Talk:Montediszamble Convention/Archive 2

8–13 December edit war

The administration team has discussed this matter extensively and it is time to bring the discussion on these matters to a close. You can access the old discussion at Talk:Montediszamble Convention/Archive 1.

First and foremost, we want to absolutely clear that using someone's macronational name without her, his or their consent is unacceptable in a MicroWiki entry, and links from MicroWiki to news articles that use someone's macronational name without their consent will be removed. Now that Will has changed his op-ed to use micronational pseudonyms, it is acceptable for it to be cited as a source.

In most cases, wiki entries should not have dedicated criticism sections; this would be giving undue weight and would undermine MicroWiki's neutral point of view. However, there are limited exceptions, such as the GUM's article. We have determined that this is one such exception. Criticism of the Montediszamble Convention is an important part of its story and it would undermine our NPOV not to make this clear.

The existence of the criticism section does not mean that MicroWiki endorses the criticism that it describes. That section neutrally reports what others have said. Sentences that open 'X has argued in an op-ed on Veritum Sandus that' clearly do not imply that MW agrees with X; they just state what X has said. Therefore, the position of the admins is that the truthfulness of criticism is irrelevant to determining whether or not it should be included in the article. All that matters is its notability.

Lastly, we have decided that we are not going to bar Will's article from being cited because Yaroslav considers it libellous. The wiki citing an article as a primary source - i.e. using the article as a source for what the article says - does not mean that the wiki is endorsing the material in the article as true or helpful. Yaroslav remains welcome to add content to the criticism section noting that he considers the article libellous.

This is our final decision and the discussion is now over.

—Ives Blackwood (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Despite what appeared to be editorial and administrative consensus supporting its existence, User:Yaroslav has yet again wiped the criticism section. Instead yet again, there is a false narrative yet again.. what is actually the future of this article, because it is becoming unclear by conflicting actions and statements. Sertor (Chat) 18:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish to add that, as the article stands right now, the summary of my criticism misrepresents what my criticism actually was. My criticism impinges on the fact that, in October, Sandus and several other micronations denounced D. Tezdzhan-Smahin and Yaroslav Mar for transphobic and racist behaviour. There is evidence for this, and it is reproduced in the article that can now be referenced. It does not, however, impinge on the earlier accusations made by Francophone micronationalists that Mar and Tezdzhan-Smahin harassed them: Yaroslav is at liberty to claim this is libel (it is not), but that is not really the immediate context from which my criticism arose. It is additional context that, from my perspective, shows that there has been animosity since 2015/2016 and gives further rationale for why the Montediszamble Convention was written: to respond to a denunciation that was authored, in part, by an old adversary (Sandus). This whole context is, implicitly in my op-ed, what I consider to demonstrate the convention's bad faith. As I specified in my op-ed, the context calls into question the intention behind several clauses of the convention, especially since several clauses in such a hodge-podge of a convention use language and points raised against micronationalists who signed the October denunciation.The distinction has been lost in the summary that is only found in a footnote: it deserves to be in the main body of the article and in a separate section.

The "compulsory narrative" mention is really a second, and minor, point of my criticism.

I ask that the original wording be restored since the edit that Yaroslav Mar made poorly represents my criticism that can be referred to now on this page. KremlumSandus (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If the decision was already unanimously met with the administration, what is the reason for its change and why is the page locked again? Moving the criticisms to the lead of the article and squeezing them into notes looks weird and makes no sense. Many editors are going to and have positively contributed to this article, some with approval of the admins, regardless of what Mar or the Sandus gang thinks the article should have. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 15:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, appearantly the site owner and admin Blackwood agreed with the current revision. Not sure why it needs another discussion. Dionisiy (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If so, no other admin was informed of their decision so I find that rather odd and pointless. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you mind adding the criticisms section back?

I think it was important, and I feel like just locking the page with the section still there would've been good enough.

jonas | talk 14:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Support: As per administrator and editorial consensus, it should be there. The fact it was unanimously removed and locked contrary to such is rather baffling. Sertor (Chat) 22:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)