Talk:Myrotvorets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Edit warring

Moscow Connection, Can You fix repeating information and correct the inaccurate date of creation? Can we try to do the article as neutral, as possible.Dctrzl (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that the text you added is in bad English. I can't really rewrite everything, I don't have much time to spend on it. (I have other things to do.) Now, at last, the lead section is readable. The
    WP:OR. Can you find a better source? A source with an exact date/month? --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Moscow Connection. General background information was Ukrainian, because it is missing in the Russian Wikipedia. Here another source. In Russian. Георгій Тука: Народний інформаційний проект
If you write here, may you ping me? I do not often look to my watchlist.Dctrzl (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dctrzl:. The Facebook post is from December 2014. Was the site created in December 2014? Can you find a better source, something that would say "The website was launched [when]". Or "The Center was founded [when]". --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://ipress.ua/news/volontery_zapustyly_v_interneti_sayt_pro_zradnykiv_i_naymantsiv_yaki_voyuyut_proty_ukrainy_100469.html and http://www.newsru.ua/ukraine/16dec2014/sait_teroristu.html Cathry (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that it doesn't say when exactly it was created. In December? And both articles cite Facebook posts as sources.
You can change it to December 2014 or simply 2014 if you like. (I don't really want to do it cause I think it would be a
WP:OR. But if you insist, you can do it.) If you do it, add the two sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I will change the date. But it's only because you insist. (The Facebook post by George Tuka is from December 2014 and it seems to actually announce the launch of the website [3]. It is the best source for more or less the exact date, so I will have to add it even thought it is just a Facebook post.
Anyway, if someone asks why there are unreliable sources I will say you made me do it. :-) (Really, I had a reliable source that said "January 2015", so I wrote "January 2015".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dctrzl has already changed the date to "December 2014": [4]. I tried to do it myself about half an hour ago, but I lost the edit as a result of an edit conflict. (I think the Facebook post should still be added as a source cause it is the best one we have that more or less says that the site was actually launched in December.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow Connection, I shall do it later. Now I have some work to do in real life ;-) --Dctrzl (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December or January is not important for me, but I think sources are reliable enough for December. Cathry (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human rights abuses

An IP editor has removed the categories Category:Human rights abuses and Category:Human rights in Ukraine without explanation. Instead he/she has demanded an explanation for the article being included in the categories.

One of the human rights is the right to life. In April 2015 the Myrotvorets website published the home addresses of Oles Buzina and Oleg Kalashnikov, and within days they were murdered. On 7 May 2016 Myrotvorets published the personal data of 4,508 journalists, etc. who were perceived as having cooperated with the Russian-backed/controlled Donetsk People's Republic. Doing this put their lives at risk. Hence the inclusion in categories covering human rights abuses.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re

@Mhorg. [5] - perhaps this is sourced, but this is an extremist website does grave dancing. I would be inclined to remove, and especially the link to website. However, if you insist to keep it, well, this is your responsibility. I am not going to edit war. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand, what would the extremist site be?--Mhorg (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, that is Myrotvorets. There was only one such link in content you inserted [6]. Here is relevant policy on such self-published sources [7]. They "may be used as sources of information about themselves", but only as far as "it does not involve claims about third parties". The entire purpose of that posting was not just to make a claim about "third party", but to celebrate death of that 3rd party. I am certain making such linking is unacceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the site is considered extremist, I was inserting it as a primary source compared to what RS Espresso reported, for completeness of information, and to find that the photo was really there. If possible, I would keep the primary source... if it goes against some Wikipedia rule, let's take it out.--Mhorg (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, the webstie url also appears in the article template. What's now?--Mhorg (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That qualify as it "may be used as sources of information about themselves". My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

