Talk:Ruslan Kotsaba

And right off the bat...
... we have misrepresentations of sources. "Prisoner of conscience" has three inline citations which pretend that this is based on reliable sources. But of course not a single one of these actually says he is a "prisoner of conscience". In fact, not a single one says he is a prisoner at all! The third source is about how local townspeople didn't want him at a city council meeting (folks can figure about why that would be)!

Also, notability.  Volunteer Marek  18:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * radiosvoboda: “Amnesty International also recognized Kotsaba as a "prisoner of conscience" - the first case in the last 5 years” (Також Amnesty International визнала Коцабу «в’язнем сумління» – перший випадок за останні 5 років). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not a prisoner of conscience. He is not even a prisoner. Why does this even have to be pointed out???  Volunteer Marek   08:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this edit clarifies the misrepresentations of sources issue with regard to "prisoner of conscience". Amnesty is a reliable source on the notion of "prisoner of conscience", which basically they invented. A plausible alternative would be "political prisoner", but prisoner of conscience is more precise and supported by sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be a prisoner of conscience or a political prisoner you have to be a prisoner first.  Volunteer Marek   08:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that we should have "former prisoner of conscience", right? Is that what you mean? If so, why didn't you add "former" instead of removing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone an be a "former prisoner of conscience", "during his time in prison he was described as a prisoner of conscience" would be better wording. Agree Amnesty international would be a reliable source for that, but if it happened on the past you can't use the present tense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Amnesty International also recognized Kotsaba as a "prisoner of conscience", case closed.Just Prancing (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user (following VM around to disagree) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

who has been previously described as prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International is bad English - "previously" compared to what? - so I'm now removing the adverb "previously". That he has been described as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty is as true today as it was in 2015 - it's a quality that persists even when he ceases to be a prisoner. Another possibility is my former prisoner of conscience, removed with this revert. Since he is on trial right now for the same facts, perhaps it's best to avoid saying that he is a "former" prisoner - he could be back in prison tomorrow. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I also question the notability of that someone, however, I did find one English-language source that mentions him. Is this enough to establish notability? As I said, I have doubts. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * thank you, I replied here below in the thread on notability. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of sources
This is the google translation of the source Radio Liberty : I restore the text you removed because the source is not misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The object of this edit is this is manipulation too. Prokhasko just said that Kotsaba was voicing the fact that many people were afraid of the war. The text you removed says Ukrainian writer Taras Prokhasko ... said that Kotsaba had voiced what others were afraid to admit.
 * Yeah, that’s not a very good translation of the source.  Volunteer Marek   08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you translate it instead? Are you sure that your Prokhasko just said that Kotsaba was voicing the fact that many people were afraid of the war is a better representation of the source? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you removed stated that ... the local population largely supported the pro-Russian militias claiming in the edit summary "not in source". Here's what the source  says:
 * Again, the word here is POV for reasons which should be obvious. Also the source is not RS (see below).  Volunteer Marek   08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your "obvious" reasons. Since he was arrested for his views, his views are relevant here. Wikipedia is not censored. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Great translation.Just Prancing (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user

Quack. what's an AIF.ru and why should we believe it? And all this translation talk--if only we had a native Russian speaker who is trying to improve the article! Two thoughts: it is farcical to call this man a journalist. Also, you are working really really hard to prove notability here. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to drag you over here, as I realize that you've probably had enough for a while, but purely as a language consultant, can you shed any light on the Google translate stuff going on above here? Elinruby (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms of Kotsaba
You added These statements were criticisized even by journalists sympathetic to Ktosaba, who referred to him as a "liar" who often made "false arguments". However, the source says that it was only one journalist, Denis Kazansky, and not many, who used these words. So using the plural here would be misrepresenting the source; I doubt that the views of one non-notable journalist are UNDUE. However, since many have said that Kotsaba was lying, I would have no objection to replacing the text with something verifiable and will do so myself as soon as I find a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The views of one, Kazansky, are not plural. Right.Just Prancing (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user
 * @Volunteer Marek, as I promised here above, I found better source on Kotsaba as a liar according to fellow-journalists. The text now published IMHO is a bit UNDUE These statements were criticised by Denis Kazansky, a Ukrainian journalist who disapproved of Kotsaba's arrest, but called him as a "liar" who often made "false arguments". Who is Kazansky? Why do his views matter to us? However, if you want to strengthen the point you'd like to make (i.e. his report from Donbas were full of lies, according to Ukrainian journalists and public figures), these are better sources:
 * ru.telekritika.ua: Yevgen Zakharov says that The actions of Kotsaba deserve moral condemnation, he is not a journalist, but a propagandist who openly, and I think deliberately, lied about the events in Ukraine, in fact, engaging in disinformation.
