User talk:Gitz6666/Russo-Ukraine

Commenting about other users on article talk pages

Please keep in mind that article talk pages exist only for discussing improvement of the corresponding page. Your comments on my talk page were fine, even if poorly substantiated, but that was not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your comment. But you constantly accuse me of bias. Yes, I certainly have personal views about it (everyone has). But I am trying to follow all rules including NPOV in main space. For example, would not you agree with this? My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I thought you might be biased, but even if it were so, that wouldn't be a problem. As you rightly say, we all have views. It's impossible to establish who, if any, is "truly neutral" here. The only way of achieving a certain acceptable degree of neutrality is through discussion and consensus. I objected to having all those poorly sourced (even posts on telegram!) "attacks on civilians" that do not qualify as war crimes, and I'll try to make the case for splitting the article; but I haven't started to remove them from the article, because it's only my view, maybe people from Ukraine or elsewhere are sending those contents to us, we should be respectful and take time and care. With regard to the criterion for the lead you ask me about: to me it looks overly complicated. The lead should change and will change but as a starting point, it seems to me that it should briefly announce the various areas touched upon in the article, as a sort of summary for the reader. Honestly, if one reads the lead now, it is clear that the Russian army are behaving horribly, and I don’t think we are underplaying their responsibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I did watch YouTube records mentioned here with great interest. Obviously, these Russian pilots (those who bombed children in Ukrainian cities) and others were under a psychological pressure, and I am not sure they apologized sincerely to Ukrainian people. So, it did look to me as a doubtful excercize, unless that was needed to improve the spirits of Ukrainian people and reveal a few interesting details about these pilots being misinformed by their commanders. Still, I can not compare that "torture" (certainly, these pilots felt ashamed, exactly as they should be) with the death, incapacitation and injury of peaceful people they have bombed. These pilots should be tried for their war crimes if you ask me. But in terms of WP coverage, I think my comment [1] explains it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you: the videos of the Russian PoW calling their mum, crying and expressing regret, etc., do not amount to torture. "Abuse" is a reasonable word, I guess, or maybe "exploiting for propaganda purposes". However, deliberatly shooting 3 PoWs in the legs and let them bleeding is torture, if that's what's happened. By the way, I've just read this in the report by Bogner: "Since the invasion by the Russian Federation, people believed to be thieves, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters or curfew violators have been beaten in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. We have received credible allegations of more than 40 such cases of ill-treatment by police officers, volunteer defence force members and others". I think you'll agree: this doesn't qualify as war crime, or at least RS doesn't say so explicitly, so let's leave it out. With regard to the lead, I personally have nothing against you or anyone else adding text to it - now is too poor - provided that we keep it fairly balanced and not emphatic or in any way apologetic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Only 40 cases of ill-treatment by police officers? I am sure there are many more such cases in the USA. As about Russia, the entire police force works for the Mafia state. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid you're right! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Warcrimes page

thanks for taking the time to prepare the post on the Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page. Lets see if we get any other Editors participating. Like you I am starting to think their are better things to do in my life than endless arguements over these issues. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ilenart626 thank you for the good work. I think I'm going to take a break from that article, as I'm disappointed by the lack of support from other editors. I hate seeing war crimes discourse being hijacked for petty political goals: if there are more war crimes against my party, that means that I'm (on the side of) the True Victim, which in turn means that... we're going to win the war? NATO will enter the war and war crimes will cease? Russian people will be ashamed and they'll ask their soldiers to behave nicely? I don't even understand the point of playing this ridiculous game of POV pushing on an article as that one, it shows disrespect for the real victims and it's utterly useless. Plus, I resent the way Anonimu was provoked and excluded: they brought it upon themselves, but it wasn't fair and it caused damage to our work. Or maybe what's happening is not WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE and what I perceive as fair balance is out of touch with the prevailing views in the community. Either way it' better if I take a break and move to other projects. But thank you again for the nice work, I enjoyed collaborating with you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Shadybabs (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I have just written to you. Which edit are you referring to? I see that you undid my edit here [2] with the surprising object "misleading edit summary". My summary was exceptionally detailed! I had literally described each and every changed I had made: "Added sources (Guardian + Le Monde), reference to "torture" (which cannot be disputed), reference to the results of the investigations by Le Monde and others + fixed mistake in the spelling of the village where this happened". If you don't agree, you should at least explain why, and that edit summary of yours unfortunately doesn't help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So basically @Shadybabs if you don't explain why my (detailed and thorough) edit summary is "misleading", one is left with no reason at all for your revert. You should either write: "misleading edit summary: POWs had not been tortured" (and I could open a discussion on this), or "misleading edit summary: Le Monde has been misrepresented" (and I could open a discussion), or "it happened in Malaya Rohan, not in Mala Rohan" (again, we could discuss about that). But if you just say "misleading summary", what should we be discussing about? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You made subsection name changes and removed content without indicating such in the summary. Shadybabs (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So, first of all I see that you are now admitting that your summary "misleading edit summary" [3] is indeed misleading. The edit you reverted had a good summary. So I suggest you self-revert that edit of yours. You can undo my edit but you should explain your reason.

Secondly, as you can see, I indicated everything in the summary [4]: "There's no reason for believing that both sources are about same issue: one refers to Borodyanka, the other took place in Kharkiv. The intercepted conversation with sadistic mum fails WP:V, heading must be compliant with MOS:HEAD. See talk and don't restore until consensus is reached". So what are you talking about? "heading must be compliant with MOS:HEAD" obviously refers to a change in the heading, don't you think so? Plus I had already explained everything on the talk page (that you desert) so this is really ludicrous. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shadybabs I was trying to make sense of what happened and I noticed that in fact this edit of mine also changed the heading plus removed some contents. After all, your "misleading edit summary" was not... entirely misleading! I did it inadvertently (probably I thought I had already published those early changes). I apologise for that.

However, please note the following:

- A discussion has been going on on the talk page since the 18 May. I pinged you but you didn't join.

- In that discussion 4 editors apart from myself expressed their views, and at 10:00, 20 May 2022 I made a proposition which perhaps might have enjoyed a consensus, here; I then modified the article accordingly and explained everything in the summary: [5].

- Obviously if you don't agree you can revert, but then please explain your reasons by joining the discussion. These reverts are not helpful if the goal is to reach a consensus: [6] [7].

I think we can't reach a consensus through editing here and we should avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates over contents (WP:REVTALK); we should rather use the talk page.

Anyway, sorry again about my sloppy summary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you

I might have let it stand if you had allowed me to disagree with M. Bitton, as he did quickly move to personal attacks, but as it is, you were wrong to not allow me to answer him. I mean, who he?

Meanwhile, I did at one point split your comment and tried to fix that; possibly we overwrote each other, and I see you may have done something about this in the same edit. For the record, I have no objection to you moving the second part of your comment above my reply if this is still an issue after my revert. Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the message, my comment and your replies to me as they are now are OK. With regard to the template:hidden, I had the impression that that discussion between you and M.Bitton was off topic and made it more difficult for others to join the discussion. If you want that discussion back to full visibility, I've nothing to object but let me suggest you to disengage: clearly there's a history of hostility between you two, and in these cases leaving a couple of days to "cool down" is always advisable. By the way, as a third uninvolved party let me tell you that you were the first one to escalate ("I've explained to you a few times now that other languages exist and see no reason to punish my carpals to go through this with you again"). Maybe you've been a bit too harsh without intending it? In that case, apologies always clean the air. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Lyudmyla Denisova

In the end, it was the Ukrainian parliamentarians themselves, together with 140 public figures, activists and professionals, who also accused her of making unverifiable statements about alleged sexual crimes by Russian troops.[8][9]--Mhorg (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Grazie, @Mhorg, ero a conoscenza di questo. Forse si potrebbe mettere l'informazione nel punto appropriato della voce War Crimes. La discussione a RS/N ha preso una piega surreale quando la notizia si è diffusa e alcuni utenti hanno continuato a dire che l'informazione era comunque sufficientemente verificabile! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A giudicare da quello che sta succedendo alla voce sui crimini di guerra e sulla sua voce personale, sembra ci sia l'intenzione di evitare di parlare dell'accaduto. Mhorg (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I made three and no more than three reverts in a 24-hour period: [10] [11] [12]. Therefore, as far as I understand, I complied with WP:3RR. The editor who applied the template:3RR and who forgot to sign it is @Volunteer Marek:. They themselves performed three reverts in that page: [13] [14] [15]. As an involved editor who is engaged in the very same behaviour they are complaining about, they are not in the position to use the 3RR template. I think they just got nervous because they have a pending case at WP:ANI, which I initiated. The fact that they forgot to sign also suggests the template was applied out of spite. They should be reminded that one needs to Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, as per WP:CIV. I strongly recommend Volunteer Marek to careful read (possibly a couple of times and taking notes) the whole policy one finds at WP:CIV. They would benefit enormously from doing so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Notification is required prior to a report. You made 3 reverts within FOUR hours. ANI at discussion is pretty much telling you that you should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG and most commentators (except a couple usual suspects from the War Crimes article) are telling you that you are indeed in the wrong as to the substance. You should pay heed. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reading of the discussion at ANI. I think your incivility and relentless pov-pushing are being exposed there. Anyway, re edit warring I think you should just stick to the WP:BRD cycle and don't revert when you're being reverted. Just seek consensus on the talk page and if you don’t get it (as on this occasion), just let things be: we are not playing a war game here, let alone fighting a war on account of the Ukrainian people. We're just writing an encyclopedia, and your editing style is blocking us. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You made three reverts in less than four hours so please don't try to lecture me about BRD. Here are some comments from ANI that you might find relevant:

"I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG (against Gitz6666)"

"I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice"

"while they (Volunteer Marek) might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus."

"Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here."

"I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here "

"Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine"

These are all from six DIFFERENT editors. Offering this piece of advice in 100% good faith: read the room. Volunteer Marek 19:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

the thing is, @Volunteer Marek, I know that I'm not a Russian pov-pusher. If someone says otherwise, that's relatively indifferent to me. It means that either they're pov-pushers themselves or that they're not well-informed. Moreover, I know that you're a pov-pusher: the exclusive or prevailing reason why you're here is pursuing a political agenda. If you were honest you'd admit it yourself: you're not at all interested in writing a collective encyclopaedia based on reliable sources and committed to neutrality. What I really don't know, however, is which standard of (in)civility this community deems intolerable. The way you behave is clearly exceptional in that regard, but I don't know if it's something that the community is ready to accept. We'll see it. I've done my best to expose the way you behave and will continue to ask the community to uphold its policies. If in the process I get topic banned or blocked, be it: nobody really gets hurt. I'll work on other projects and I'll be content with myself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I tried to give you good faithed advice. It's really all I can do and rest is up to you. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Gitz is doing the difficult thing here, which is trying to keep an article neutral in a situation like this where not only almost everyone in Wikipedia, but also a lot of press, are not neutral. And not without a reason, after all there is a war going on. Your contributions, Marek, are great many times, but I also believe that they often fail NPOV. And this is not a critique, it is hard to keep a NPOV on a subject like War Crimes. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3rr carefully. It’s not an allowance. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Since you asked for comments... You should not be doing this because you misrepresent comments by other contributors. My main argument was never false balance. I am simply telling that an event should be significant enough for inclusion as follows from its coverage in RS, no matter what "side" of the conflict. For example, if an event was covered only in few RS when it had happen, but not covered later, it probably has no "lasting significance". If it was just mentioned somewhere over the comma (",...,"), then again, it is not notable enough to be included to an already very long page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @My very best wishes, it was Volunteer Marek the one who argued that their reason for remopving the section was WP:UNDUE/false balance: see their opening post on the talk page at 23:00, 18 June 2022, But we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!"). So I basically tried to summarise also their view, and while in the process I had to drop a few exclamation marks, I dont' think I misrepresented anything substantial. However, if you don't want to be associated with that argument, I think we could drop any reference to the 6 or 7 editors who joined the discussion instead of removing arguments which were actually made. Don't you agree? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I've just changed the text as described here above. Please chek it and tell me if it's now OK for you or if you think that there's anything that needs to be added or removed from the summary of your arguments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to post an RfC, please see this and check how other people do it. I think you should not mention any specific contributors at all (just make a link to relevant discussion/section on article talk page). If people want to say something, they will comment at the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

AE report

I made a report about your editing here here. You are welcome to reply. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - what an appalling waste of time! Anyway I'll be travelling today and tomorrow, and I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Re to this. Sure thing, everyone has an opinion, admitted, and it is difficult to remain neutral. But one should just follow all our editing policies. That is what I am trying to do. In this case, you are saying that one should be "mitigating the responsibilities of the Russian army or documenting allegations of war crimes by the Ukrainian side". I do agree this is something you are trying to do, but I think you crossed the line in a number of cases, for example, by systematically removing well sourced content that contradicts your personal bias - as illustrated by diffs in my request. This is contrary to the policies, as me and other contributors tried to explain to you in a number of discussions we had. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Please @My very best wishes, may I suggest you answer my question at AE and share a few diffs showing that you comply with our policies and guidelines such as NPOV, DISRUPTIVE and TENDENTIOUS? otherwise the boomerang effect might be resounding. You see, you're right in saying that everyone has an opinion, but you're also neglecting a fundamental difference between you and me. I don't edit War crimes in Ukraine for advancing my personal political views, I work on that article because I truly believe that building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and committed to neutrality is an excellent effort in a time of war: it promotes knowledge, understanding, sympathy for the victims and accountabity for the perpetrators. Plus, I literally don't give a fuck about the Ukrainian/Russian divide; I see only victims and perpetrators. You, on the contrary, you are there just because you oppose the Russian regime, I guess. Therefore you're a liability, you make it more difficult to do our job (which is basically WP:E, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS) and you waste lots of time. I respect your political views and your motivations, but I also believe that if dispute resolution works well you'll get at least topic banned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, based on the diffs provided, I think you are clearly editing on the side of the Russian state if there is such "side". I can not speculate about your motivation. And you are wrong about my motivation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

But to answer your AE question, no, I hardly made any really substantial contributions in this subject area. I have time only to fix a few minor things, occasionally participate in discussions, or file an AE request if I believe that someone does something really detrimental to the project. Indeed, I believe that even your WP:BLUDGEON of talk pages on this subject could warrant such request... My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering @My very best wishes. I understand that your answer is basically "No": you cannot provide any diff showing that you, at least on one occasion, have removed a fishy, ill-sourced allegation against the Russian army or have included a sound, well-sourced allegation against the Ukrainian army. Nor have you made any comment on the talk page that couldn't be possibly construed as "relentless anti-Russian POV pushing".

The first reason for this is - you say - that you hardly made any really substantial contributions in this subject area. But you are way too modest! You have made no less than 95 edits to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine [16]. See? a nice 4.35% of the total edits made to the page. Truth be told, you are only at number 41 in terms of authorship. You've added only 766 characters to the article, a disappointing 0.3% of the text (I've added 74,240 characters, 29.2% of the text). And why is that, MVBW? The reason for this mismatch is that almost all your edits are reverts: you're basically disrupting other editors' work, that's what you do. You don't actually engage in building an encyclopedia, you have other stuff to do here.

Please, have another look at this [17], and tell me if you think that a community of editors should tolerate this kind of behaviour; please compare with this [18].

Secondly, you say that you occasionally participate in discussions. Again, you are way too modest: 219 edits to the talk page, 10.66% of the total edits made to the page [19]. Authorship statistics are not available for talk pages, but I'm be ready to bet that you are the second contributor to our discussions. We've spent hours discussing together and believe me: not on one occasion have you ever made anything but pushing an anti-Russian POV. Am I wrong? No, I'm not, you know I'm not. Everybody already knows in advance on what side your arguments are going to fall, which basically makes them useless. And the same applies to Volunteer Marek.

Finally, you summarise your third contribution to War crimes in Ukraine as follows: occasionally [I] file an AE request if I believe that someone does something really detrimental to the project. You don't specify what project are you referring to - do you mean the Ukrainian military effort? It is true that you filed an AE request against Mhorg, here, and most of it was about BLP and how to account for Denisova's dismissal; and yet in the article on Denisova you inserted factually wrong information, as I demonstrated to you in this thread to which you never replied. Now you file another request against me - well done. I'm wondering if they'll understand that you are a blatant case of civil POV-pushing.

