User:Gitz6666/AE 2022

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gitz6666

I strongly disagree with the last comment by MVBW @Nableezy. If admins think there is no need in action, that's fine. Let it rot be archived. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC). To me that would be a very disappointing outcome. Both this request at AE and my opening post at AN/I clearly show that there's a critical situation in the EE area. The job of uninvolved admins is precisely to help us address this kind of disputes. It is clear that I, MVBW and Volunteer Marek cannot be allowed to edit in the same topic area. In my opinion, either me or them, or all of us, must be topic banned (at the very least) or indefinitely blocked (preferably). Any other outcome would fail to address the issues that both MVBW and I have clearly represented to the WP community and to the admins. Please put us out of our misery. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

[1]

[2][3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] )

Since 22 June, there have been many other edits of mine that cannot possibly be interpreted as pro-Russian POV-pushing:

• [32] (restoring contents on the Bucha massacre)
• [33] (added source NYT on a rape and killing)
• [34] (added info on reports of conflict-related sexual violence + source)
• [35] (removed possible pro-Russian vandalism)
• [36] (updated the whole section on Mariupol theatre airstrike based on a recently published report by Amnesty International)
• [37] (deliberate killing of civilians: 13-year-old girl near Kharkiv)
• [38] (added number of killed children to the lead section)
• [39] (indiscriminate attacks by the Russian army are "indisputable" according to OHCHR)
• [40] (more info and sources on shooting on passing civilian cars)
• [41] (more info and sources on summary executions)
• [42] (arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians in Russian controlled territories are "widespread" according to OHCHR)
• [43] (OHCHR's concern about filtration process)
• [44] (1200 bodies in the Kyiv region, not "over 900", and it's not just the police claiming this but it's stated as a fact by OHCHR)
• [45] (more contents and sources on human shields at the school in Yahidne)
• [46] (gang rape)
• [47] (taking hostages)
• [48] (correcting a gross misrepresentation in the lead section of 2014 Odessa clashes).

Point 1. My edit did not remove claims about forceful deportations of Ukrainian children because in the immediately preceding edit [49] I had updated those claims: there was no reason for keeping the old 121,000 figure, given the new 200,000 allegations, and no reason for not replacing "Ukrainian authorities" with "President Zelenskyy"; also replacing "kidnapping" with "forced deportation" was reasonable and was eventually approved in the ensuing discussion in the talk page. So the only relevant info removed by my edit was about a law on adoption drafted by Russia, which obviously doesn't constitute a war crime, as Volunteer Marek (VM) themselves admitted [50]. The edit was explained both in the edit summary and in the talk page: see two discussions in the on kidnapping of Ukrainian children, here (from 17:44, 2 June 2022 onwards) and here. A clear consensus for inclusion did not emerge since three editors argued for removing and two (MVBW and VM) for including. However, MVBW and VM succeeded in forcing inclusion via edit war (2-6 June). Note that since then VM and MVBW have been casting aspersions saying that I deny that forced deportation of children is a war crime ([51] [52] and here MVBW's request Surprisingly, but Gitz6666 considers this as a legitimate adoption. ???).

Point 2 These edits concern the declarations by former ombudswoman Denisova. Since her removal from office, this community has discussed widely about the opportunity of including her declarations on sexual violence against minors: at RS/N here and here (ongoing), in various talk pages, e.g. here and here. My views on the subject were best explained in this opening post [53]. Following discussion, the apparent consensus was to remove this information, as Alex Bakharev rightly says.When MVBW says No, this info does not fail WP:V, they are expressing their own view, which is not supported by the community.

Point 3 I was not including six "alleged" but rather restoring contents that had been removed by VN without consensus: [54] originating an edit war between MVBW and VM, on the one side, and everyone else on the other. We had a discussion on the talk page with at least six editors criticising or reverting MVBW and VM. Clearly there was not a consensus for removing the cautious terminology, and yet, as they were more determined, MVBW and VM succeeded in removing the contents via edit war. With regard to the merit, some of the "alleged" were reasonable and even necessary and in talk page, starting from here [55] until [56], I shared my views on the various "allegeds", but no one replied. Re negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman, note that the text on Denisova was there only because VM in their first bold edit had put various different things into one basket/edit - things that needed to be discussed one-by-one. On Denisova my preferred position has always been that of removing any mention to her allegations.