 * detector.media: attack-article Thank You, Vigilant Security Service: What Media People Think About Ruslan Kotsaba's Arrest.
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

- Who is Kazansky? He's a Ukrainian blogger and journalist born in Donetsk, and has been covering the East Ukraine separatism for 9 years now. There is an article about him on the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia. HERE you can read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:340:8380:1260:D84D:AFEA:E6E0:F0F1 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Removals of text per UNDUE, SYNTH, PRIMARY, POV
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you removed As of December 2022, Kotsaba is included in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". The primary source is this . The text is there because my article is a partial translation of the corresponding article on uk.wiki (as well as ru.wiki and in the near future also de.wiki with regard to Kotsaba's antisemitism allegations). As you can see, uk:Kotsaba Ruslan Petrovych provides this information in the opening sentence of the lead. If it is vital information for them, I belive that it is also interesting for us, and inclusioon in the lead is justified - the fact that today he is regarded as an "enemy of Ukraine" by Myrotvorets is relevant (by the way, today he's under trial; I haven't had the time to finish the article: more to come). With regard to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, as in this case. There's absolutely no SYNTH, no OR here.
 * No. This is a violation of both WP:PRIMARY and WP:LEAD. I neither know nor care what Ukrainian Wikipedia does. They have different rules and standards than we do - as do all other language wikipedias.  Volunteer Marek   08:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Why is this a violation of PRIMARY rather than an application of it? As per LEAD, I will add this highly notable content also to the body. The lead is also bound to change. I will add that Kotsaba has been victim of aggressions in recent years. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Find a secondary source. Nobody gives a crap about Myrovets except Russian propaganda. And you can’t do the “I try adding to the lede but someone points out it doesn’t summarize anything so I’ll add it to both lede and text to circumvent WP:LEAD” to justify this edit.  Volunteer Marek   16:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Re this removal I don't see anything POV here; these are the subject's views, for which he was persecuted, as reported by good sources: Deutsche Welle  (In this video, he also denied Moscow's responsibility for the killings in Donbas), Meduza  (he refused to join the army and called on all “adequate people” to do the same) and Radio Liberty  (Ivano-Frankivsk journalist Ruslan Kotsaba continues to assert that the war in the east is a civil war ... In January 2015, the journalist recorded a video message to the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, in which he called on Ukrainians to refuse mobilization and service in the ATO zone. "It is easier for me to spend 2 or 5 years in prison than to go to civil war").Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don’t see anything POV there then that’s a problem. “Pointed out” is obviously POV as it implies that his claims were true. Also see the other part of the explanation. It’s redundant because same thing is already mentioned previously in the article.  Volunteer Marek   08:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We csn change the "pointed out", if thats what it means. But the content is notable because these views were the reason he was arrested. Afain, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What in the world does “NOTCENSORED” have to do with anything? Also, as already mentioned twice, redundant.  Volunteer Marek   16:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You didn't provide any justification/edit summary for this removal . Since the source is missing, you'd better had the tag:cn instead of removing straightaway.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the edit is self explanatory.  Volunteer Marek   08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, an encyclopedia isn't the same thing as Youtube Analytics, and I know well how high and demanding your conception of the encyclopaedia is. However, the number of "likes" and views is indicative of the notability, or lack of notability, of the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no it’s not. No idea where you getting that from.  Volunteer Marek   08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * YouTube views are very important.Just Prancing (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user (following VM around to disagree)