[8] - this edit. Yes, I can see that the Italian source flatly tells that Mirotvorets is "curated" by the SBU, nothing more. 2nd English language source tells that "Yekaterina Sergatskova, an anchor at Hramadske TV told the

database curation, i.e. the database of Mirotvorets was curated by SBU people? Or meaning like curator of someone in intelligence operations? Any good RS on this subject must explain how exactly SBU was involved and why. Are the people in Mirotvorets sitting on their payroll? Is it a front organization? Did the SBU "penetrated" the organization or what? I am afraid these two sources are not good enough to support such statement made in WP voice. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Now, let's take a scholarlysource/ a book about it [9]. It describes Mirotvorets as merely a Ukrainian pro-government website that publish data on the separatists. Moreover, it cites M. as an important source of information, as a kind of Ukrainian Bellingcat. I am afraid this page should be fixed for neutrality. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Beast say it is "affiliated" with SBU. That usually means it is officially affiliated. Other sources do not say it. Any other links or supporting refs? My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you want to do, but it is not possible to remove the evidence of the links between Myrotvorets and the SBU. The precise role that the secret services have is not clear (it would be strange if it were, given that the secret services are involved), but the connections are clear and reported by many RS.
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe - Human rights platform "Usphishna Varta": "The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, SBU, and departmental and other law enforcement bodies of the country were listed among the partners of the website (since its launch and until May 13, 2016). The adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs Anton Gerashchenko openly declares that he is the initiator of the creation of this website"[10]
The website is also widely used by the Ukrainian judiciary system, showing that it is fully integrated with Ukrainian institutions: "The use of the “Mirotvorets” website's data by the judicial system, which is reflected in the rulings of certain judges, violates article 6 of the Convention, which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial."
We are far from the definition of an "extremist website".--Mhorg (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About what is written in the Daily Beast (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources): "This is a project curated by the SBU" (which are clear, and there is no need for other specifications), are the words of the journalist Katerina Sergatskova known for her investigations, of which the whole world has spoken (Human Rights Watch [11]) She is also known for her requests to the Ukrainian state for the protection of press freedom (in 2020 she had to flee the country because she had shown contacts between a Ukrainian Facebook fact-checking organization and neo-Nazi groups). A very reliable source, I don't understand why you are questioning it.--Mhorg (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The OSCE is a very strong source (much better than Daily Beast), and it completely clarifies this question. It tells (as you cited): "The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, SBU, and departmental and other law enforcement bodies of the country were listed among the partners of the website. So, exactly that should said on this page, not "curated", which is vague and can mean something entirely different. No one disputes credentials of Katerina Sergatskova. But what does she mean by saying "curated"? That was my question. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I fixed it per discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your next edits except only one thing: [12]. No, these sources do not really say that "The centre is affiliated with the government law-enforcement and intelligence agency, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU)", and you can not say it in WP voice. A journalist is saying to Daily Beast that she thinks the website is "curated" by the SBU, without giving any further details. Note that a much stronger OSCE source does not say it, but say something different. I do agree this is significant (if true), but all the more a reason to be reliably sourced, explained how it is "curated" and properly worded. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even this page on ruwiki (it is bigger and certainly not in favor of the Ukrainian nationalists) claims such thing, and I do not see any Russian language sources to support it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On Daily Beast (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources): "A website affiliated with the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) has published the names, email addresses and phone numbers of all the journalists and media workers who had received press accreditations from the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic in eastern Ukraine." The meaning is very clear, I don't see why it should be misunderstood. The center is affiliated/partner of the SBU and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The two RS say the same thing.--Mhorg (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not explain what does it mean "affiliated". Apparently same thing as OSCE source say, except that OSCE source is more specific and better. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Word "affiliation" has a lot of different meanings. Since the Daily Beast article does not explain what it means, exactly, we should stick to OSCE source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of poorly sourced and unsourced content

BLP please

  • [14] - sourced to this [15]. An extremist site (Mirotvorets) posted a defamatory content about the writer, then removed such content. The allegation in this source (of "propagating inter-ethnic discord and manipulating information important to society" - Google translate) was obviously false. Why that should be included anywhere? Even if she is a public figure (probably not), this is false and definitely not a notable allegation, sourced to a single source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please revert you removal. Perhaps you did not read the part you removed, because of Myrotvorets she "received threats from local nationalists and had to cancel a meeting". About a year ago you also removed this information from Alexievich's article and wrote that "Including this here seems to me like a content that only belongs to the page about the website"[16] Now you come here and try to remove this part from here as well. How much longer do we have to keep playing with these removals of controversial content? Mhorg (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why canceling a meeting or an extremist web site making a defamatory posting (and then removing it) is of any importance? Sorry, but I do not understand that or your insistence. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you previously thought that this part only belonged to this article but now you want to remove it from here as well. You seem to be proceeding step by step with removing controversial information on this website. Mhorg (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not belong to any article. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Times

