User talk:Malev oleg

Welcome!

Hello, Malev oleg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sushidude21! (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mikheil Kavelashvili, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello, I'm Stickymatch. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shalva Papuashvili and Georgia (country) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Stickymatch 06:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for restoring the content on the Shalva Papuashvili and Georgia (country) pages. I apologize for not providing adequate edit summaries earlier; I understand the importance of transparency in our contributions.

Regarding the Edits:

Shalva Papuashvili Page:

Content Removed: I removed statements questioning the legitimacy of Shalva Papuashvili's position as Speaker of the Parliament.

Rationale: The assertions about the disputed legitimacy were not supported by concrete evidence. While there have been political disagreements, labeling his position as illegitimate without substantial proof contradicts Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For instance, although President Salome Zourabichvili has expressed concerns about the parliamentary elections, the official records recognize Papuashvili as the Speaker. (civil.ge)

Georgia (country) Page:

Content Removed: I updated information regarding the tenure of the previous president to reflect accurate dates and details.

Rationale: The previous information was outdated and did not include recent developments. According to official records, Mikheil Kavelashvili was elected as the new president on December 14, 2024, and inaugurated on December 29, 2024. (agenda.ge)

Sources: Shalva Papuashvili Elected as New Parliament Speaker: https://civil.ge/archives/464965?

Mikheil Kavelashvili Elected as Georgia's Sixth President: https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/42140?

Inaugural Ceremony of Georgia’s 6th President Mikheil Kavelashvili Held: https://www.agenda.ge/en/news/2024/42312? Malev oleg (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now I would like you to restore the edits.

thanks in advance. Malev oleg (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various pages describe the reasons with sources why the positions are disputed and by whom. At some places this may require some more accuracy, however simply removing them as if the disputes don't exist would not be right and not NPOV. The positions are not only disputed by a few angry citizens (in that case your point would be valid), but goes all the way up to international bodies, and thus affects Georgia's international relations and the person's interaction on behalf of the country. It is fully NPOV to take these factors into consideration and translate that into a note of 'dispute' at the relevant persons. We don't have to make it bigger than it is, but it is not marginal either, plus sources describe these positions as disputed. Labrang (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your emphasis on maintaining neutrality and acknowledging disputes when they are substantiated by credible evidence. In the case of Georgia's 2024 parliamentary elections, it's important to consider the findings of international observers and institutions.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) observed the elections and, in their final report, expressed concerns about recently adopted legislation affecting fundamental freedoms and civil society, as well as pressure on voters. These factors, combined with certain election day practices, compromised the ability of some voters to cast their ballots without fear of retribution.

osce.org

Similarly, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on November 26, 2024, highlighting a "worsening democratic crisis" in Georgia following the elections. The resolution pointed to alleged electoral fraud and called for immediate cessation of violent repression against peaceful protesters, political opponents, and media representatives.

europarl.europa.eu

While these reports indicate significant concerns regarding the electoral process, they do not provide concrete evidence to categorically label the positions of elected officials as illegitimate. The OSCE ODIHR report, for instance, highlights issues that may have influenced voter behavior but stops short of declaring the election results invalid. The European Parliament's resolution reflects political positions and calls for actions but does not serve as judicial evidence of illegitimacy.

Given this context, it's crucial that any mention of disputes regarding political positions in Georgia on Wikipedia be accompanied by clear attribution to the sources of these claims, ensuring that readers understand the nature and basis of the disputes. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, presenting information that reflects the concerns raised by reputable organizations without asserting conclusions not directly supported by the available evidence.

I hope this clarifies my perspective, and I'm open to further discussion to ensure our contributions accurately reflect the nuanced realities of the situation.

Sources:

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/584050?

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-10-2024-0179_EN.html? Malev oleg (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you cite the European Parliament, I would like to remind you about the European Parliament resolution last week, which you probably know about. As for the election day, I am all aware of the details and the "careful diplomatic" wording of the OSCE report (by default), I was around on the ground on election day myself in a certain relevant capacity. For your knowledge, the OSCE report is the worst election report Georgia got since GD took over. That in itself is not a reason for the label "disputed" of course, just addressing your attempts to gloss over things and ignoring the muffled language the OSCE always uses. The fact that they don't call it outright "rigged" or "illegitimate" doesn't mean they don't dispute the election result. In fact, it is hidden in the details. And as such, EU bodies have not recognized the election result and have moved on to impose various sanctions as far as that could go outside of the unanimity. The same goes for the US. The GD delegation to the council of europe has been put under conditions to call for new elections, an unheard of step for any member of the CoE, and not because they didn't like the result. This is all described by external sources. The parliamentary election outcome and therefore all related appointments are disputed, by a (for Georgia) relevant part of the international community - which should be reflected in the article(s) one way or the other. Labrang (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective and the additional context regarding the OSCE report and international reactions. However, I want to clarify a few points to ensure we maintain accuracy and neutrality in how we frame these issues.

First, I am not attempting to "gloss over" anything—I fully acknowledge the serious concerns raised by OSCE ODIHR and other international bodies. In fact, I highlighted the problematic aspects of the elections, including pressures on voters and legislative changes impacting civil society. That said, we must be precise in our terminology.

You assert that the fact OSCE does not explicitly call the elections “rigged” or “illegitimate” does not mean they are not disputed. However, that is precisely why careful wording matters. The OSCE, by its own methodology, does not declare elections outright fraudulent but instead details irregularities and structural concerns. Their findings are critical and warrant attention, but they do not equate to a formal declaration of illegitimacy.

Regarding the EU and US responses, while there have been clear political consequences—such as sanctions and conditions placed on Georgian officials—this does not amount to a universal non-recognition of the election results. The European Parliament’s resolution and actions by other bodies reflect political positions rather than formal legal determinations of illegitimacy. The Council of Europe’s conditions, while unprecedented, do not automatically translate into a blanket classification of the election as "disputed" in a manner comparable to, say, the contested outcomes in Belarus or Venezuela.

Wikipedia’s standard is verifiability, not truth. If a “disputed” label is to be applied, it must be clearly sourced to reputable organizations explicitly using that language—not inferred from diplomatic phrasing or policy responses. The best approach is to accurately represent the concerns raised by international bodies while avoiding conclusions that go beyond what the sources explicitly state.

If there are sources that categorically state the elections are “disputed” in a formal sense, those should be cited directly. Otherwise, the most neutral approach is to document the concerns raised by OSCE, the EU, and other actors, without imposing a disputed label that implies a level of consensus or legal non-recognition that does not exist in official reports. Malev oleg (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Salome Zourabichvili

Hello, could you please stop WP:EDITWAR on the Salome Zourabichvili article (...and other Georgia-related articles)? Check Talk:Salome Zourabichvili there's already an ongoing discussion about the incumbency and disputed status. Tahomaru (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Shalva Papuashvili 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; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Adakiko (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This includes Salome Zourabichvili. Adakiko (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use article talk pages

Use article talk pages to discuss article-related content. You can notify (ping) other editors to your content. Please don't discuss article-related content on others talk pages. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]