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   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   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"   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 :  "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:.


 * - 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:.


 * 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.--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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert  rule&mdash;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:     .  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 .  They themselves performed three reverts in that page:     .  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 .  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,  and tell me if you think that a community of editors should tolerate this  kind of behaviour; please compare with this.


 * 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 .  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 .  Here I removed something that was presumably a false flag attack by  Russian forces .  My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR report
You are welcome to reply here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * - 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,  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   ("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


 * 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."


 * In the RfC I would ask three questions:


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


 * 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.


 * 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.


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


 * 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.


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


 * 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.


 * 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 Closure  requests  Ilenart626 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding

 * - 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: .  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:  .  Anyway, this message of yours prompted me to have a look at your recent edit  history. The last edit you made, this one,  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   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,  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,  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   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,  I think my edit summaries were sufficiently clear, for example .  However, your edit summary for revert of the same edit   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    That reason was wrong  because, as I explained to you when I revered you,


 * 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


 * 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)


 * - 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: .  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 .  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 ],  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 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.     Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:24, 29  September 2022 (UTC)


 * Quoting the second source   - "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   -- 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 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   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   - you should have left my collapsible box there .  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 .  This is simply unacceptable behaviour.


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


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


 * 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)


 * 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:


 * 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.


 * 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   ). 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)


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


 * I don't agree with your reading of WP:TALK and WP:TALK:  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  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❧</b> 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 .  You might draw their attention to the fact that you just complained about me aggressively but unpersuasively arguing something   - 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 .  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   .  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 . 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 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  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  MVBW seems to have jumped in to help him


 * VM starts to contrast my contribution  MVBW seems to have jumped in to help him

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  to leave me alone when he even interfered in discussions of my tp as if it  were his own.  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   - 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 .  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 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  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 :  "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 .  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:


 * 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);


 * 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;


 * 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:


 * 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. Again.  Volunteer Marek    22:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're right. This   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
. 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)


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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 .  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)
. 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:


 * 18:08, 02 January 2023


 * 17:13, 02 January 2023


 * 03:20, 02 January 2023


 * 12:27, 01 January 2023


 * 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,  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   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" .  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.


 * 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 .  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)