There's only one thing that I really don't know. What the hell did you mean when you said that you are wrong about my motivation? Isn't the point of all your being here just opposing the Russian government? What did I miss? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, even this brief discussion shows what is the problem with your editing. You grossly misinterpreted my comment. I only said I am a low-key contributor in this area, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Low-key contributor in this area" is not accurate. You are as much a contributor to War crimes in Ukraine as a chicken bone stuck in your throat is a contribution to the dinner. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As about "have another look at this [...], please compare with this [...]", no, such comparison tells very little. One should look at individual edits. Yes, I frequently remove poorly sourced, misinterpreted and otherwise problematic content. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a good thing to have you here frequently removing contents that you deem poorly sourced, misinterpreted and otherwise problematic. But tell me, why are the contents you remove always and exclusively about war crimes allegedly committed by the Ukrainian army? Why have you NEVER encountered similarly poorly sourced, misinterpreted and problematic contents about a war crime allegedly committed by the Russian army? It's a genuine (as opposed to rhetoric) question: have you ever thought about it? do you have an answer My very best wishes? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC); edited 23:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Why I NEVER removed content about war crimes by Russian army? No, of course I occasionally removed such content, for example, in the biggest removal I made on this page [20]. Here I removed something that was presumably a false flag attack by Russian forces [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR report

You are welcome to reply here [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

[23] - I did it by mistake, but you are more than welcome to restore. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA

What you said here [24],[25] was a blatant personal attack. For the record, I am a cultural Russophile, meaning I am a fan of Russian poetry, songs and many other aspects of Russian culture. It does not mean that all aspects of Russian culture are great, but debating and criticizing them is normal in Russian politics and literature. I only said something that appears in the poetry cited on my talk page or in books, including even novels by famous Ivan Bunin. It does not mean that I support the current political regime in Russia and the suffering it brings to many nations including Russia itself. Quite the opposite. That's why I do not support Russian world. This is not really about culture, but a harmful propaganda that was used to justify the military aggression against other countries, and it defames all Russians around the world. So, you probably can count this as a political bias. But this is all. Please strike through or remove your comments. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes you don't understand the meaning of the word "culture" in "cultural racism". It has nothing to do with poetry, literature, etc. And the "slavish obedience and cruelty" of the Russian culture/character as an explanation for the invasion of Ukraine is paradigmatic of cultural racism. I won't strike through my comment but I suggest you remove your racist rant. Alternatively you can go around complaining about how deeply insulting it is that someone perceives Russian "slavish obedience and cruelty" as racist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was a summary of something well known from Russian literature. Consider Farewell, Unwashed Russia, i.e. "...Land of slaves, land of masters...". Are you saying that Mikhail Lermontov was an anti-Russian cultural racist? Nonsense. Personally, I do not think that any culture is better than another, but they are very much different. However, I will note that you are refusing to apologize or remove your offensive and unjustified accusations. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Did Lermontov explain the war in Ukraine in terms of the "slavish obedience and cruelty" of the Russian people? In that case I'd say that, based on contemporary standards, he would qualify as a racist - yes. Attributing moral vices and virtues to peoples is always a tricky business: the cruel and slavish Russian, the cunning Jew, the lazy Italian, etc., are offensive, and are also extremely stupid. I won't pursue the matter further, but I strongly advise you to remove hateful contents from your talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that was not about any ethnic stereotypes at all. What I cited was this:

Ныне ль, даве ль?- все одно и то же:

Волчьи морды, машкеры и рожи,

Спертый дух и одичалый мозг,

Сыск и кухня Тайных Канцелярий,

Пьяный гик осатанелых тварей,

Жгучий свист шпицрутенов и розг,

Дикий сон военных поселений,

Фаланстер, парадов и равнений,

Павлов, Аракчеевых, Петров,

Жутких Гатчин, страшных Петербургов,

Замыслы неистовых хирургов

И размах заплечных мастеров.

Сотни лет тупых и зверских пыток,

И еще не весь развернут свиток,

И не замкнут список палачей...

(Voloshin, 1920, Crimea)

You would probably count even Lev Tolstoy as a "racist" for his criticism of Russian war in Caucasus [26] ("In “Hadji Murad,” Tolstoy writes of a vicious circle of cruelty..." and so on). My very best wishes (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying that a war is cruel is not racist, saying that Putin is cruel is not racist, saying that a whole people is cruel may be racist; in this case, it was racist. Russia did not invade Ukraine because the Russians are cruel slaves. But I'm done with this conversation, which is very boring, and also pointless: I've never met anyone openly admitting to have said something racist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think that was, you are missing the point. For example, if someone summarizes what sources say about racism, that does not mean that he/she is a racist. I was asking "what in Russian culture/character made the atrocities [well-known through Russian history] possible?". This question has been debated many times in Russian literature (like in the novel by Tolstoy, etc.). That was my summary of these sources. If you disagree with Tolstoy or Voloshin, that's fine, but do not blame me of racism. Sure, there was some degree of WP:SYN in my comment, but I did not suggest including it on any pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian cruelty and servility is the wrong answer to the wrong question. You could ask that very same question about the Germans, Italians, British, Americans, etc., with the result of stereotyping national characters and always missing the truth. Atrocities always happen everywhere, and there's very little specific to national cultures to account for them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope you are not going to deny that Russian and American cultures, for example, are very different, and that one can study these cultures and how they have affected the histories of the countries. Once again, I am not saying that one culture is better than another, but they very different. Would modern day US army commit Bucha massacre in Canada? Of course not. Why? There are many reasons, but one of them is the difference in culture. Of course the US army did bomb a number of wrong targets in Afghanistan, but the conduct of Soviet army in the same Afghanistan was still very much different, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

what about the Mỹ Lai massacre? "Culture" doesn't explain anything: probably the culture of an American solider and that of a Russian soldier are much more similar than the culture of an American soldier and an American banker, journalist or HR activist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, that was a terrible war crime by an unruly detachment. But did they do it with every Vietnamese village, or at least with every village close to which some activities by insurgents were found or suspected? Because that is what Soviet forces did in Afghanistan, Nazi forces did on the occupied Soviet territories, and yes, Russian forces do in Ukraine (and they do a lot more). That's the difference. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I watched a few documentaries about modern-day US marines on YouTube and the dehumanisation modern US soldiers experience seems very similar to the depiction in Full Metal Jacket. There's nothing uniquely Russian about inhumane cruelty of soldiers Tolstoy writes about. Your interpretation of his works is rather peculiar. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

One can agree or disagree about it, but this is not a reason for making personal attacks like "racist rant" and so on. That was my point. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Amnesty and Stara Krasnianka

Hello @Alaexis, @PaulT2022 and @AdrianHObradors, could you please have a look at this sandbox and modify the text as you think best? Perhaps the text is too long - should we shorten it a bit? I'd like to publish it asap and, once it gets reverted, we can have an RfC using this text and the two questions formulated by Alaexis on the talk page, here. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 as I wrote on the article talk page, I think the official response about Ukraine military needing to be stationed near civilians and attempting to evacuate them must be mentioned. See the coverage of Maliar's briefing in this Guardian article. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Hmm. I think it is well written, but don't know if we should mention all of the sources and not just cite them. But we can ask that in the RfC as well. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please change the text as you wish. Citing the sources instead of mentioning them could be a good way of shortening the text, we just need to avoid SYNTH. And we should strengthen the part on the criticisms and add the official response by the military, by all means. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

maybe also @Ilenart626 would like to help us improve the text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am happy that you guys decided to make an RfC.My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks very good, thanks for putting it together. I have just two comments

1. Maybe we should say in the beginning that "The international humanitarian law says that each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas." [27]

1. In the RfC I would ask three questions:

1. 1. Should the article have the section dealing with the placement of military objectives near civilian objects?

1. 1. If the answer to Q1 is yes, should the version you've written be used? If the answer to Q2 is no, please explain what changes are needed.

1. 1. Should the subsection on Stara Krasnyanka be included as proposed? Alaexis_¿question? 20:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions @AdrianHObradors@PaulT2022@Alaexis.

1. I agree with the formulation of three questions by Aleaxis here above.

1. As suggested by Aleaxis, I added an introductory line on IHL. There's not only Rule 23 which is relevant here but also Rule 24, so I quoted it.

1. I added the coverage of Maliar's briefing in the Guardian, as suggested by PaulT2022.

1. I slightly modified the text here and there - e.g. some info about the school in Yahidne, to make the section more balanced and informative.

1. If editors suggest us to shorten the text, then I'd follow AdrianHObradors's proposal - quoting the sources instead of mentioning them one by one. For the sake of simplicity I didn't change the text right now - if we loose the RfC it will be a waste of time anyway.

