality of this public encyclopedia. KremlumSandus (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You're right. Veritum Sandus indeed is not just some "third party website": it's a website which was deaccredited over a privacy violation, so in such a hypothetial situation, Lostisland's website would actually be in a better position. At least nobody could've accused it of doxxing. The op-ed and the denunciation don't have a shred of evidence: I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of my "use of racial epithets", which you conveniently forget to do, and the remark about "men in dresses" - even if you consider it transphobic - wasn't mine, hence has no relevance to the convention. Yaroslav (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Than it would not be removed from the Augusta Accord? Well, if it were made precisely as you cited here, of course it would be removed as you would clearly be trying to get back at them. Had it been written as an opinion piece like Will's however, and with within relevant context, it would stay on the article. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 03:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So just because "they did it first" it is ok, if we would do the exact same thing it would be "trying to get back at them"? Come on Zed, this can't be for real. Dionisiy (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Quite literally, no one has argued this. Stop putting your words in others' mouths. KremlumSandus (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. Frankly you should recurse yourself from any decision-making with regards to this article, given your track record of personal animosity towards its author. Yaroslav (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yet another instance where, if you cannot win with argument, you must win by asking people to *recuse* themselves because of their animosity toward you. The same could be said of your hypocrisy! KremlumSandus (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As per MicroWiki:Administrators, the admins are expected to be impartial. It's perfectly reasonable to expect admins with a conflict of interest or a personal bias to refrain from decision-making. As of your accusation of hypocrisy, it would've been valid had a I published a 2000-word rant about you on Lostisland's website. Yaroslav (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can Will's op-ed be cited? If not, would Will consider amending the op-ed?

As long as it violates the privacy of a micronationalist and contains unverified accusations, it can’t. Also, I believe Mr. Soergel even has some initiative to protect personal data he started and it would be of good tone and worthy of his biography to demonstrate this vision with someone who, it seems, is an opponent. It would be, if not the minimum of cordiality, a sample of greatness of character. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, as per MicroWiki:Pseudonyms. The text stays, but the link to the citation is removed. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The spin that such a name is a privacy violation is a misunderstanding at best, a farce and falsehood at worst. Said individual parades such name regarding their micronational affairs, on the LostIslandian Website, the LostIslandian YouTube channel, several other websites including the LostIsland entry on Wikipedia. Sertor (Chat)

No, MicroWiki:Pseudonyms is very clear on this. There are many examples which undo the argument of Sertor Valentinus, for example with James von Puchow which slightly changed his surname and Pierre d'Égtavie which changed his first name slightly. According to the logic brought forward by Sertor Valentinus and Sandus et al, this would undo the years of recognising the chosen pseudonyms of users on this wiki. This leads to a dangerous environment in which someone who has a minority opinion will get doxxed by his opponents at the second. Dionisiy (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is, however, not the argument that was contained in Yaroslav Mar's original complaint. He has long argued that I have violated your privacy by sharing your name, despite the fact that (1) it is communal knowledge that Dionisiy is a pseudonym and we all know your real name and (2) there is media that links you and your supposedly private name to both Lostisland and Pavlov. The op-ed in question never appeared, at least not by my editing, on this wiki precisely for the reason you cite. KremlumSandus (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
My comment is regarding the usage of it to cite a section on the wiki. Regarding the usage of it on your news outlet, I do indeed think it violates my privacy and find it distasteful to say the least. Most of all for someone who is so looking at proper pronouns and preferred names it quite surprises me from you - but apparently you do not lead by example so to say. Dionisiy (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
A simple Google search can find references of your supposedly private name and your micronational activity: it is not private if it is public knowledge and can be accessed by public means. Distasteful you may find it, infringing of your privacy it is not. That claim is also separate from the other claim you make: that it violates decorum and community standards. As someone looking for you to respect proper pronouns and preferred named, it surprises me that you want people to use your regnal name or one of half a dozen names you go by when you cannot do the same for someone else because they are transgender. You may be right: I do not lead by example, but by pointing out hypocrisy. Reaction is caused by action, and that action was yours, D. Tezdzhan-Smahin: that's basic karmic law. KremlumSandus (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not a saint. Do not expect me to be one when you are not, either. KremlumSandus (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
And another lie, in public venues in the last years I never not referred to Transgenders by their requested names. Dionisiy (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
You and I have not spoken in years and I do not frequent the same..."places" you do. I rely on what people have told me, and they have told me just as much and that you disrespect transgender people, as is evident by the language you use despite knowing better. KremlumSandus (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I heard things about other people as well but without evidence making a claim is generally unwise, a scholar such as yourself should be aware of this. What exactly do you mean by knowing better? Dionisiy (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, blankly citing MicroWiki:Pseudonyms in support of not including the reference without mentioning its provenance, as though it were an established wiki policy that we do not cite articles that use people's non-micronational names, is in poor faith. That was added to the policy last night and reflects an admin consensus that was reached in response to this argument. What has happened here is that the admins have decided that they feel it is inappropriate to cite an article that uses someone's non-micronational name and Zed has added this to the policy to clarify that. That should be made crystal clear. MicroWiki:Pseudonyms is less something that we should cite in the discussion and more what we're discussing—it reflects the current position of the admins, not an established wiki policy. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The content of MicroWiki:Pseudonyms may only have been written recently, but they most certainly reflect established wiki policy. They have been strictly enforced for a decade now, without exception. Austenasia (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Re: the above, I've removed the link to the Google Doc given it still uses Dion's macronational name, but I've edited the Criticism section accordingly to list the micronationalists who'd signed it. Austenasia (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I've been a community member for 10 years, but this is the first time that I see a wiki admin openly advocating for the violation of rules. Yaroslav (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Summaries of arguments for and against keeping the "Criticism" section