I had a real

a deprecated source), UFOs, and "imminent collapse of the [Ukrainian] army" makes me doubt the source's reliability. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess there's plenty of better sourced concerns about the myrotvorets site, some already covered, possibly differently worded, and I won't push that much fort this particular source, surely not for the lead. An "Insource:riotimes" search gives me 166 results, not sure if that makes it worth a RS discussion or a case by case check. I have to admit that, when I first saw the acronym I had the same RT association. The actual articles you linked seem a bit better than what the titles suggest, but a bit sensationalistic at best. 109.119.228.50 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minors

Shouldn't this article mention the minors listed on the website? It seems to be an important matter as sharing children's private information is both unethical and illegal in most countries. 80.94.250.115 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should share that information. 213.194.144.91 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for me... do you have sources? Mhorg (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple articles, claiming more than 300 children are on it, I haven't kept the links, would need to do some research, but I think this is even more accurate since it comes from the website itself. https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/savenkova-faina-vladimirovna/
This girl was born in 2008 according to the website, her home address and various contacts details are publicly exposed, as well as family members. I am not sure exactly how it needs to be added to the article, still learning wiki rules, but can help if needed. 217.19.212.84 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need a secondary source that talks about that Mhorg (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Alexievich and Andrea Rocchelli

Since there has been a lot of talk lately about Myrotvorets, I would like to warn other colleagues that two rather important cases have been removed[17] from the article. The first concerns Svetlana Alexievich (2015 Nobel Prize in Literature), who had to cancel a meeting because she was threatened because of Myrotvorets. The second is about the Italian reporter Andrea Rocchelli, who was killed in Ukraine. I think we should restore them, both. Please, could you give your opinion? Mhorg (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it very strange that they're omitted given that The Times decided to discuss these cases in their article. My impression is that Myrotvorets became notable (at least in the West) for its handling of journalists. If it would've been a database of Russian military, propagandists and their helpers, there would've been no controversy about it.
The current list of people makes a misleading impression by mentioning pro-Kremlin Graham Phillips and Darya Dugina and omitting prominent independent journalists who were added to the database or killed. As far as I can tell, this is different from the balance in sources.
On a related note, I think activity related to journalists should be described in a single section or a sub-section. Currently, it's spread across the last paragraph in Overview, a few paragraphs in Activity (reactions) and in People included to the list. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after looking at their entries, such as [18] (note the photo, this is obviously not him), I think this is something along the lines of Encyclopedia Dramatica, i.e. just a bunch of guys having luls. I would not take them seriously. More important, the Ukrainian government also does not take them seriously: they have listed a man, but he is still a long-term advisor in the current Zelensky administration. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I have removed the contentious nonsense about the Nobel Prize winner as undue. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg, you put into this article that Rocchelli was “murdered by the Ukrainian army”. OF COURSE I removed such nonsense and I’m not sure why you’d want to bring attention to the kind of edits you’re making here. Volunteer Marek 00:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what was reported in the years of Vitaly Markiv's trial in Italy.[19] The Italian authorities were the only ones to carry out a full investigation, and they reported that the Ukrainian army was responsible for the murder. The missing part is to understand who gave the order to shoot at the civilians, which included Rocchelli, and who carried it out. Do you think this is 'nonsense'? Mhorg (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Alexievich and Andrea Rocchelli are important examples. Today, there has been another attempt to remove the paragraph about Alexievich [20]. I don't get it, she is an extremely notable example, her addition to the list really caused some stir. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection I agree with you. Also, note that the part with Rocchelli has been inexplicably deleted along with first-class sources.[21] Mhorg (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How isn't this in the article? I decided to search the page for "Rocchelli", and he isn't even mentioned. I'll restore the paragraph now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ANI for attention. As it was done with Anatoly Shariy a year or two ago. (I don't really remember what that discussion was about, but I think it helped that some serious editors added the Shariy article to their watchlists. The same shoud be done for "Mirotvotets".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Moscow Connection I would point out that the same part was also removed again from Andrea Rocchelli's article by the same users with the motivation that an 'extremist website' is undue(?).[22] Mhorg (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in edit summary, according to cited source "the site removed Alexievich's name from the list several hours later". Therefore, I do not see this as a good representative example. I think this is a justified removal. I also think that placing "bad"/scandalous info about living persons to pages where it arguably does not belong is against our BLP policy. Please do not re-insert this again per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rocchelli and Myrotvorets affair has been cited in reliable first-class Italian sources.[23][24][25][26] (also in a book[27]) and by The Times.[28] This part needs to be restored. Mhorg (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Used by officials" not in the lead, but "no official status" in the lead?

