I've read the article you linked. It's not great.

It both accuses the Makhnovists of insane utopianism for trying to abolish currency and refusing to install a state that acted as an employer then harshly condemns them as a hypocrites for not disbanding their hierachical army and secret police while their revolution was under siege from both the Whites and the Bolsheviks. It simultaneously condemns the Mahknovists for using violence to implement and defend their revolution instead of peacefully debating the people actively trying to put them and their families six feet below ground and uncritically supports Trotsky and the Red Army's purge of the Mahknovists and the massacres of peasants who had never held a gun in their lives but were ideological Mahknovists or family members of soldiers in the Black Army. It also, in trying to ridicule Mahknov's reforms as not only utopian but ridiulous and insane, ends up claiming that a stateless society is inherently untenable which I shouldn't have to tell you is an argument against not only anarchism in general but the communist project as a whole.

I've written a more detailed critique of it here (with an angrier tone than I'd use with you as the guy I was responding to was saying that everyone Trotsky purged deserved what was coming to them). Here's an excerpt responding to the bit you quoted:

The article you quoted claims Mahknovik’s methods descended to almost the levels of the Bolsheviks. It does this by taking as examples three incidents and attempts to set them up as the norm. The article claims that Mahknovik engaged in torture with its only source being third hand white propaganda. It claims that Mahknovik and the Black army wantonly executed communists of opposing creeds pointing to an incident where a local Bolshevik had convinced two of five Black army regiments in defect and take arms against the other three regiment and the other three regiments upon discovering this summarily executed the two regiments and that cities Bolshevik. The article ignores that for this incident to have played out like it did demonstrates clearly that Bolsheviks were allowed to peacefully and freely coexist in cities the Black Army unless those specific Bolsheviks took up arms against the Black Army. In contrast to the articles claim, the Black Army was famous for being unwilling to kill proletarians. This was to the extent that defeated Red Army soldiers were given a choice of defecting or surrendering their arms and (unsupervised!) being allowed to return home. Only officers were imprisoned and up until the mass executions of peasants began they were treated well. This paints a stark contrast to Trotsky and the Red Army’s policy of imprisoning and slaughtering not only members of the Black Army but also their families and anyone who was an outspoken Mahknovist.