If you want to do some editing in the sandbox, please help yourself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

One minor change. Was also thinking whether we should change “emblematic” to “typical” or something similar, as “emblematic” is not a word I have seen in common use. However I see it is also quoted in the Times of Israel report, so I guess we should leave. Rest looks fine. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Ilenart626. A mysterious word. Had the OHCHR clearly said "it might have been a case of using human shields", our work as editors would have been much simpler. Instead it said that it was "emblematic of its concerns", and one wonders - what the heck is the "emblem" (the symbol) of a "concern"?!? couldn't they just say what they want to say? Anyway... thank you for the editing! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gitz, wondering if it is worthwhile to request an uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion. Might save a lot of arguements. I did this recently on another dispute and it worked well. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ilenart626, good idea. As you have some experience with this, would you like to make the request? Otherwise I can do it myself but later on in the day or maybe tomorrow, thanks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ok, done refer Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack Ilenart626 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding

• [28] - You never edited this page before. You followed my edits in a matter of hours only to revert them. You provided no explanation on article talk page, at least so far. Please do not do it again. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a poor reply to the helpful warning I gave you on your talk page: [29]. I wasn't on Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis because of you. I was looking into the edit history of IP 187, whose recent block continues to surprise me: [30]. Anyway, this message of yours prompted me to have a look at your recent edit history. The last edit you made, this one [31], is questionable: why do you remove the whole text if you can easily find the source? It's really not difficult as one only needs to search on google the text in the quotation marks. I hope you don't feel harassed by this [32] and I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but we all are here to build an encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is clear from your reverts and personalized edit summaries [33],[34] that you do wikihounding. As about that another page were you followed my edits again (your diff), I removed unsourced contentious content that someone else already marked as unsourced. No, this is not my obligation to be looking for sources in such cases. This is an obligation of someone who included such materials. My very best wishes (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of my obligation! This is a collaborative project, and if you stumble upon a "citation needed" tag before removing the text you should at least make an attempt at finding the missing source, which here was super easy - there was a verbatim quotation and you could have just made a search on google. Can't you see the difference between disruptive and productive editing? Re my edit summaries, there's nothing pointing at wikihounding. They invite you to do what you should do: refrain from edit warring and open a discussion, explain your edits on the talk page, build a consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Will you please stop following my edits? Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As I told you, I didn't follow your edit. But I should: I see that you're now meddling in Disinformation removing the sentence [disinformatin] referred generally to lying and propaganda [35], which is a funny (not so funny) way of replying to the question I asked you on the talk page of Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis: Could you please tell us, MVBW, what's the difference between "propaganda" and "disinformation"? I asked you that question because in your edit summary [36] you claimed that propaganda is not the same as disinformation. How do you answer my question? By modifying Disinformation!?! Too bad... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• As a reply to this [37], I think my edit summaries were sufficiently clear, for example [38]. However, your edit summary for revert of the same edit [39] did not really explain why did you revert. Something being for a long time on the page is NOT a valid reason to keep. Perhaps it did not properly summarize cited sources, did not belong to specific section of the page, etc. Now, you claimed in your edit summaries that some of my edit summaries were misleading. If so, you are very welcome to start the thread on article talk page (not on my talk page) and explain. Maybe I would agree with you? But you did not start such threads and did not explain. Instead, you did this. That does look like a WP:Battle to me. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• You had removed that text from the lead because [40]

  improper summary in the lead: the Ghost of Kyiv was only briefly mentioned on the page, and while apparently a myth and morale booster, is not generally described as disinformation or information warfare

  That reason was wrong because, as I explained to you when I revered you, [41]

  The New York Times is not exclusively concerned with the Ghost of Kiev, which is quoted as paradigmatic of a more general concern: "some of the country’s official accounts have pushed stories with questionable veracity, spreading anecdotes". Therefore their assessment "Disinformation has also been part of Ukrainian online propaganda"

• Did you read the New York Time piece? If so, why did you claim that the source was not about "disinformation or information warfare"? "Disinformation has also been part of Ukrainian online propaganda" is a verbatim quotation.

• Anyway, when you removed the same text again offering a completely different rationale

  This is partly sourced [why partly?], but an improper/unbalanced summary of content in the body of the page. We can not dedicate 50% of the lead to something only briefly noted on the page

• it was clear to me that you were adjusting your arguments strategically and that time for discussing via edit summaries was over. So I invited you to open a thread on the talk page, which was necessary also because you were making other massive removals of text and sources. Instead of disrupting other editors' work for no reason apart pushing an anti-Russian POV, you should try to build consensus on the talk. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Re to this. Removing poor quality content or something that does not belong to pages is almost as important as creating new content. On that particular page I did not hinder or stonewall anything. I will reply to content-related issues only on article talk page and only if I regard it as a productive discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• [42] - same again, with regard to another contributor, i.e. following their edit only to revert it. Did you edit this page before? I do not see it. If their edit was so much problematic as you think, why not allow others to fix it? That is assuming their edit was indeed problematic. In fact, it was not problematic at all: [43]. That would not worth noticing, but this is a contributor you previously unsuccessfully complained about at ANI, and that your following resulted in yet another ANI complaint from someone else [44]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Why on Earth do you think I was following VM's edits there? I've never done this, @My very best wishes, I don't particularly like interacting with him, and it was not VM who brought me to that page. You, on the other hand, have explicitly acknowledged that you follow his edits, am I right? Because he's such a "clever guy", you explained, if I remember right. With worst intentions, you've also been following my edits, as I recently demonstrated to you (and you didn't deny), so please stop this childish bullying and don't complain about things that you do and I don't. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you never edited page X before, but you reverted an edit by user V on such page soon after his edit, if their edit was reasonable [45]], and you are in a constant disagreement with this user, complained about him, etc., then it is obvious what you do. Like I said elsewhere, it does not matter how you find edits by such user (there are many ways), but what you do on the page and if your actions resulted in a disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not "obvious": it's false, and your logic is defective. I've never followed VM anywhere. Had I done so, I would have had dozens of opportunities to quarrel with him: not my cup of tea, thanks. Human rights violations and war crimes in Ukraine is what I've been mainly doing here around, as you know, so finding me at "Torture in Ukraine" can't be that surprising to you or him. And following an editor you often agree with in order to support him may be even more disruptive than following someone you oppose. This you should know well since that was the main problem with that old anti-Russian mailing list you were involved in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking not about myself, but in general, no, following a contributor A you would like to help with improvement of pages is actually great. But in such cases, this is really a help (or at least changes that do not remove work by contributor A), rather than blind reverts such as one in the diff. And of course such productive collaborations usually do not cause objections by anyone and do not result in threads about conflicts on the ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice Concerning Discretionary Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This notice is just a formality required by ACDS. No imputation of improper conduct is intended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ad Orienteml. If you think I should revert this revert, please let me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are concerned that you have done more than one revert in the last24 hrs then yes, you should self-revert. Also, with 1RRin place I generally encourage discussion over reverts unless you believe the edit in question is really unhelpful. And of course, 1RR does not apply to naked vandalism, BLP and copyright violations. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, that revert of mine undoes four separate edits by MVBW, as I explained on the talk page, so I was in doubt whether it counts for one or not. But if I'm not wrong, it still counts as one single revert, because that's what it is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

While I'd be inclined to let that go, I would encourage discussion to avoid any unpleasantness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC clarity

This is not a nasty-gram, just a suggestion. I would have written your recent RfC more like this:

How should DPR and LPR be described?

1. breakaway puppet quasi-state(s)
2. Russian-supported breakaway state

I think the list of options makes it more clear than was the list of questions. But I wouldn't try changing it now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion @Adoring nanny. You're certainly right and next time I'll follow your suggestion. I copied this way of framing the question from the RfC now open in War crimes in Ukraine: if I'm not wrong, your comment is still missing there. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Re to your comment on my talk page. Since your previous version of the text has been rejected at the RfC, I think you could suggest new version of your text at article talk page that would be agreeable for everyone taking part in discussions on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The dates that DPR and LPR declared independence