Point 4 dropped by the filer

Point 5 This [57] is a bold but reasonable edit and its rationale is clearly explained in the summary. The sources were reporting allegations non independently verified; at the end of June the OHCHR had published a report with a section on human shields where no mention was made of children used as human shields by the Russian army in retreat from the Kyiv region. I removed the section and was not reverted.

Point 6 dropped by the filer

Point 7 Re Stara Krasnianka care house attack this recent report by the OHCHR describes the incident as "emblematic" of the Ukrainian forces placing military objectives near civilian objects and using human shields (para. 35); with regard to the position of the Russian army, at the moment we don't have any source describing the incident as an indiscriminate attack. We just have sources generically speaking of "blame" shared among the two parties. Arguably we shouldn't indulge in an original research and we should place the episode where we know it belongs according to the reliable sources now available. Before updating the subsection with new contents (OHCHR report) and moving it from the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" to the "Human shield">"Ukrainian forces" section, I explained in the talk page my intentions and reasons: see this thread at 08:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC). No one replied or objected, possibly because it was the reasonable thing to a do, and I made the corresponding changes a couple of days later, at 19:26, 12 July 2022.

Point 8 MVBW shares two edits of 18 May [58] and 18 June [59]. What they have in common is the removal of a text and source (NPR) about an intercepted phone call (not verified by the source) between two Russian soldiers. First, note that it was I who had inserted that text in the first place [60]. While that doesn't make me the "owner" of the text in anyway, it shows that my reason for removing it couldn't possibly be that of pushing a pro-Russian POV (unless I'm the clumsiest POV-pusher ever). Secondly, when I removed the text for the first time I was reverted [61] and I did not engage in an edit war. The reason for that removal: bragging about a war crime is not identical to committing a war crime. However, one month later, when the phone calls interceptions circulated by the Ukrainian army had lost all reliability in my eyes (they are quite likely a fabrication: see my discussion here below with VM about the conversation between the soldier who tortured 20 heroic Ukrainian and his mummy), I removed the text again and I explained the reasons in the edit summary. This time my edit was not reverted.

Point 9 dropped by the filer

Point 10 As explained in the edit summary [62], there's now plenty of sources that, contrary to what Denisova said to NYT at the end of April, report that Denisova did not share her information on war crimes with law enforcement. We've been discussing about this here: Talk:Lyudmyla_Denisova#Communication_with_law_enforcement, and I think that that discussion is the perfect example of MVBW pushing their POV to the point of absurdity. Please enjoy the reading because it's quite hilarious.

I use Template:Talk quote block to report MVBW's points and comments on my replies.

[65] removal of well-sourced claims about forceful deportations of Ukrainian children because (edit summary) “no allegation of war crime”. Gitz6666 explains why he thinks this is not a war crime [66]: “…drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime… There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child)”. Surprisingly, but Gitz6666 considers this as a legitimate adoption. ??? No, that is a heinous war crime, possibly even a genocide – according to RS [67].

My edit did not remove any claims about forceful deportations of Ukrainian children. In fact, in the immediately preceding edit I had updated the content on forced deportations: no longer 121,000 children but 200,000 according to Zelenskyy; I had also added including orphans and children separated from their family. The point of my edit was to remove the following content: The Russian state Duma has drafted a law which would formalize the kidnappings by allowing Russians to "adopt" these children, etc. My argument was that the law, if approved, could constitute a violation of international law, but drafting that law in itself did not qualify as a war crime.

Moreover, on 2 June the allegation that Russia was kidnapping and adopting/naturalising Ukrainian children as a means of genocide was not supported by enough RS. On 12 May fourteen organisations defending children's rights had published an open letter on children's rights in Ukraine without mentioning neither forced deportations of children nor the Russian law on adoption. At the time of my edit, there were only two sources available to support the text I removed: a piece on "children facing threat of illegal adoption" in "The Hill" (which is "reliable for American politics") and a piece Russia Kidnaps Ukrainian Children in "EU Political Report". On 28 April I opened a discussion at RS/N to understand if EU Political Report is reliable, but nobody intervened.