 * Hey there WP:DUCK.  Volunteer Marek   16:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE? Also, the sources report this information, which is indicative of its relevance to the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we are not youtube analytics and we don’t establish notability or relevance by clicks, likes or smiley faces.  Volunteer Marek   16:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Clicks are relevant, no matter what "we" think about it. The sources report this information, which is indeed significant for understanding the impact of the Kotsaba affair on Ukrainian society, and also the futility of these trials to repress dissent in the Internet age, as they unintentionally give publicity to the ideas they want to ban. I'd like this information to stay. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia. An online encyclopedia, not social media analytics. Which sources are you referring to?  Volunteer Marek   22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group says the video had been watched by an extremely modest number of people until the SBU made its author so famous and led to his views being heard by close on 400 thousand viewers. Ukrainska Pravda says Statistics from 2014-2015 show that the popularity of Kotsaba's video blog has increased due to the video with Zadornov and the "I Refuse Mobilization" online campaign. In the case of the latter, the statistics of views are informative: 6,000 likes and only 600 dislikes. These are the two quoted secondary sources. The primary source now shows 468.796 views and 7961 "likes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok...so I am trying very hard to keep this on an even keel, so plz work with me here. Having been told that the subject of this BLP is not notable because, for example, he has no Wikipedia article, not to mention zero news coverage, you *made* an article based on some Russian sources and are now trying to say he is notable...because a video...he made in 2015... Got some clicks? Really? and it's your primary source? You really need to read the policy on primary sources for a start. YouTube videos are self-published and typically do not meet the standards for error correction or a declared editorial policy, is why you are failing to prove notability here. Elinruby (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Knock knock, has announced the he does not read my posts. Would someone please explain to him that saying a source is primary doesn't mean that it's the most important one? And try to straighten him out on "reliable source" vs "Likes". Ukraine does have some reliable video sources, actually. But someone with a professional reputation for untruthfulness is probably never going to be so designated, sorry.Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably a youtube video is a primary source as to the number of its viewers, just like an article is a primary source as to the name of its author. All this, however, is entirely irrelevant since we already have (as I explained above) reliable secondary sources on the number of views/likes received by Kotsaba's video. See the article for references and please avoid pinging me for purely theoretical discussions on what qualifies as primary source and its importance compared to other sources; please read other users' comments carefully before replying to them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't want to ping you all, all, since you are unfailingly insulting, but given your announcement that you don't read my posts it's unfortunately necessary, as we have here a serious misapprehension of which you need to be notified. You still apparently fail to understand that the 'likes' are irrelevant, and that YouTube videos are primary sources because they are self-published. Please feel free to post at the Reliable Sources noticeboard if you actually really believe that I am the one who is confused about this :) Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But what are you talking about? Are you talking about this sentence from the article: Following Kotsaba's arrest and trial, the video received more than 400,000 views, 6000 likes and 600 dislikes? Now a simple question Elinruby: is that sentence supported by secondary sources, yes or no? Please, mind the little numbers after the words "views" and "dislikes". Because there's no point in speculating about youtube videos being self-published sources etc. RS say that Kotseba made a video, that that video got X views and Y likes, that that video sparked controversy, that Kotseba ended up on trial for that video. If instead of "video" we had "book", or "painting", or "poem", nothing would change, OK? At least nothing as far as sources are concerned. Every single statement in that narrative, "Kotseba made a video, etc.," is backed by independent, reliable sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No, but we can get to that if you like. I'm talking about In mid-January 2015... Kotsaba published on YouTube a video message "I refuse to be mobilized",[17][16][2], which is cited to the self-published YouTube video, an archived page of spam links, and a fairly good article that basically calls him an Elon Musk of a collaborator and a volunteer unpaid cameraman who specialized in ambush interviews. I repeat, the views are irrelevant to any discussion of his notability or spurious claims to be a journalist.Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "spurious claims to be a journalist"? I though you had had the time to check the sources - Guardian, OHCHR, etc. Do I really need to post the links on this page? I can post this, however, which is both recent (2021) and authorative ("Safety of Journalism Platform" of the Council of Europe) . Do you think it's enough?