As far as I can tell, the DPR and LPR de facto declared independence several days before the status referendums were held. The status referendums were effectively the second time that independence was declared. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't know anything about this. Why do you tell me, @Jargo Nautilus, is there any mistake that needs to be corrected? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In the article about DPR/LPR international recognition, it says that the declaration of independence occurred after/during (really quite vague) the status referendum. However, the two republics both "proclaimed" themselves to exist several days or weeks earlier, and then held the status referendums. After the referendums were successful, they declared independence for a second time. This is my understanding of the situation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you're right! Sources? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a source on me at the moment. I just remember being confused a few weeks ago, reading about it, and finding a news video of the DPR proclaiming its independence at a podium, several days earlier (according to the date of the video). The declaration after the referendum is more like the "reaffirmation" of independence. The DPR was created before the referendum took place... I think that's self-evident. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The two status referendums both occurred on 11 May 2014. After the vote was successful, the DPR and LPR declared independence (at what day exactly? who knows... maybe a few days later). However, the DPR was initially proclaimed on 7 April 2014, whereas the LPR was initially proclaimed on 27 April 2014. The terms "proclaim" and "declare" are very similar in meaning. The only difference maybe is that "proclaim" is more revolutionary whereas "declare" is more official. The DPR and LPR were both initially created via a revolution (i.e. military force), and subsequently declared independence after a "democratic" (note: disputed) vote. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so what I can gather from the information I've found is that the DPR and LPR might not have technically "declared independence" back on 7 April and 27 April respectively. Instead, it can be possibly interpreted that they declared themselves to exist inside of Ukraine. So, it is possibly almost like they internally seceded within Ukraine, without actually seceding outside of the country altogether. It's possibly like they created a new province inside Ukraine. After the referendums were held, they seceded from the country entirely. [46] [47] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the second source ([48]) - "We declare the establishment of a sovereign state - the Luhansk People's Republic... From now on, we are a free, independent Luhansk People's Republic." This is what the English translation says, and I can't speak Russian or Ukrainian, so I don't know what was actually said (but I'm presuming that the translation is accurate). The article was written on 28 April, and the video footage is from 27 April (not taking into account time zones). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the first source ([49]) -- again, it might be lost in translation: "The congress... from Donetsk... proclaims a sovereign state, Donetsk People's Republic." This dates back to 7 April. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That means that our articles are correct, am I right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The articles are correct in the info-boxes, yes, but a lot of the prose (paragraphs) all around the topic on Wikipedia don't explicitly say that the declarations of independence occurred on 7 April and 27 April. Instead, many of the paragraphs refer to the status referendums as the date of independence, which is inaccurate. One such article that does this is "International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Unclosed break tag

@Mathglot, thank you for editing my comment and thank you also for the explanation, which is very useful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not other users"

You're obviously compromised, this is quite clear from all the things you've placed on your profile page. Do tell, how does Wikipedia deal with activist/soapboxing editors if we are only to comment on the content of edits? You're being absurd because you are biased. It's kind of sad how Wikipedia has become weaponized by terminally online leftists. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a policy that you, like everyone else, must comply with. If you have concerns about my conduct, the right place to present them is not your edit summaries but WP:AN/I and/or WP:AE. You can also submit a question to the Wikipedia:Teahouse or ask an admin or experienced user you trust about how to proceed.

On the merit, you are wrong: I'm not biased, surely I'm not a supporter of Putin, and I don't use Wikipedia for politics. However I find it quite difficult to publish information about war crimes that may have been committed by Ukrainian forces and about other events related to Ukrainian politics. Some editors seem to feel that it is our duty to present a rosy, one-sided picture of the conflict with Russia; maybe they think that this is in the interest of the Ukrainian people. But WP:5P2 should prevent us from using the encyclopedia for advocacy, which means that we shouldn't be too worried about the political consequences of the information we convey. Besides, I wonder what good there would be in having an English-speaking public opinion misinformed about the war in Ukraine, convinced that the reasons are all on one side and the wrongs all on the other, and which therefore is ignorant, opinionated and overly hostile to Russia. I do not believe that having such a public opinion would be in the interest of peace and security.

I don't know what you found on my user page that was so biased and militant, nor am I used to indulge in soapboxing in article talk pages or elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Logic (Republics of Russia)

I have deleted your comments at my talk page because I believe that they are a waste of time. At the same time, I have also deleted my comments about Seryo and some of my comments about the situation in Russia. With that being said, I have not deleted some of my comments about Russia's constitution, which I believe still have legitimacy. If Russia's constitution can be amended at a moment's notice, then it's not really an authority to tell us what is true or false in the world. If you get so offended at criticisms of the Russian legal system, then that's on you, not on me. Meanwhile, I haven't deleted my comment about "logic" because, despite how it might sound a bit harsh, it's actually making a direct reference to the concept of the "burden of proof", and it's not supposed to be a personal attack. As I've mentioned in another comment, I have argued with religious people in the past by citing that concept. i.e. "prove that God doesn't exist" is a sentence that has been directly uttered towards me, and it does my head in. It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist because there is no scientific process through which I can definitely prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he doesn't. This is a logical fallacy, rather than a strong argument. By the way, that's why I specifically said "logic" in my comment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Expanded reading for Gitz: Hitchens's razor, Sagan standard, Russell's teapot. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Jargo Nautilus, you say that you've deleted my comment on your talk page [50] because they are a waste of time, but then you open a discussion here on my talk page - how is this not a waste of time?

• By deleting your comments on Talk:Republics of Russia, you implicitly admit they were contrary to policy and guidelines. That's good. Had you admitted it explicitly, it would have been even better. Mistakes happen all the time. Being ready to admit them when they are pointed out to you, without getting too angry or proud, is a collaborative attitude.

• All your misbehaviours consist in comments on talk pages, so it's of the utmost importance that you read WP:TALK carefully. You'll find out that you shouldn't have deleted and heavily edited your "wrong" (soapboxing) comments [51] - you should have left my collapsible box there [52]. Having users collapsing one's comments may be unpleasant, but it is based on a guideline per WP:TALK.

• You shouldn't have deleted my comment [53]. This is simply unacceptable behaviour.

• How shall we move forward and leave the talk page in an orderly condition? My suggestion is as follows:

1. Based on WP:MUTUAL, we remove both your personal attack on Seryo93 [54] and my reply to it. Personal attacks qualify as "harmful posts" and can thus be removed.

1. We restore both your off-topic comments and my collapsible box. You must not remove your own comments after some time has passed and/or an editor has replied.

• I ping @Deepfriedokra asking them to kindly check that all this is correct. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus:Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored Gitz's comment. As for collapsing talk page comments, well, he collapsed mine, so it's fair game (rules for thee but not for me?). In terms of "changing your own talk page comments", when exactly did I do that? I did change two of my comments on Talk:Republics of Russia, but no one had responded to those comments at the time that I edited them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, you didn't actually reply to my comments on Talk:Republics of Russia. You did (1) make reference to them on my talk page and (2) collapse them and refer to them in an edit summary, but you didn't actually reply to any of those comments directly on the talk page. Indeed, it was my impression that you wanted to remove any criticisms of mother Russia, so I removed the criticisms but left the core points that I was making. As I said, Russia's constitution is not the infallible holy scripture that you make it out to be. This is a valid point because I've observed that Vladimir Putin has been so easily able to amend the Russian constitution to reflect whatever he personally wants. In other countries, it often isn't as easy for a president to make such drastic constitutional amendments on a whim. Also, your argument about "prove that the republics don't exist" is a logical fallacy for the reasons I have already explained above. | EDIT: I will add that my comments about Russia's constitution aren't really off-topic since they directly address the point that you made which I was replying to. You cited the constitution as gospel, and I rebutted that the constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, we're talking about a personal attack and some off-topic comments that were made by Jargo Nautilus at Talk:Republics of Russia, where an RFC is now taking place.

@Jargo Nautilus, I'm sorry, it's not fair game. The situation is not symmetrical:

1. It's been three days since you made your soapboxing comments, and it might be too late to delete them. Besides, I had already replied to them by placing them in a collapsible box. Removing the box, deleting some comments of yours and editing others, is confusing and time-wasting: it's contrary to WP:TALK. You should just leave the box where it is. If you want to add your ideas about Russian constitutional law, you can do so outside the box in a new comment, if they are relevant to the topic.