We had two discussions in the talk page on kidnapping of Ukrainian children, here (from 17:44, 2 June 2022 onwards) and here. My two edits were not predatory and disguised: they were openly discussed in the talk page. A consensus for inclusion did not emerge: 3 editors argued for removing, 2 (MVBW and Volunteer Marek - VM) for inclusion. However, MVBW and VM succeeded in forcing the inclusion via edit war (2-6 June). Since then, both of them have been casting aspersions saying that I deny that forced deportation of children is a war crime ([63][64], here above Surprisingly, but Gitz6666 considers this as a legitimate adoption. ???).

Diff #1. While the intention of Gitz could indeed be a replacement and "softening" the text (he removed "The parents of some of these children were killed by Russian military" and assigned all claims exclusively to opinion by Zelensky), he also clearly explained the purpose of his edit [95] in edit summary: No allegation of war crime here - drafting a law, possibly violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do not amount to war crimes, or at least no RS say so. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the in-line source used in the diff [96] because it says: "By doing so, the Kremlin violates Articles 7 and 21 of the Convention on the Right of the Child (UN) and Article 49 of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts." Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Violating it is a war crime by definition.

No allegation of war crime here - drafting a law, possibly violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do not amount to war crimes, or at least no RS say so was an entirely correct and fully explicative (therefore also debatable) edit summary. MVBW is wrong in insisting that This is a blatant misrepresentation of the in-line source used in the diff. When EU Political Report speaks about a violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, obviously they are referring to deportation of children!!! Article 49 is about "Deportations, transfers, evacuations", and no one in their right mind has ever maintained that drafting a law on adoption could amount to violating Article 49. EU Political Report cannot reasonably be interpreted in this way, unless they are totally naif and unprofessional (which might be the case, because to me they look like a news blog). VM has been more sensible than MVBW because, to justify inclusion, they openly admitted that With regard to the approving of the law, yes, that itself is not a war crime; it was not about a war crime, but rather about providing background and context within which the war crime is being committed [65].

[97] - Gitz6666 continue misinterpreting things on this noticeboard. Yes, of course, the source tells about forceful deportations (some sources say "kidnappings") of children as a war crime, not about legitimate adoptions. But the text removed by Gitz6666 and referenced to this source [98] is also not about legitimate adoptions ("Russian authorities have also kidnapped more than 121,000 Ukrainian children" and so on).

MVBW insists on a point which (I believe) I've already fully explained. Let me say it again - and it's very easy to check, because it's about only two edits: I replaced the text Russian authorities have also kidnapped more than 121,000 Ukrainian children, according to Ukrainian authorities, and deported them to Russia's eastern provinces. The parents of some of these children were killed by Russian military

with the text

On 1 June Ukrainian President Zelenskyy accused Russia of forcibly deporting more than 200,000 children from Ukraine, including orphans and children separated from their family. According to Zelenskyy, this amounts to a "heinous war crime" and a "criminal policy," whose object "is not just to steal people but to make deportees forget about Ukraine and not be able to return". The reason for this change was purely editorial in nature: there's no reason for keeping the old 121,000 figure given the new 200,000 allegations, and there's no reason for not replacing "Ukrainian authorities" with "President Zelenskyy". Also replacing "kidnapping" with "forced deportation" was discussed in the talk page and the majority of editors agreed on this. My edit was an improvement, but had an editor restored the old text and combined it with the new one in a reasonably readable whole, I wouldn't have reverted such an edit.

[68], [69], [70] [71]– removal of well sourced (NYT, BBC, etc. ) claims about rapes by Russian soldiers. Why? Because (edit summaries) “WP:EXCEPTIONAL”, “this text fails WP:V spectacularly” etc. No, this info does not fail WP:V.

These edits concern the declarations by former ombudswoman Denisova. Since her removal from office, this community has discussed widely about the opportunity of including her declarations on sexual violence against minors: at RS/N here and here (ongoing), in various talk pages, e.g. here and here. My views on the subject were best explained in this opening post. The majority of editors have argued for removing these contents; when MVBW says No, this info does not fail WP:V, they are expressing their own view, which is not supported by the community.

Re sources, note that on 25 May 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists asked Denisova: Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication. Please find all the relevant links here, where I also correct a mistake by MVBW, who had either misunderstood or misrepresented the sources on the Denisova's affair; MVBW is well aware of this as they did not reply my comment and did not revert my relevant edits to Lyudmyla Denisova ([66], [67]).