 * With regard to the video, we have planty of sources on the fact that in mid-January 2015 Kotsaba published on YouTube a video message "I refuse to be mobilized", so I think you're just wasting my time. I won't reply further. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * yes yes he made a video. That doesn't make him a journalist. Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed sources
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With regard to this edit, I don't understand your question, what even is this? It's the following source: Please expain what's the problem with this source. According to uk:Телекритика,
 * This was being used to falsely cite the “prisoner of conscience” claim. Without that claim it’s not necessary.  Volunteer Marek   08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it was there to support his qualification as journalist. Other sources (Eadio Liberty) was supporting the prisoner of conscience bit. Sloppy removal of a relevant source on your part. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it’s not needed?  Volunteer Marek   16:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the source is not indispensable. But I'd like to understand the reason why you think we should remove a perfectly good source like this. Is it because it's Ukrainian? Or is it because it is pro-Maidan? Or because you know nothing about this source but want to raise tiresome issues while shouting "bad sources"? If there's no good reason to remove it, then we won't remove it, OK? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Here you removed the following source:
 * Україна_молода describes Ukrayina Moloda as Kyiv newspaper close to Viktor Yushchenko which is aimed at a nationally conscious Ukrainian audience of various ages. The article is an interview with Kotsaba and is useful because at the bottom there are biographical information. Why did you remove it?
 * Україна_молода describes Ukrayina Moloda as Kyiv newspaper close to Viktor Yushchenko which is aimed at a nationally conscious Ukrainian audience of various ages. The article is an interview with Kotsaba and is useful because at the bottom there are biographical information. Why did you remove it?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it’s not a reliable source. Read that description again.  Volunteer Marek   08:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * why wouldn't it be reliable? Who says so? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * aimed at a nationally conscious Ukrainian audience of various ages + “Young Ukraine”. Seriously, find better sources.  Volunteer Marek   16:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same as above: perfectly acceptable Ukrainian pro-Maidan source; if you think we shouldn't use this kind of sources, please open a thread at RSN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * And what about this ? The source: . It's a leftist online magazine, and I used the article for biographical info on Kotsaba, spec. "In the camp of the "Aydar" battalion, the journalist conducted video interviews with Nadiya Savchenko, which can now often be seen on the central TV channels." It's not important and we could drop this per WP:TOOMUCH if the content is disputed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a trash source.  Volunteer Marek   08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Your unsubstantiated judgments are not arguments. Listen, if all my sources were leftist online magazines, I'd agree with you. But the vast majority of them are Ukrainian pro-Maidan mainstream sources. I don't see why we should censor the ones you don't like for no reason at all - you don't give any reason! just unsubstantiated judgments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I used that source to support the following purely factual and - I belive - uncontroversial claims:
 * he participated in the Revolution on Granite
 * he interviewed Nadiya Savchenko in Donbas
 * he could have faced a sentence of 5 to 15 years.
 * Point 3 is supported by many sources. Point 2 is almost supported by these sources : "Kotsaba says that he was the first to interview Nadia Savchenko". I don't think that the claim is controversial because the contested source, Ukraine's political trials, says that his interviews with Savchenko "can now often be seen on the central TV channels". Point 1, however, is not supported by other sources, unless this is a source : invited speaker in a "meeting with the participants and leaders of the "Revolution on Granite" in October 1990" at the National University Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, October 2013. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * whatever this might have been once, it doesn't exist . But I have no problem accessing this source: just click on the link to the archived copy:
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is “2000.ua”? If you don’t know what a source is, why are you using it? How can you tell if it’s reliable? And if it doesn’t exist anymore, with no mentions, even if you can access some archived version of, how can you tell? Why are you using sources that you have no idea about?  Volunteer Marek   08:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's ask @Mzajac, maybe he knows better. Please, Micheal, could you have a look at this thread on the sources (which is a bulleted lists: each bullet point is on a different source) and tell us what you think? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, it is quite likely that these were Kotsaba's views at the time, as seems to be confirmed by Ukrainian sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you didn't even bother to explain the reason (yeah, no). I guess the problem is that Argumenty i Fakty is owned by the Russian government - right? Yet, it's not deprecated; the only reference to it at RSN is User:My very best wishes saying Argumenty i Fakty look OK to me in this discussion; I doubt he would turn a blind eye to Kremlin propaganda. Anyway if you feel it's unreliable you are welcome to open a discussion at RSN. I believe we can use it because it is not making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims:
 * I thought it was obvious - it’s Russian government propaganda outlet, obviously not reliable. “Not deprecated” does not mean “reliable”. “Not deprecated” is the absolute minimum requirement for use of a source. MVBW was referring to an article from … 1993. A lot has changed since then. Not RS.  Volunteer Marek   08:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But these are just your views and to me they are cases of WP:IDONTLIKE. I'm using these sources to support very basic and not controversial factual statements, and I don't see why they should lie about things like Kotsaba's views. There must have been a reason why many Ukrainians thought he was supporting the Russian side. If you think that these claims are not adequately supported by the sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, WP:RS is not “just my views” or my “i don’t like it”, it’s Wikipedia policy. These are not “basic and controversial factual statements”. And if the source is not RS then find another source.  Volunteer Marek   16:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, these are "basic and NOT controversial factual statements". Argumenty i Fakty says that Kotsaba claimed "abc" about the War on Dunbas and Ukrainian sources say that he said "abc". In fact, they prosecuted him for this and they claimed that claiming that "abc" was suggested to him by Russian propaganda. I want a good reason for the removal of this source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * nope to Open Democracy, here . You might well be right, I found only this |this discussion. Is there a consensus on OpenDemocracy being unreliable? The source is this: . To be honest, I don't need this source (other sources support could have faced a sentence of 5 to 15 years in prison, but if there's no reason for removing it, I won't remove it.