1. On that same talk page you made a personal attack on Seryo93 and I replied to you. The normal way to proceed would be for you to respond by apologising and then strike through your uncivil comment (using <del></del>). This is the best way of reacting and it leaves the talk page perfectly intelligible to other editors. If, however, you are not ready to say "sorry" and/or you are deeply ashamed of your personal attack, and therefore want to remove it completely, then perhaps this is possible: harmful post may be removed. With my consent, my reply can also be removed under these circumstances, if I am not mistaken. But first deleting my reply and then putting it in a collapsible box makes no sense whatsoever because my reply to your personal attack was not "off-topic". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Rules for thee but not for me. So, apparently, you are allowed to bring up the Russian constitution as evidence of your claims whenever you want, but if I criticise the legitimacy of Russia's constitution, I'm in off-topic territory? Nope, I won't stand for that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of what I said about Seryo, I don't believe that the contents of my comment were inaccurate. Indeed, I do believe that he actually was gaslighting me previously. With that being said, the context of the comment may have been a bit inappropriate. Indeed, I'm not willing to strike-through my comment on the charge of being inaccurate, because it isn't. I'm willing to remove it out of the inappropriate context, however. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you try so hard not to understand what I'm telling you? The problem is not with your comments on the Russian constitution, but with the soapboxing, which you yourself admits is there. Therefore your comments need to be placed in a collapsible box, and if you want to add your remarks on the Russian constitution, you're free to do so outside the box. What you cannot do is to heavily edit your comments and delete them after three days in order to react to me placing them in a collapsible box. Re attack on @Seryo93, I don't understand where you get the notion that striking through your comment implies that you accept the charge of being inaccurate while entirely removing the comment would mean that it is only the context, and not the content, that is inappropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The major problem that I'm seeing here is that you aren't an administrator, and you are also a direct party to the dispute. I don't see how you can objectively moderate this dispute considering those details. I probably would be less annoyed if a different user had collapsed my comments, even a non-admin, as long as that editor wasn't previously involved with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point. Hopefully @Deepfriedokra will help us with some guidance on how Talk:Republics of Russia should be restored to conform to our guidelines and policies. Please don't reply further and let's wait for help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, you can help yourself on how to become a better person and find your way onto the right side of history. I can't tell you what to do, but I can certainly give you a piece of my mind. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Republics of Russia. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. It's always best to strictly observe WP:TPO, and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing Could you please show me by providing a diff here which legitimate talk page comment have I ever deleted or edited? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Here Cambial — foliar❧ 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reading of WP:TALK and WP:TALK#REPLIED: I did not edit another editor's comments but I revered edits that were incompatible with our guidelines. You'll find my reply to you here: Talk:Republics_of_Russia#mayhem_in_the_talk_page Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopaedia

You may call me a cynic, but I find it amusing that you claim with confidence that "we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to fight a war!", when yours truly is literally actively supporting a war criminal. This isn't even a matter of opinion; it's a fact. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and he will meet his fate at The Hague sooner rather than later. It's my impression that you support Putin; obviously, if you don't, now's your chance to clearly deny this accusation. Indeed, this isn't about who is "pro-Ukraine" and who is "pro-Russia". This is about humanity versus inhumanity. Who is the guy who launched an unprovoked war against a smaller neighbouring country in order to expand his imperial dominion? Putin. Who's the guy who has authorised the indiscriminate massacring of Ukrainian civilians and the destruction of Ukrainian critical infrastructure and cultural heritage? Putin. Who's the guy who's turned his own country from a sort-of-okay place to an international pariah? Putin. So, when you say that "we aren't here to fight a war", well, the fact that you are actively supporting an actual war criminal (such as by advocating for his stances on international geopolitics) means that you are indeed here to fight a war. Now, indeed, I don't deny the fact that I support the Ukrainian side. But I'm not here to fight a war against Russia. I'm here to defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion. And, I therefore believe that I might have some kind of a moral high ground, unless you genuinely believe that the Ukrainians are "Nazis" who deserved to be invaded by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

For further context, one of my own close relatives is a human rights lawyer who has assisted in prosecuting war criminals for the United Nations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, this is completely irrelevant. I am by no means a Putin supporter, but you and your pal should not edit Wikipedia with that battleground mentality of yours. An editor who is an enthusiastic Putin supporter is welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they adhere to our policies and guidelines - verifiability, neutral point of view, consensus, civility, etc. Your openly political (tendentious/soapboxing) attitude is directed, albeit unintentionally, at preventing editors who do not share your POV from contributing to this project, so your contribution is not a collaborative one, it blocks editorial work, prevents cooperation with others and should not continue in that way - you should try to correct yourself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion that Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Wikipedia. But obviously, blocking a certain demographic on the basis of their personal beliefs is a slippery slope, which is why no such demographic is blocked outright. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, supporting Ukraine in its defence against a hostile invasion force is the neutral position in this conflict. You are mistaken if you believe that supporting Ukraine and supporting Russia are two equivalent positions. Have you ever heard of "bothsidesism", or the "false balance"? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If two people were in a fight and one of them shot the other dead, then supporting either the killer or the victim would be equivalent positions according to Gitz. Taking the neutral POV would involve supporting neither the killer nor the victim. And it would be A-okay for supporters of the killer to edit Wikipedia articles in order to absolve the killer of any blame. Indeed, the victim deserved to be shot dead because he was a Nazismo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You are using those words inaccurately: they don't refer to the political views of the editors. Wikipedia does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views. And we don't "support" anything - neither Putin nor Zelenskyy, neither the killer nor the victim. We just publish verifiable contents and significant viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to help the Ukrainian people, there are far more useful ways to do so than endlessly insisting that the infobox of a minor Wikipedia article on the political organisation of the Russian Federation must be written without regard to Russian constitutional law. Your partisan attitude leads you to make absurd claims, which do not contribute to the quality of the encyclopaedia but neither do they contribute to the security of the Ukrainian people or the territorial integrity of Ukraine: it's just a waste time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, I can't help but notice that you have consistently contributed to removing sourced information on Wikipedia that suggests that Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes a "crime of aggression". I feel like there's a theme there. Perhaps you aren't a supporter of Putin, but I suspect that you at least hate Ukrainians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

But the real problem is: why do you think I could give a fig about your suspects on me? What makes you feel that I might be the least bit interested in your opinion of me? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you ban Nazis from editing Wikipedia? Actual Nazis? You can't blanket-ban a "Nazis" demographic, because it's impossible to determine who is a Nazi and who isn't one from their appearance alone. But after a person reveals themself to be a Nazi through-and-through, should they be banned? I say, yes. Nazism is objectively an evil ideology and shouldn't be tolerated out of some desire to maintain "neutrality". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, we can talk about "rights" all day. Russia has no right to invade Ukraine, for starters. But indeed, I do believe that I have the right to speak my mind on Wikipedia. If I encounter injustice or incompetence, I will speak my mind. It is not within my character to keep my mouth shut as I see evil and inept people attempting to control the world around me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

NPA - Nov 2022

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Reinserting personal attacks that other editors have removed is particularly inappropriate. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you Cambial — foliar❧ 17:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing. Telling you that your opposition was "rather aggressive" was not a personal attack on my part. For once I agree with the advice of My very best wishes and suggest you consult one of the administrators [55]. You might draw their attention to the fact that you just complained about me aggressively but unpersuasively arguing something [56] - were you personally attacking me? You could also point out to them that in the very first exchange we had you already kindly warned me that this may not be the website for you [57]. You should tell them so that it is clear how serious and unjustified my personal attack on you was when I said that your opposition to my arguments was quite aggressive. In the meantime, please comply with WP:TPO and refrain from repeatedly editing my comment to remove my alleged personal attack [58] [59]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

I am currently working on an article about treatment of POWs in the war in Ukraine (the main war crimes article is too big, "war crime" also doesn't cover everything on mistreatment of POWs apparently, as exposure of POWs by Ukraine and mistreatment by both sides weren't included in the main article, similar with 'no quarter' orders), but, as expected, it won't be an easy job, i have made a sketch on my sandbox (User:SnoopyBird/sandbox), i'd appreciate if you could hop by there and maybe help me with some things.

the main problem right now is to change some stuff, because, as of right now, it is kind of a copy-paste of the section in the war crimes article with a few changes, i also couldn't find the content on exposure/mistreatment of POWs and 'no quarter' orders in the war crimes article (it was removed, but i cant find anything on it in the page history), so, if you can find that, feel free to add it.

thanks in advance. SnoopyBird (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@SnoopyBird Thank you for this. I see that you've already done an excellent work. Now I'm going to bed but tomorrow or better on Monday I will help, if I can. Since the subject is not torture but more inclusively ill-treatment, public exposure of POWs is relevant here. Please have a look at this sandbox where you'll find contents on this: User:Gitz6666/sandbox5. Look for "Humiliation of captured" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @SnoopyBird, yesterday I managed to do some editing on the article draft - I hope it was helpful. Sorry it took me a while but I was overloaded with this tormenting affair, our self-inflicted torture: Torture in Ukraine: Masebrock, Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, Elinruby. I think your article is almost finished and ready to be published, you just need to improve the lead by summarising the contents of the body, as per MOS:LEAD, at which point it will be a great relief for War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as we will probably remove the whole section and replace it with the lead of your article. Thank you again for the "help request" and the good wiki-work. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SnoopyBird, what happened to your draft? It looks ready to me, why don't you publish it? Since you're working on the subject of POWs, you might be interested in this video [60]. It's a primary source, so we shouldn't use it, but you can look for secondary sources mentioning this video and, if they are reliable, report it in your article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah i kinda forgot about it, im going to publish it. SnoopyBird (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the behaviour of some users

Hi Gitz6666, I read a discussion of yours here[61] on your tp that sparked my attention. The same user in these days seems to have jumped two times into other articles to help Volunteer Marek.