@Volunteer Marek removed from the lead [29][30] the info that Myrotvorets is widely used by government officials in carrying out their duties. Here's the text, slightly edited: Although it has no official status, the website is regularly consulted at checkpoints to integrate government information systems (source, The Times [31]).

Since the info is significant, I temporarely placed it in the article body [32] but I believe it should belong to the lead. Apart from that, I believe it's extremely POV that we remove this info from the lead while leaving there the info that The website has no official status, as Volunteer Marek proposes we do [33]. It sounds as if we were saying: "it's just a private enterprise, not the government's business". On the contrary, if officials use the database, and the database is privately owned and privately menaged, that makes the whole situation even more worrying, because (on top of the issues with privacy, human rights, etc.) there's also an issue of accountability.

So either both infos are placed in the lead (which I think is better), or both are placed in the body of the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Including that it has no official status seems quite justified to be in the lede to me - it meets
WP:LEAD
, in that it's a basic fact that is broadly agreed upon by sources. It's difficult for me to say whether we should include the information about being used at government checkpoints. I agree that if we had significant coverage of that in the body of the article and sources it would definitely belong in the lede, but (and I may be wrong about this) it seems like we just have some passing mentions of this fact in sources and it isn't really discussed in the body of the article. It may or may not belong, it doesn't seem clear cut to me
Those are my thoughts, I'm not really giving a definitive answer though Tristario (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: this would have to be described in the body of the page in significant detail to be summarized in the lead. As was written, this does not belong to the lead.My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information that it is used by officials is important, otherwise we are giving the impression that this site is not linked in any way with the Ukrainian authorities. This issue is at the heart of Myrotvorets. According to many reliable sources, over the years the Ukrainian government has been asked by international organisations to intervene to block the website's operation, always receiving negative responses. So, the fact that it is 'used by officials' must be put in the lede. Mhorg (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt this site is taken seriously by Ukrainian officials because it openly makes a mockery of Ukrainian officials [34] who still continue working in the government, even after being "blacklisted" by this site. It is no secret that Ukrainian government has its own "blacklists", some of which have been officially published [35]. That is what they are using. As follows from cited publications, the data in this resource are extremely unreliable (to say this politely), and the creator unduly promotes his project. It is
unlikely that authorities would use such data without an additional verification and filtering. These articles do not provide enough details about the alleged usage by the government. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
you should write a letter to The Times complaining about their sloppy journalism! Why are you telling us instead? Surely we shouldn't set aside The Times simply because you "strongly doubt" what they say. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your link it only says: Despite having no official sanction, the Myrotvorets database remains widely used to screen individuals at government checkpoints, supplementing official database systems. But we need some RS describing this in a lot more detail to create a meaningful text that should then be summarized in the lead. What "checkpoints"? On the border or within the entire country? Who does that? Boarder guards? Police? Volunteers? Even that is not clear. If they did it, there must be some incidents when specific people were arrested or not allowed to enter, specifically based on Mirotvorets records, right? If there are no additional sources and details, one can reasonably argue this should not at all be included given the
WP:Exceptional nature of the claim. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's probably worth noting that the site is hosted on webservers owned by NATO. This doesn't necessarily have a bearing on it's official status for the Ukrainian government, but it certainly gives some context about the list being sanctioned by an organisation that is supportive of that government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedAndAfraid (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Simmons