No, that was not about Denisova, since Gitz also removes other content. In the first diff of this series he removes an independent claim by British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward. In 3rd and 4th diffs he removes "reports ... compiled by independent Ukrainian journalists and published by the Ukrainian parliament"

Volunteer Marek makes the same allegation:

Gitz6666 is using Denisova as an excuse to remove OTHER sources. Basically if Denisova said it, he’s removing it EVEN IF other, independent sources say the same thing. You can see that in this diff (in #2 above), where he removes text starting with “The existence of credible allegations…” which is cited to CBS news not Denisova.

MVBW and VM raise two points. I removed 1) the text about the British ambassador The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May.

2) the following text Overall there were 60 reports of rape over two days in the region. Some of the reports were compiled by independent Ukrainian journalists and published by the Ukrainian parliament as part of a dossier documenting Russian war crimes.

1. My edit removing the info on the claim by the British ambassador that she has evidence [68] was made on 6 July. At 14:14, 20 June 2022 I first explained in the talk page why I think this is an improvement: Also reference to undisclosed evidence by a British ambassador is not verifiable enough and should be removed; I explained it again at 11:08, 23 June 2022: I think we should drop "The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May". The British ambassador is not a reliable source, and evidence of sexual violence on children has not yet been released. The only editor who opposed this proposal was MVBW, but "one to one" is not a consensus for inclusion; as per WP:ONUS the contested content should be removed until a consensus for inclusion emerges. I doubt MVBW will reach a consensus for inclusion: why should we publish that the UK ambassadors says she has evidence that then she doesn't disclose?
2. The report published by the Ukrainian parliament has never existed. This was just a blatant mistake (I think it was a mistake, here AGF works) by Volunteer Marek, who first had inserted the text. I explained the point to VM (who never replied) in the talk page of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine here [69]: the text is a gross misrepresentation of what this source says, which is "The boy was among more than 60 reports of rape in two days ... according to the Ukrainian Ombudswoman ... The report is so far unverified, but more details were shared by Ukrainian journalist Iryna Matviyishyn ... Matviyishyn said the report had been published by Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova". There's no report by the Ukrainian Parliament on war crimes, this is just an allegation by former ombudswoman Denisova! I explained this also in my edit summaries [70] By the way AFIK no dossier documenting war crimes was published by the Ukrainian parliament, so this is 100% NOTNEWS and [71] I'm sorry but this text fails WP:V spectacularly. Please see my last comments on the t/p. I doubt you have a consensus for keeping Denisova's allegations in the article, but even if you have it, you need to find a different formulation that addresses the 3 questions I raised on the talk.

[72] – including six "alleged" and negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman that does not belong to the page. The “alleged” is not supported by sources. For example, there was no doubts that the bodies of civilians were burned by Russian soldiers (2nd “alleged” in the diff); there was no doubts that the mayor was abducted by armed men (3rd “alleged”), and so on. Note that the edit was revert over objections by other contributors.

MVBW is inaccurate when they say that here I was including six "alleged" and negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman. In fact, I was restoring text that had been removed by Volunteer Marek without consensus [72]; my revert was reverted by the edit warrior VM [73], who was then reverted by Ilenart626 (restore) [74], who was then reverted by MVBW [75], who was reverted (restore) by me [76], who was reverted by MVBW [77], and it goes on and on like this, always formally abiding by the 3RR but de facto engaging in an edit war. Meanwhile we had a discussion on the talk page with at least six editors criticising or reverting MVBW and VM. Read the discussion: is there a consensus for removing the cautious terminology? No. And yet, as they were more determined, they succeeded in removing it via sheer edit war.

With regard to the merit: some of the "alleged" could go, but most of them were reasonable and even necessary. In the talk page, starting from here [78] until [79] I shared my views on the various "allegeds", but no one replied. Actually, MVBW didn't even bother to read my comments, because in their request at AE they say there was no doubts that the bodies of civilians were burned by Russian soldiers (2nd “alleged” in the diff), and they might be wrong (here [80] my arguments on this).

Re negative info on Ukrainian ombudswoman, note that the text on Denisova was there only because VM in their first bold edit had put various different things into one basket/edit - things that needed to be discussed one-by-one. On Denisova my preferred position has always been that of removing any mention to her allegations.

[78] a removal of reliably sourced claim that Russian forces used Ukrainian children as human shields.