Look man. You did a complete blind revert of all my edits. You then added a couple sources here or there. The problem though is that in your revert you restored a ton of non reliable sources as well as undid all my copy edits. Adding sources *does not require* restoring unreliable sources so I am not even clear on why you made that blind revert. I mean, aside, from, you know, WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons. You could’ve just added your sources without reverting me. Frankly, this just seems petty. Normally I would go to the trouble of restoring the portions of your edit that I think are worthwhile but since you’re not willing to show me that courtesy I’m not sure why I should bother.  Volunteer Marek  08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the couple sources that you added here or there - which in no way required you to blind revert me - where not even necessary.  Volunteer Marek  08:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No good reason to remove info with sources.Just Prancing (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user (following VM around to disagree) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mr.WP:DUCK.  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yesterday in less than 30 minutes you made 17 consecutive edits of which none were improvements. You removed text and sources and added misrepresentation of sources to the article. It took me 3 hours to go through all your edits and address each one of them here on this talk page. To do so I opened several discussions. I also added the template:In use to the article. I left your tag:Notability notwithstanding its absurdity. Today you made a blind revert, which means also that you are obstructing my work on the article (some notable information is still missing) notwithstanding the tag:In use. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Please don’t make unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS. All of my edits improved the article, mostly by removing trash sources or text in violation of policy. I did not misrepresent any sources (to the contrary I removed misrepresentations) - this is a very serious accusations and I’m going to ask you to substantiate it or strike it. You are the one who blind reverted under the false excuse that you needed to add other sources - this was false since the sources you added were to text which remained in the article. –Now you’re trying to deflect with some “I know you are but what am I?” tactic.  Volunteer Marek   16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not blind reverted under the false excuse that you needed to add other sources. Where did you read such nonsense? The sources were impeccable. I reverted because I'll now going to address the issues raised by User:Volunteer Marek and when necessary I will open discussions . Which I did, here above, and it took me 3 hours. I explained in painful details why I think that none of your reverts was an improvement.
 * What you just said about misrepresentation of sources being a very serious accusations infuriates me. See this edit of yours, this is manipulation too. And who was right about Prokhasko saying "Kotsaba had voiced what others were afraid to admit"? And what about this failed verification ? Wasn't if fully verifiable? "prisoner of conscience" was supported by the quoted Radio Liberty in the lead and also by Amnesty in the body. On the other hand, with regard to your I’m going to ask you to substantiate it or strike it, this was a misrepresentation of sources on your part , as I showed you in the thread Criticisms of Kotsaba, OK?