• VM starts to contrast my contribution[62] MVBW seems to have jumped in to help him[63]

• VM starts to contrast my contribution[64] MVBW seems to have jumped in to help him[65]

Going by memory, I remember that this behaviour was very common in the past. I have tried very hard to avoid confronting these two users (mostly MVBW) because I seem to be talking to a wall (a somewhat coordinated wall). So, I just wanted to tell you that you are not the only one who has noticed such behaviour. I wonder if it is legitimate and respectful of other users.Mhorg (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg MVBW might well have you on their watchlist. I suspect several editors do given that your behaviour incurred a topic ban. I’m one of them. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, if there are administrators who follow me there is no problem for me, in fact I think it is fair. The problem is that MVBW has already been warned once by an administrator[66] to leave me alone when he even interfered in discussions of my tp as if it were his own.[67] And believe me when I tell you that I am trying hard to avoid contact with these users. Mhorg (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Mhorg, MVBW has already explained that he sometimes likes to follow Volunteer Marek's contribution because he believes this is not violation of policy but rather productive collaboration [68] - and indeed MVBW collaborates with VM in a very productive way. Years ago EtienneDolet compiled this impressive list of tag-team edit-war occurrences, but admin discussion found nothing sanctionable. Since then, this behaviour by MVBW has been ongoing and perhaps it has even become more frequent [69]. Personally I think it is disruptive, because it skews consensus and fosters a battleground mentality in other editors who feel sourrounded. But since it is considered acceptable, it will probably never end.

@Doug Weller, I could be wrong, but perhaps there would be less conflict in the EE area if from time to time we got some friendly advice, or not-so-friendly threat, from you admins. For example, I'd like to know if the way VM deletes articles by avoiding AfD and redirecting them is in accordance with policy. Since he does this repeatedly and when is reverted he reverts you back, maybe he knows he is allowed to do so. Is he right? Surely if I opened a discussion on this at AE, I'd come across as a querulous nuisance and pain in the ass. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I know virtually nothing about the EE area but I will remind you about Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll do as you suggest, but I'm not at all enthusiastic about this. First, RfCs are time-consuming and slow. This RfC was opened on 18 October, there was a clear consensus for inclusion (OHCHR had explicitly said that war crimes had been committed and that there were only VM and MVBW opposing). On 19 November I asked for a closure and nothing has yet happened. Secondly, and most importantly, RfCs may be ineffective: even if there were a clear consensus that No, we should not redirect the article on Vita Zaverukha, this would not prevent VM from removing virtually all content from it and transforming it from something like this into this. The problem is behaviour, not content. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gitz,

I've found WP:TIND helpful personally. (Whether that's right or wrong is another question.)

You may find the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Rewording_the_contentious_"onus"_sentence interesting; at the very least, it answers the question of why the edit-warring is seen the way it's seen. --PaulT2022 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I did find the discussion on ONUS interesting, thank you, but - and I'm sorry for my lack of imagination and understanding - I didn't get why it explains why edit-warring is seen the way it's seen. I've always thought (maybe wrongly) that either ONUS is interpreted as a (highly equivocal and misleading) repetition of NOCON (as if it were "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content and the onus to achieve consensus for removal is on those seeking to remove disputed content") or it is incompatible with NOCON, as it creates a "deletionist" presumption in favour of removal, which I would find hard to justify. But I don't think that's what you're thinking about and I don't see the nexus with edit-warring...

With regard to WP:TIND, the point that more resonated with my recent discussions is "Don't rush to delete articles" as far as other editors' behaviour is concerned, and "You are not obliged to edit Wikipedia" as far as my behaviour and well-being is concerned. By the way, in that essay I believe this edit was wrong [70]: "We can afford ... to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established" makes sense; I don't understand, however, "We can afford ... to wait before creating a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established" doesn't make any sense to me, or am I wrong? If I'm wrong, please revert [71]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

it creates a "deletionist" presumption in favour of removal - this is my reading of the linked discussion so far, and if we are to assume it reflects consensus for a second, then when is reverted he reverts you back, maybe he knows he is allowed to do so suddenly becomes reasonable.

Also, WP:NOCON lists WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPRESTORE as exceptions explicitly. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I have two remarks, one "wiki-lawyering" in nature, the other one substantive. The first is that ONUS cannot be an exception to NOCON since NOCON explicitly says In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article. It explicitly regulates the same subject as ONUS. If rule 1 says "A and B must be punished" and rule 2 says "B must not be punished", rule 2 is not an "exception" to rule 1, but it is antinomic, it contradicts rule 1, and either rule 1 or rule 2 must be modified, otherwise there is normative uncertainty. Substantive remark: if ONUS prevails over NOCON, then 3 or 4 editors (you don't need big numbers) can go around the encyclopaedia removing content that don't fit their POV; neutrality (which is non-negotiable) will be affected. Note that the same editors could not go around adding content because adding is more difficult than removing - you need sources, you need time and you need consensus. So no, I don't think that those fictional editors should be allowed to remove whatever they want by brandishing ONUS. Adding and removing should at least be on the same hierarchical level (P.S. obviously BURDEN is an exception, I read BURDEN but understood ONUS! BURDEN is an exception but that doesn't raise any problems because it relates to WP:V, which is an entirely diffent matter, and the same applies to BLP: this is also a true exception, and a reasonable one, to NOCON). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that removing controversial content is made a lot more easier by policy than adding new. My impression is it's seen as a net positive force.

As to ONUS vs NOCON, I think it's a theoretical contradiction as in most (all?) disputes in the EE area I've seen there are inevitably accusations of sources being unreliable in general or arguments that the cited source doesn't support the added text, which would fall under BURDEN. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most of the disputes in the EE area - actually the harshest and most unpleasant ones - are based on NPOV/UNDUE. So for instance:

1. at Human rights in Ukraine in the last few days edits faithfully based on Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The Venice Commission, etc., have been blocked essentially because of UNDUE concerns (re Torture, Lead and Linguistic Rights);

1. the article Torture in Ukraine has been "de facto" deleted via redirect because of the same reason. Yes, initially there were also tiny problems with WP:V, but they were soon sorted out, and the main issue was that the whole article appeared UNBALANCED;

1. all the RfCs we've had at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have been caused by DUE WEIGHT issues: RSs (OHCHR, Washington Post, Amnesty, HRW, etc.) say that x is a war crime, yet some editors (always the same 2 or 3) feel we should not report it because it's not as serious as war crimes committed by the Russians; so they remove it by claiming ONUS (and then inevitably lose the resulting RfC).

I could provide more examples. The point of contention is always WP:NPOV/DUE WEIGHT and very rarely WP:V (yes, there's an editor always shouting "misrepresentation of sources!!!", but that's just rhetoric/fake indignation/pretend play: the issue is always with NPOV). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

yes, there's an editor always shouting "misrepresentation of sources!!!" - this was my point: once a concern on sourcing is expressed NOCON apparently does no longer apply. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

yes but that concern is relatively easy to address: you provide the source, check the text, if needed you modify it so as to make it more verifiable and fully supported, and that's it. While if someone says "UNDUE", what can you say? you can show that coverage is good, but it will never be "good enough", so eventually the RfC is the only way to (slowly, veeeery slowly) move forward. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this, and this is what WP:NPOVHOW says.

However, if you were an uninvolved admin and saw a dispute where:

• several long-term editors repeatedly remove content as unsourced/misrepresented

• one or two editors repeatedly restore it, helped by one or two apparent sockpuppets

What would be your first thought? How would you solve it if you can't become involved by checking sources and making a content judgement?

I think the editing pattern in EE hides the visibility of NPOV issues unfortunately. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

My answer is: I don't know. I understand that this is a difficult situation for an admin, especially since they are volunteers like everyone else here, may not have time to spend on the reading of super-boring OHCHR reports, and may not be interested in the topic. However, one cannot deal with tendentious editing and civil POV-pushing, which often is not even that "civil", without addressing content and sources, and without looking for patterns - e.g., editors who work closely together, and move on the same pages helping each other. Anyway, my point was about ONUS: if it were to prevail over NOCON, it would be a disaster. It would make life far too easy for people interested in disrupting the encyclopedia rather than building it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it already does, regardless of what one may conclude from reading WP:BRD and believing it. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_74 and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_76.