This [81] is a bold but reasonable edit and its rationale is clearly explained in the summary. At the beginning of April Ukrainian authorities accused Russia of using children as human shields. The sources [82] [83] reported allegations non independently verified by the sources themselves ("Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims ... Coaches of children were said to have been placed ... It was further alleged" etc. etc.). After a couple of months, at the end of June, the OHCHR published a report with a section on human shields where no mention was made of children used by the Russian army as human shields to avoid fire when in retreat from the Kyiv region. As you can see in the section on human shields, we have plenty of good quality sources (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Economist, BBC, etc.) documenting the use of human shields in Ukraine, but they don't mention the use of children. So I removed the section and was not reverted.

[80] removing well sourced info about killing over 50 elderly persons in a Ukrainian care home by Russian soldiers and placing it to a section about war crimes ("human shields") committed by Ukrainian forces [81]. Here is the initial version of this section [82]. Well, according to the most recent sources [83], these people have been killed by Russian forces, but there are "both sides to blame". But even if "there are two sides to blame", this is not how Gitz666 frames this issue. He frames it as war crime exclusively by Ukrainian forces [84]. Actually, no RS say it was a "war crime" committed exclusively by Ukrainian forces.

Re Stara Krasnianka care house attack, until the 29 June report by the OHCHR, all the sources were reporting that a Russian tank had opened fire against a care house in Kreminna killing 56 elderly people. The incident was described (e.g. here) as a direct attack against a civilian object. On the 29 June the OHCHR published a report in which the episode was described as "emblematic" of the Ukrainian forces placing military objectives near civilian objects and using human shields (para. 35). Apparently they had set up a firing position at the care house. ABC News (amongst others) summarised the report in the following terms: The report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields" to prevent military operations in certain areas. With regard to the position of the Russian army, we now know that this was not a case of direct attack against civilians. It might well be a case of indiscriminate/disproportionate attack (a different war crime). However, at the moment we don't have any source describing the incident as an indiscriminate attack: no one has yet claimed that the Russians should have used different, less lethal weapons, or that they should have renounced using that road in front of the care house. We just have sources generically speaking of "blame" shared among the two parties. We cannot indulge in an original research and simply decide that we want to have it in the section on indiscriminate attack because "we believe" it was indiscriminate enough; we should place the episode where we know it belongs, according to the reliable sources now available. Anyway, before updating the subsection with new contents (OHCHR report) and moving it from the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" to the "Human shield">"Ukrainian forces" section, I explained in the talk page all this: see this thread where I say We should probably move the subsection on the care home in Kremmina from "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" to "Human shields". On the balance of sources it appear that the attack was directed against a military objective as the Ukrainian forces had set up a machine gun nest and an anti-tank firing position in the care home.

This was posted at 08:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC). No one replied or objected, possibly because it was the reasonable thing to a do, and I made the corresponding changes a couple of days later, at 19:26, 12 July 2022. This was good editing work on my part.

Based on their response [99], Gitz6666 insists that the killing of elderly patients by Russian forces should be described as a war crime committed by Ukrainian forces. This is a misinterpretation because "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime." [100] (does NOT conclude), hence this content arguably does not belong to the page, but in any case is not a war crime by Ukrainian forces

The incident was described as a war crime by many sources, starting from the Ukrainian officials in the aftermath of the attack; the more recent sources say that it might be a war crime (use of human shield) but we don't know for sure, obviously: maybe it was just "failure to protect" the elderly patients, which is a violation of IHL but not a war crime. Anyway, the incident has been described in the article since it happened and it would seem strange to me if we were to remove the text now, based on the sole reason that OHCHR says that it might be a case of use of human shields. If MVBW wants to argue that the killing of approx 60 people in those circumstances does not belong to the article (hence this content arguably does not belong to the page), they can make their case in the talk page and/or open a RfC. I hope they get topic banned/indefinitely blocked before because the waste of time is unbearable.

[85],[86] - removal of well sourced info about torture and killing of Ukrainian POWs with improper justification in edit summary.