Since this discussion has been wholly unproductive and has produced much wheel-spinning, as it were, I think it is best if we focus on the rational for why or why not the criticism section should be kept.


Criticism from Soergel's Veritum Sandus article

  • The Sandum criticism is widely and publicly known.
  • The Sandum criticism comes from a credible and substantiated opinion article.
  • The Sandum criticism can now be referenced on the Montediszamble Convention page because references to D. Tezdzhan-Smahin's non-micronational name have been removed.


Criticism from Soergel's Veritum Sandus article

  • The Sandum criticism is irrelevant because Sandus is not a signatory of the convention.
  • The Sandum criticism is irrelevant because it is not a criticism of the convention but of its author (i.e. an ad hominem attack), for the simple reason that the referenced article had been written a month before the the convention was released. The other article, which specifically references the convention, was banned from distribution on MicroWiki for privacy violation and unfounded allegations. Likewise, it criticizes not the convention but its author, and is equally an ad hominem.
  • The Sandum criticism is irrelevant because there is no link between the events of October and the convention. The convention's text does not reference any specific events.
  • The Sandum criticism comes from a source which was deaccredited for violating the privacy of a micronationalist and for posting unfounded allegations, including of criminal behavior.
  • The opinion article in question is neither credible nor substantiated, and it is based on a defamation where the convention author is called a "miserable dog", where D. Tezdzhan-Smahin's private name is posted, which is not supplied by any evidence, and which saw two of its signatories (Hrafnarfjall and Misberia) revoke their signatures and apologize for their involvement.
  • The Sandum criticism comes from a far-left group which considers their opinion not “an opinion” but “basic human decency”.
  • The Sandum criticism can not be referenced on the Montediszamble Convention page because it links to pages with D. Tezdzhan-Smahin's private name.
  • The argument that any third-party website can and should be referenced on MicroWiki, without regard for its veracity and relevance — dubious in itself — was rebutted by Zed, who admitted that a similar “criticism”, or more accurately, defamation of Soergel, would’ve been deleted had I posted it. I appreciate the honesty.
  • The presence of the section is significantly more controversial than its absence. People who support its inclusion can't argue that the absence of the section is doxxing them, nor that the article becomes libelous towards them if the section is removed. It doesn't even affect them at all. The discussion on this talkpage demonstrated there's no consensus for inclusion and unlikely to be.


I will let others speak for themselves. KremlumSandus (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Added the arguments against. Yaroslav (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


tell the MW admin team to unlock this page

-Carl Wheezer


The page is unlocked, but please avoid adding or removing anything major from the criticism section without prior consensus on the talk page. (violations will result in blocks). The discussion is still open and regularly checked for the time being. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

May I ask how do you imagine a consensus being reached? Yaroslav (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

After noting at least 4 revisions between the 11th and 13th of December from the user in question, isn't User:Yaroslav supposed to be blocked from editing? Already it looks like we are going to head towards back-and-forth reversions. Sertor (Chat) 13:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You probably meant that Soergel is supposed to be blocked from editing, for having tried to add a previously removed link. Yaroslav (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


MOAR EDIT WARZ Flag of Wendatia.png jonas | talk 04:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)