User:Gitz6666/sandbox

You might be right, I can't read your mind. But there must be a forum where editors can express their concerns about the behaviour of other editors, and this looks like the right place to me. Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you? I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe this. We've interacted closely in the EE area for many months now and I'm entitled to an opinion. I first formed it when I saw you deny that shooting Russian prisoner of war in the legs should be described as "torture" [1][2][3] and I have never had a reason to change it since. Admittedly you also make good contributions to the encyclopedia and sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong (e.g. about including the mistreatment of maurauders and migrants in the article on war crimes), so you're also helpful in your own way. But you're a POV pusher, no doubt, and an edit warrior, and you're also prone to personal attacks and incivility. This is a matter of concern for the community, since every month there is a discussion about you on the various noticeboards, and the case of Ostalgia is quite telling: you probably targeted them based on their username (Ostalgie) and a couple of their edits you had misunderstood. Nationalist editing might be inevitabile, but is disruptive and must be contained. Having said this, I've said everything. I will never discuss your behaviour again in general terms. I mean, obviously if I don't get banned; if I get banned, I won't even have the opportunity of discussing specific behaviours.

Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic. Since 2017, Freedom House has given Ukraine ratings from 60 to 62 on its 100-point scale, and a "partly free" overall rating. Ratings on electoral processes have generally been good, but there are problems with corruption and due process.

Both the 2015 local elections and the 2019 presidential elections were generally peaceful, competitive and fair, although there are indications of misuse of state resources and vote-buying, and media pluralism has not yet been fully achieved. Attacks on journalists, civil society activists and members of minority groups are frequent, and police responses inadequate.

As of 2021 investigations into crimes against journalists and human rights activists often do not result in convictions, and impunity for torture is still widespread. Gender-based and homophobic violence by groups advocating discrimination are also a cause for concern as well as linguistic rights of national minorities. War crimes committed by both sides of the war in Donbas are not prosecuted, and in Russian-occupied Crimea dissent is repressed.

I'm not sure if WP:HOUNDING applies to noticeboard discussions such as the current one and the October 2022 discussion on Issues with civility regarding Volunteer Marek, in which you most recently accused me of WP:STALKing you. As Levivich noticed, you don't raise that accusation of stalking when GizzyCatBella joins the discussions you're involved in, or when My very best wishes joins them (for some reason, he hasn't done it yet here: shall we ping him?). Obviously I had to address your behaviour in June 2022 in this discussion at ANI on your personal attacks against me, in July 2022 in this discussion at AE about your edit war and BLP violation (result: no appetite), in December 2022 in this discussion at AN on your attempt to delete an article with no consensus, in the current discussion at AE, not to mention in November 2022 the unforgettable ANI discussion on your successful delation via redirecting of Torture in Ukraine. However, I hoped you had appreciated my silence in April 2022 in this discussion at 3RR/N about your edit war (result: page protected) and in October 2022 in this discussion about your edit war and aggressive talk.

Well, you may be right, I can't read your mind. But there must be a forum where editors can express their concerns about the behaviour of other editors, and this seemed like the right place to me. I sincerely believe - and I could be wrong - that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher. We've interacted closely in the EE area for many months now and I'm entitled to an opinion. I first formed it when I saw you deny that shooting a Russian prisoner of war in the legs could be described as "torture" [4][5][6] and I have never had a reason to change it since. Admittedly you also make good contributions to the encyclopedia and sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong (e.g. about including the mistreatment of maurauders and migrants in the article on war crimes), so no doubt you're also helpful in your own way, but you're a POV pusher, an edit warrior and very prone to personal attacks and incivility. That editor Ostalgia you probably targeted based on his username (Ostalgie) and a couple of their edits you had misunderstood.

hello dear reader of Wikipedia! I'm someone you can definitely trust because I'm the bossss of wikipedia. anyway my big sister is very cool and roblox is the best however and sadl i dont have robux but i think i will get them soon and buy a realy big house in roblox.my cat

well, this seems like retaliation for disagreeing with TimothyBlue on the two threads they opened (here and on BLP/N) against User:Joaziela (e.g. here below at 23:46, 6 January 2023). Since I'm not the original reporter here, may I suggest TimothyBlue to take his complaint about me elsewhere? e.g. here at AN/I in a new thread or at AE if they so wish.