MVBW shares two edits of 18 May [84] and 18 June [85]. What the two edits have in common is the removal of the following text and source:

On 20 April, the Ukrainian army released on social media an intercepted call where two Russian soldiers are speaking and one calls for the killing of Ukrainian prisoners of war: "Keep the most senior among them, and let the rest go forever. Let them go forever, damn it, so that no one will ever see them again, including relatives". NPR could not confirm the authenticity of the statement.^[1]

First of all, note that it was I who had inserted that text in the first place [86]. While that doesn't make me the "owner" of the text in anyway, it shows that my reason for removing it couldn't possibly be that of pushing a pro-Russian POV (unless I'm the clumsiest POV-pusher ever , "sophisticated" to the point of schizophrenia).

When I removed it for the first time, it was because (as emerged from the discussion about the Georgian Legion commander) some editors had argued that we should have included war crimes only and not statements by people speaking or bragging about war crimes. Plus the source itself (NPR) said that they couldn't confirm the authenticity of the statement, so I thought it was not worth keeping. However, when I was reverted [87], as I did not have a consensus for removing that content, I did not engage in edit war (see this edit [88] where I modify contents about killing of Ukrainian POWs and do not remove the text). However, one month later, on 18 June, when the phone calls interceptions circulated by the Ukrainian army had lost all reliability in my eyes (they are quite likely a fabrication: see my discussion here below with VM about the conversation between the soldier who tortured 20 heroic Ukrainian and his mummy), I removed the text again and I explained in the edit summary that RS don't make allegations of war crimes here, plus there's a problem with WP:V as both Reuters and NPR say they couldn't verify what they are reporting, which is correct - bragging about a war crime is not identical to committing a war crime. This time my edit was not reverted.

[93] removal of sourced info that Denisova shared her database with reports by victims with other government officials and prosecutors. This is a misrepresentation by Gitz6666. No, the in-line reference used to support the statement (an article in NYT) does say that she shared her database with other government officials [94]. On the other hand, the article in Ukrainian Pravda discussed on talk does not say she did not share her database with any other Ukrainian officials.

As explained in the edit summary [89], there's now plenty of sources that, contrary to what Denisova said to NYT at the end of April, report that Denisova did not share her information on war crimes with law enforcement. We've been discussing about this here: Talk:Lyudmyla_Denisova#Communication_with_law_enforcement, and I think that that discussion is the perfect example of MVBW pushing their POV to the point of absurdity. Please enjoy the reading because it's quite hilarious.

Git6666 provided examples of his allegedly neutral edits. Each of them should be checked carefully in context. For example, Gitz6666 provides this diff ("correcting a gross misrepresentation in the lead section of 2014 Odessa clashes") as the best proof of his unbiased editing. The correction was: "a pro-Maidan mob attacked anti-Maidan activists" -> "a pro-Maidan demonstration was attacked by anti-Maidan activists". Yes, but Gitz6666 also made this edit [117] meaning that, no, these guys were actually not anti-Maidan activists, but agents-provocateurs presumably dispatched by pro-Maidan forces

Had I been a pro-Russian POV-pusher I would have let that pro-Russian vandalism sit in the lead section for a few weeks/months more. But with regard to the second edit you publish [90] (adding reference to Sakwa), please note how things went. I noticed that an editor had removed this content about Sakwa which, for reasons that it would take too long to explain, I deemed valuable. Therefore I added the content again [91]. But then I checked the article history more thoroughly and noticed that it was me who had added that content in the first place a few months ago; so I immediately self-reverted [92] and opened a discussion on the talk page. The editor who had removed the content kindly replied and accepted to have the content back in the article under certain very reasonable conditions. I thanked him but I didn't restore the content immediately; I waited a couple of days more in case any other editor wanted to add their views about Sakwa. No one joined the discussion and eventually I restored the content [93]. My point is: this is the BRD cycle at its best, this is the Junior Woodchucks guidebook as applied to Wikipedia. I wish we had a few more Russian POV-pusher as myself!

My reply to First problem is that Gitz6666 is using Denisova as an excuse to remove OTHER sources is here above, in reply to MVBW's point 2, re "British ambassador". My reply to VM's 2nd big problem is #7 is also here above, in reply to MVBW's point 7.