PaulT2022 (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_162#RfC:_Should_we_move_WP:ONUS_to_WP:CONSENSUS? PaulT2022 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks, I had already read one of these discussions but missed the others. Since I agree with Kolya Butternut ("The concept of onus is about the consensus-building process, and we need clarity that it applies to additions, removals, and modifications, consistent with WP:NOCON") I was depressed to see that their proposal was met with a choir of "Oppose". However, I found Jayron's argument fully convincing - even illuminating:

They are 100% not in conflict. WP:ONUS says that, when there is contentious material, leave it out of the article while discussion happens. WP:NOCON says that at the conclusion of the discussion, a "no consensus" result causes a return to status quo ante bellum. Which is to say that until the discussion concludes, we leave all contested material out. After discussion has concluded, then if there is no consensus, we return the article to whatever state it was in before the discussed changes were made.

I don't know the basis for this reading, but it is so reasonable that I will always stick to it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed the same type of behaviour from VM. Michael60634 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sure many other editors have noticed this behaviour, which does not belong to VM alone but to two, maybe three editors who seem to work closely together. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And now they are POV pushing in articles about administrative entities in Crimea. Again... Michael60634 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Vita Zaverukha

Hi Gitz6666, could you tell me if there is a draft of the Vita Zaverukha article? Mhorg (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg, Yes, sorry, as I'm travelling I encountered some difficulties but this should be fine, hopefully: User:Gitz6666/sandbox9 Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Should UK be added "supported by" for Ukraine on the main article? A senior officer admitted to have troops on ground

UK troops perform covert operations in Ukraine

source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marines-deployed-on-high-risk-covert-operations-in-ukraine-r7b50gv3p RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

1RR

You just broke it [72]. Again. Volunteer Marek 22:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. This [73] was done less than 24h before. I'll self-revert. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply to your WP:AN question

[74]. What I meant was AfD, RfC or any methods of dispute resolution that are focused on content. You could also ask an advice from any individual administrator on their talk pages. You have had enough experience with submitting previous ANI requests, which I think resulted in nothing except creating conflicts and people wasting their time... My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This dispute was not focused on content and it was not (framed as) an "incident", that is, a complaint about a user behaviour. This dispute was about the right forum for discussing about article delation. The forum was controversial: VM had explicitly said such egregious BLP violations for an obviously non notable person needed to be solved ASAP, without waiting for dragged out, stone walled and obfuscated AFD discussions; OsFish had refused to answer my explicit question on the point and continued to post walls of text with their elaborate (and completely out of focus) speculations on WP:SNG. The "advice" of an individual admin would have been useless - VM would have simply ignored it with a shrug. You know all this perfectly well. The only place for having a dispositive assessment of the contentious issue was WP:AN, which indeed worked pretty well. But who had a battleground mentality here is obvious. You want to delete an article? Go to "Articles for delation", full stop. What's so difficult about that? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement to believe that an article should be deleted in order to submit an AfD. This can be done by anyone simply to resolve a dispute, for procedural reasons, etc. Also, there is no requirement for anyone to submit an AfD if he thinks the page should not exist. It can be merged or redirected based on discussions on article talk pages, or even without much discussion if there is a de facto consensus to merge or redirect (for example, no one objects). My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Volunteer Marek deleted the article via redirecting with no prior discussion at all, and when reverted, he reverted again and again. I was the one who opened a discussion on the talk page.

1. In that discussion, both Mhorg and I objected to delating the article - no consensus for deletion - and worked to improve the article. Did that stop Volunteer Marek? And at Torture in Ukraine, Alaexis, Masebrock and myself had objected as well, to no avail.

1. I doubt that my decision to submit the article to AfD would have prevented Volunteer Marek from turning it into a redirect. Honestly, do you think that had I submitted it to AfD, VM would have ceased to delete the article? You know he wouldn't have. Now, however, following the discussions at AN and AfD, there will be a consensus on whether that article belongs to WP, and hopefully VM will refrain from redirecting or he will likely get banned.

1. When VM deletes an article like that or "Torture in Ukraine", he takes responsibility for wasting hours of work by an editor. Is their work defective, is the article unbalanced, are the sources faulty? Fine, you improve the article, and if you don't have time to do so you add the appropriate mantainance tags; in a BLP article, you remove contentious and unsourced materials. Since you and Volunteer Marek are now fighting like lions to save from deletion an article that starts with On December 15, 2022, several high-profile journalists had their accounts suspended from the Twitter platform for one day for violating a policy on doxxing, you know that you can have different views on what deserves to be reported, and other people's work and views deserve respect. So procedures matter.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Which proves the point that you brought it to AN as a complaint against specific user(s). My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I wanted admins to tell us where we could resolve the dispute through discussion in a way that was in line with the rules of this community and inclusive of other voices besides the usual EE regulars. Had I not been dealing with a highly disruptive editor, this step would not have been necessary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

But you pinged all these "EE regulars" in your posting and received their voices [75]. OK. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at. Of course I pinged them out of courtesy, as I was proposing to discuss a subject on which they had already expressed their views. I thought they might have been interested in having their say there too. What other reason could I possibly have had for pinging them? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello again

Uh, so, i had kind of forgotten about the draft about treatment of POWs in the invasion of Ukraine (i also took a break around that time), i recently came back to it, i added a few things, could you please check in to see if everything is alright? i think i may submit it soon. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@SnoopyBird Hello, it looks fine to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, ill submit it now. SnoopyBird (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Reply (3RR)

[76]. You can easily guess which 4 diffs I would show as reverts during 24 hours, and you would probably object that 4th of them was not revert (well, it may or may not be counted as a revert, depending on admin's judgement). But why wasting our time? Based on my experience, most 3RR reports are useless, or even worse, a disruption. Therefore, I striked through a part of my comment as you asked. My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My last five edits on that page:

1. 18:08, 02 January 2023

1. 17:13, 02 January 2023

1. 03:20, 02 January 2023

1. 12:27, 01 January 2023

1. 01:56, 01 January 2023

As you can see, even assuming that they were all reverts (which is highly debatable for the first one), there would still be three, and not four revert in 24h. Now, I know that even one single revert can be considered as an edit war. But not in this case: there's no clear consensus neither for inclusion nor for removal, and you yourself have done a bunch of reverts on that page [77], so I guess I agree with you: "why wasting our time?". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Not these edits of course. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

this looks like a riddle! Have I ever violated the 3RR on that page? Usually I try to be careful, I know you guys want me out, but I think I stayed clear from edit war on that page and elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remove false statements and personal attacks about me from your userspace

I'm going to have to ask you to remove [78] this, as it's both a personal attack and a disgusting false accusation. There's probably more personal attacks you've strewn around in your sandboxes that you should remove but let's start here. Volunteer Marek 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want, I can remove it from my sandbox, but that would make no good because it has already been published at ANI in June 2022. Do you remember this discussion, Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666? I opened it and the heading originally was "Volunteer Marek's incivility and POV-pushing" [79]. Anyway, as you can see the "disgusting false accusation" (They even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture) is there and you have already had your chance to reply, which I think you have. I recently copied that sentence and pasted it into my sanbox because I needed the two diffs about your views on torture, which then I used in my recent comment at AN/I here [80].

Look, this thing with you combing my sandbox is not healthy. I understand that both you and I are under a lot of pressure. Let the community sort out our squabbles or ignore them altogether. In both cases, it's better for us to disengage and ignore each other as much as possible and/or limit our interaction to focuesed talk page discussions. I have already said that I will no longer complain about you or to you; try to do the same and attend to something else. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about your excuses. I need you to remove - and not repeat, as you just did - false accusations about me. Particularly one as messed up as this. Volunteer Marek 15:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not apologising - did you think I was apologising or providing excuses? Read what I wrote. If you need to remove my "false accusations", then you'd better try to remove them from the highly visible AN/I discussion where they were originally posted. Good luck with that. By the way, there's nothing false in those accusations: you can read the original conversation we had on that topic here: Torture of Russian POWs. Ideaology makes blind (and hard-hearted). But if you want me to remove that sentence from my sandbox, there's no problem at all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The accusation is, as you very well known because it has been explained to you before, but are pretending not to, false. You should indeed also strike any such false accusations from any open discussions (stale ones, whatever). And I don't know why you are being so defensive about apologising - I neither asked for nor expected an apology. Volunteer Marek 15:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to your I don't care about your excuses. As for falsity, let the readers of the discussion on Torture of Russian POWs decide whether your position can be correctly summarised as questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I see now that I had already removed that sentence from my sandbox a few hourse ago, after having used the diffs [81]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's still here. Remove it. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But that's a different text. That's the draft of the comment I recently posted to the ongoing AN/I discussion. No problem, since I've already posted it, I'm happy to remove it from my sandbox. However, I would complaint and revert if you tried to remove it from that discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)