Statement by Gitz6666

Calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" is wrong: he doesn't deliberately disrupt the project and he is no WP:VANDAL. However, after having spent hours interacting with him, I often wonder whether Volunteer Marek deliberately disrupts the editors. When he perceives that users don't share his POV, he provokes them to the point that either they run away from the EE area or go berserk and soon get banned. This may not be intentional, but it is systematic enough to be worrying.

Volunteer Marek mentioned user:Anonimu, who is actually a good case in point. Anonimu also started repeatedly calling Volunteer Marek a "vandal" and were rightly topic banned. But it all began from this exemplary entry of Volunteer Marek [7] into the delicate talk page discussions on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which made a complete pig's breakfast of collaborative editing in that article. I wonder if AdrianHObradors and Ilenart626, who were very active in the area, left it also because working there had become too unpleasant and time-consuming.

As for Michael60634, I'm sorry that he reacted so badly to the treatment he was subjected to. Since until late October he was not autoconfirmed, I guess he is not used to the toxic environment of the EE area (but does it really have to be that toxic?). Perhaps WP:IJME applies here, as he might have understood "vandal" as a generic synonym of disruptive editing and incivil behaviour. In fact, looking at the diffs he shared, I have the impression that he had to deal with quite a bit of incivility. The continuous flow of edit summaries might give you an idea of what Michael60634 and other editors active in the area have to put up with every day: Please stop trying to territory mark these places with nationalist Russian propaganda [8], Rmv Russian nationalist fantasies [9], Please stop rewriting section headings to pronounce Russian propaganda. ALL sources references fake surrender and perfidy. There’s no consensus for YOUR ridiculously slanted POV version [10], Stop trying to legitimize brutal aggression and illegal land grabs [11], Sources use “occupied” not “de facto Russia” which is obnoxious nationalist Russian POV invented by some editor (original research) [12], please stop removing the word "Ukraine" from the article in pursuit of irredentist POV [13], restore NPOV version based on sources rather than original research, and Russian nationalism and irredentism [14], restore NPOV with actual source rather than some nonsense irredentist original research some wikipedia editor just pulled out of their ... air [15], No, you’re not putting that this city is in Russia in the infobox. Please stop it with the irredentist nationalist propaganda [16].

For many users being called a Russian irredentist and propagandist is an insult and a slander. No one who decides to freely volunteer their time and energy to the good-faith contribution in a collaborative project should be subjected to this kind of treatment.

A final note, which applies to both Volunteer Marek and Michael60634. I find it surprising that such a surge of hostility was provoked (if I undestand correctly) by the question of whether the status of Crimea should be described as "de jure" Ukrainian and "de facto" Russian, or as annexed by Russia and internationally recognised as Ukrainian, or as Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. All these three formulations look pretty much equivalent to me and the difference in connotation, if any, is very slight, which makes me think that aggressivness and hostility here may not be means to the end of writing the encyclopaedia, but rather that writing the encyclopaedia is a means to the end of expressing aggression and hostility, which would be a sign of Wikipedia:NOTHERE.

I suggest a formal warning to both users and strict scrutiny on their future behaviour.

.

Following the late March liberation of the Kyiv region and reports of gang rape, gunpoint sexual assaults, and rapes in front of children, The Guardian asserted that Ukrainian women were facing a threat of rape as a weapon of war. Ukrainian officials and human rights organisations reported that Russian troops were using sexual violence on a huge scale as an instrument of war against the civilian population, to break down the morale of Ukrainians and prevent them from resisting; reported cases, they warned, could be "the tip of the iceberg".

The idea that rape was used as a deliberate war tactic by the Russian army was shared by the Canadian and UK foreign ministers Mélanie Joly and Liz Truss, who jointly signed a letter on 21 April 2022, and by Ukraine's prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova in May 2022. On 15 October 2022 also Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, said in an interview with AFP that she believed that Russia was using rape as a weapon of war: "When you hear women testify about Russian soldiers equipped with Viagra, it's clearly a military strategy". On 31 October 2022, UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said that Russian soldiers in Ukraine were responsible of "mass rape".

The reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have regularly addressed the issue of the extent and nature of sexual violence in Ukraine. By 15 May 2022, OHCHR had received 108 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence. The alleged perpetrators were Russian armed forces, Russian-affiliated armed groups and civilians in Russian-controlled territory in 91 cases; Ukrainian armed forces, Ukrainian policemen and civilians in Ukrainian-controlled territory in 17 cases. Out of 108 allegations, OHCHR had verified 23 cases, including cases of rape, gang rape, torture, and forced public stripping. By 31 July 2022, OHCHR was not able to draw any conclusions on the extent of conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine, but had documented "numerous cases" of sexual violence, including 9 cases of rape, 15 cases of sexual violence used as a method of torture, and 11 cases of forced public stripping against people considered to be "lawbreakers". By 31 October, OHCHR reported that it had documented 86 cases of conflict-related sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, most of which were perpetrated by members of the Russian armed forces or police authorities. The Ukrainian law enforcement authorities were investigating 43 cases of sexual violence.

Ivan Katchanovski is the author of a controversial theory on the Euromaidan massacre. Based on various sources, he argues that "the Right Sector and Svoboda had crucial roles in the violent overthrow of the Viktor Yanukovych government, in particular, in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police on February 18–20, 2014". It is hard to say if his theory qualfies as FRINGE because people such as Jack F. Matlock Jr. (former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and Professor at Princeton University) openly embraced it. Apart from Marlock, other high profile academics and journalists give credence to Katchanovski's investigations (below the details in the collapse box), which is not surprising since the International Advisory Panel report on Maidan violence investigation concluded that serious investigative deficiencies had undermined the authorities' ability to establish the circumstances of the Maidan-related crimes and to identify those responsible. Other academics and journalists have criticised and (allegedly) "debunked" the theory (see collapse box). Finally, most sources on the Euromaidan ignore Katchanovski and acknowledge that "The chaos of the day and the intense efforts at disinformation that have ensued have made it impossible to disconfirm these theories" (D'Anieri, Paul J. (2019). Ukraine and Russia : from civilized divorce to uncivil war. Cambridge, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-108-48609-5. OCLC 1097455586.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link))

On 30-31 Demcember, My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek removed from the article on Katchanovski any mention of the authors who shared his conclusions, and left the information about the authors who criticised him [17][18], thus turning the article into some kind of attack page. Apparently, these editors simply know that Katchanovski is FRINGE and that his supporters are Ghouta attack style conspiracy bullshit (which IMO is absurd). For them, the only legitimate purpose of an article on Katchanovski can be to warn the reader that his theory has been debunked and is false. Pending discussion on the talk page (which I opened here and notified at NPOVN here) I removed the paragraph on the critics, in order to restore WP:BLPBALANCE, but I was revertred [19].

I think we can discuss at lenght on the talk page what information we want to convey, if any, about the reception of Katchanovski's theory, but in the meantime we should not remove the supporters, and only the supporters, leaving the critics: that would be contrary both to WP:ONUS and WP:BLPBALANCE and should not be allowed.

Fringe theory? Supporters and critics

Supporters Jack F. Matlock Jr. (former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and George F. Kennan Professor at Princeton University) Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (Professor of Political Science at São Paulo University, named as Brazilian Intellectual of 2005 by the Unión Brasileña de Escritores; awarded the Order of Rio Branco, the Order of May, and the German Cross of Merit) Richard Sakwa (Emeritus Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent) Stephen F. Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and Professor Emeritus of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University) David Lane (Emeritus Reader in Sociology, Emeritus Fellow of Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge) Volodymyr Ishchenko (research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin) David Mandel (Professor at UQAM) Moreover (not mentioned in the article) Chris Kaspar De Ploeg, Gordon M. Hahn, Kees van der Pijl, Susan Watkins (professor at Leeds Beckett University), John Foster (journalist, author of "Oil and World Politics"), Guy Mettan and Lev Golinkin. Critics David R. Marples (Distinguished University Professor at the Department of History & Classics, University of Alberta) Taras Kuzio (Professor of Political Science at National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) Serhiy Kvit (Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) Bohdan Harasymiw (Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary) Cathy Young (Journalist, The Bulwark) Polygraph.info References