I'm now replying to the last comment by @Volunteer Marek (at 21:48, 18 July 2022) concerning "the mother of a Russian soldier gets sexually aroused when her son describes to her the way he tortures Ukrainians". No hyperbole, Volunteer Marek, we had this kind of stuff in the article - I know, it's incredible. It's one of those interceptions leaked by the Ukrainian military intelligence service. One source we were quoting was The Mirror, which says She tells her son that if she was in Ukraine she "would enjoy it too" (killing, torturing and mutilating over 20 Ukrainians); another one was Ukrainska Pravda, which says Мати каже, що теж "кайфувала б" (google translation: The mother says that she would also "get high"). It's interesting also the passage in Ukrainska Pravda where the aggressor recalls the heroic behaviour of Ukrainians who, even under the most horrific tortures, do not submit to the invaders ... the occupier is surprised by the resilience of Ukrainians, who, despite being tortured, say that for every Ukrainian killed, there will be twice as many occupiers ... The mother reacts positively to her son's story and claims that "Ukrainians are not people" and that she herself would be "high" in such a situation"

But you should remember this because we had a discussion on the talk page about removing this stuff, and who wanted to keep it? It was you, Volunteer Marek (this material is perfectly fine and belongs in the article. Trying to present this as "disinformation" is absurd), together with Shadybabs and Adoring Nanny. But the question is: who put this kind of contents in the article first? I'm sorry, it was you again, Volunteer Marek [94], together with Shadybabs [95].

Volunteer Marek wants me to be very accurate and precise (here below at 04:33, 19 July 2022) when I describe the intercepted phone calls circulated by the Ukrainian army that they included in the article. They are right: we should be as precise as possible. So, first of all it was Shadibabs who wrote The soldier also recounted a type of torture where a pipe is inserted into a captives anus, then barbed wire pushed through the pipe quoting the source Ukrainska Pravda [96]. After only a few minutes, Volunteer Marek added that the solider was speaking with his mother [97] and The soldier says that his conciensce stopped bothering him after he had killed 20 people. His mother approved of his actions and told him that "Ukrainians are not people" This means that Volunteer Marek had read the article by UP and should have immediately understood that this is not stuff for an encyclopaedia – this is staff for the tabloids. And yet Volunteer Marek added the mother and used the self-restrained, formal and encyclopaedic approved of his actions instead of кайфовала бы (ru) / "кайфувала б" (uk) / get a "buzz" out of it.

Please @Elinruby: could you explain as briefly and clearly as you possibly can what do you mean when you say in the lede to an article he had badly misrepresented a source? Please provide a diff. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby shared this diff [98] where I add to the lead section of Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan that On 13 May French newspaper Le Monde verified the video and confirmed its authenticity. I was not reverted and the sentence is still there. Was this a bad misrepresentation of source? This article by Le Monde says L’analyse, par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants, d’une vidéo censée montrer des soldats ukrainiens tirant sur des prisonniers russes, confirme son authenticité ("The analysis, by Le Monde and independent investigators, of a video supposed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian prisoners, confirms its authenticity"). Moreover, it says Une vidéo, diffusée le 27 mars 2022 et que Le Monde a pu authentifier et recouper avec d’autres images, documente une probable exaction commise par des volontaires ukrainiens contre des prisonniers de guerre russes ("A video, broadcast on 27 March 2022 and which Le Monde was able to authenticate and matched with other images, documents a probable abuse committed by Ukrainian volunteers against Russian prisoners of war"). As User:Levivich already told Elinruby once [99], to claim that this edit misrepresents the sources is ... well, itself a misrepresentation.

Thank you @AdrianHObradors: for your helpful comment. You say something that I think it's very true: when almost everyone has a bias, trying to keep things NPOV can seem as if the person enforcing it has on its own a bias, and it isn't hard to cherry pick some and try to portrait someone as biased. I'm sure that if I had encountered a couple of fierce pro-Russian POV-pushers in that article, I would have spent hours arguing from a viewpoint that an observer might qualify as pro-Ukrainian. When I publish contents about Russian war crimes, they get immediately accepted - there's no need for discussion - but when I publish contents about Ukrainian war crimes, MVBW and Volunteer Marek immediately revert. For that reason I've been mostly (but not exclusively) arguing from what superficially might seem a pro-Russian perspective. To a hasty reader of the talk page the situation looks symmetrical: on the one side there are editors with pro-Ukrainian inclinations, on the other pro-Russian editors. But it's false, and the the truth is that on the one side there are editors who are trying to be neutral and objective - you, Boud, Ilenart626, Alaexis, IP 187, Cononsense, Dunutubble, months ago Cinderella157, N8wilson and many others - and on the other there are MVBW and Volunteer Marek (and maybe a couple of others).