Can anyone confirm or deny reports he was added there? The claim is being circulated on RT but I don't know how to check. LichCake (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm - here's the link https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/simmons-kir/ Curt 内蒙 15:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, is there an English version of the site or English outlets translating it for us? Curious what it says aside from running it through machine translation. LichCake (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request grammar

This is my first attempt at edit or talk page, so please forgive me if I'm wrong format (I'll learn to do better). My suggested edit is change "in his" to "to its". The last paragraph on article currently reads "Following the beginning of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Myrotvorets added the names of Viktor Orbán (Prime Minister of Hungary) and Zoran Milanović (President of Croatia) in his list of "Enemies of Ukraine"." The current wording use "his", sound like Myrotvorets is a single person. I suggest it be changed to "Following the beginning of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Myrotvorets added the names of Viktor Orbán (Prime Minister of Hungary) and Zoran Milanović (President of Croatia) to its list of "Enemies of Ukraine"." The second one sounds more natural grammar to me, but I may not understand what is actually said. Thank you. Jim Basketballhoop (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In future, don't be afraid to go for it if you've spotted an obvious grammatical error! Curt 内蒙 06:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kill List

I believe we should also include possible allegations on the website being a kill list considering how many people on the list end up dead 38.99.190.243 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uspishna Varta

As of writing the following highly dubiously sourced but perhaps/probably true information is included in the article as such -> "Myrotvorets" is also recognised by the courts of Ukraine when making decisions, according to rights group Uspishna Varta. According to them the data of the collected on the website is used in court decisions at all stages - from the beginning of the pre-trial investigation to the conviction of the person, and in numerous rulings, judges also accept information from the "Myrotvorets" as material evidence. The use of the website applies not only to criminal cases, but also to civil legal relations and factfinding acts. As of 2019, data from the site was used in over 100 cases, according to Uspishna Varta.

Similarly, the website of Myrotvorets say something very similar: "Ukrainian courts use the information published on the Myrotvorets website at all stages of judicial proceedings..."

Uspishna Varta describe itself as -> "The human rights platform “Uspishna Varta” was created on the initiative and with the support of the Ukrainian public figure and philanthropist Oleksandr Klymenko (politician)"... for context he's wanted for high treason within Ukraine.

This can be seen at the bottom of the current opinionto OSCE reference that's linked on the main page.

StopFake (Ukrainian NGO) has an article on some claims of the group it says are not-collaborated as seen here

It's safe to assume Uspishna Varta disbanded around 2019, and news released by the ground ceased in 2019. Their last existing cache that I could find date to 2020 here.

I'm unsure if the current sources (Al-Jazeera referring to Uspishna Varta + the opinion Uspishna Varta itself to the OSCE) are sufficient and I couldn't find any on my own. Perhaps something like the group's own self-reference or omitting the court related information altogether is better in context but I don't usually wiki and this seem touchy.

I was going to added a more citation needed tag with a link to this talk section but it seem locked at the moment or at least locked to non-users. 184.163.73.178 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

There is a space at the end of the sentence "It has been promoted by Anton Herashchenko, a co-founder and later advisor to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine .", which I believe should be deleted. 76.14.32.104 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove link to doxing and glorifying violence website

This should be removed as soon as possible, since the forum with doxing content kiwifarms' link was removed to remove publicity, there is no reason to list a website that doxes people by listing their passport numbers, addresses, date of births, relatives, emails and everything else and then celebrates on the home page with graphic violence when they get killed.

An example of such content: https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/okhlobystina-oksana-vladimirovna/ Feeelix Kai (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

improvements to the Myrotvorets article

If you want to improve the article, my suggestion is to include a section on the many criticisms Myrotvorets has received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:9326:CC00:29F7:19F5:C098:D83B (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrotvorets&oldid=1219916145"