 * But the most serious issue is the amount of good sources you removed from the article without even bothering to read them and understand what they were about. In your blind revert yesterday, you also removed a couple of reports by OHCHR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability
You didn't provide any justification for the tag:Notability, so this looks like tag-warring. I haven't finished writing the article yet. Spoiler: he was the victim of a Zelyonka attack in 2021 ; he is president of an association called Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, affiliated with War Resisters' International; he is still under trial for the video, and on 22 January 2021 he was attacked near the courthouse; he still faces 5 to 15 years in prison; in 2019 the German "Aachener Friedenspreis" was not awarded to him because of some anti-Semitic statements he made in 2011 - coverege includes Deutsche Welle and FAZ. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He may very well be notable enough for Ukrainian Wikipedia (they can decide that) but I don’t see much coverage in non-Ukrainian sources, especially recent ones.  Volunteer Marek   08:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously notable.Just Prancing (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet of a banned user
 * Thank you for your quacking WP:SPA.  Volunteer Marek   16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no English-language requirement for sources in establishing notability. Masebrock (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

On the prisoner of conscience stuff, can probably be included with attribution but I don’t know what “top casino dot org” is and we probably shouldn’t link to it.  Volunteer Marek  16:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reference to top casino dot org. Please, explain - there's no source with "casino" in the name/link. Re prisoner of conscience, I've replied in the first thread. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what was linked in the citation.  Volunteer Marek   22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find one English-language source that mentions him. Is this enough to establish notability? I’m leaning not. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gizzy for the source. If you are looking for international sources (which IMHO are not necessary: national sources should suffice to establish notability) you may be interested in the OHCHR reports on the human rights situation in Ukraine, e.g. this and this: they always mention Kotsaba's trials and follow them closely. Unfortunately yesterday Volunteer Marek removed these sources in his highly disruptive blind revert, but I'm going to restore them asap. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But the above reports aren’t about him (?) Why are you saying they follow Kotsaba's trials closely? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First report I posted, see at para. 117; second one at para. 98. But there is more, much more. Notability is not an issue here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (?) Well, it is an issue because you have editors who think otherwise. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that it shouldn't be an issue. Of course if you make an issue out of it, it's an issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've pretty much finished my work here, I've removed the maintenance tag:In use. Regarding Notability, I humbly point out that the sources of the article now include 2 OHCHR reports, statements by Amnesty International, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, articles by Meduza, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Deutsche Welle (4 articles) and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, as well as dozens of articles in the Ukrainian press, e.g. Ukrainska Pravda. Apart from the OHCHR reports, all these sources are entirely devoted to Kotsaba. Plus we have passing mentions to him from The Guardian, USA Today and Avvenire. I hope someone will soon want to remove the tag:Notability, unless a discussion on this topic develops here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Since the inclusion of the tag:notability, the article has been expanded and many sources have been added. Above is a brief summary. It is safe to say that Kotsaba has received significant coverage from reliable and independet sources. It can also be said that the tag is not here to push editors to look for more sources and settle the issue of notability once and for all. And maintenance tags should never be "badges of shame". So, do we remove it? @Volunteer Marek Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. We have here a guy who didn't want to go to war in 2015. My thoughts and prayers are with the guy, but suuuuurely there are bigger fish to fry? Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

'zelyonka' is Russian
Why a Russian word is used here User:Gitz6666? Two Ukrainian sources say 'zelenka'. He was also attacked with eggs, not quoted, strange. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's because it originated in Russia, where anti-Putin activists were often subjected to it. I replaced the Russian zelyonka with the Ukrainian zelenka (зеленка). Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Kafkaesque details of the trial
Will On 20 February 2018, the Dolyna Court remitted the case back to the prosecutor on procedural grounds really be that notable in ten years time? I don't have the writing skills for it, but it looks like that section could be cut in quarter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right and it would improve the quality of the article if we remove all these details. However, the title you chose for this thread, "Kafkaesque details", says pretty much everything about why I think they are relevant. The judge in Bohorodchany recuses himself, the court in Dolyna says "no, please I don't want to hear this", the prosecutor appeals, Dolyna says "no, I'm being serious, I really don't want this", the court in Ivano-Frankivsk says "OK, then it goes to your colleagues in Kolomyia", and the judges in Kolomyia fall ill, then the prosecutor falls ill, the witnesses don't appear before the court - nobody wants this to go on; and while all this is happening (or rather not happening) in court, outside the court paramilitary groups are shouting "if the law doesn't work, we will punish him ourselves". Yes, there's something Kafkaesque in all this, but there's also something very real, dramatic and dangerous, and the way the judiciary is coping with these political pressures is noteworthy in itself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All the details of the trial appear quite normal, most legal system bounce things around like this on procedural details is far from being abnormal. We don't usually hear about them because they are so important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear on my title, it was an allusion to the detail and wording of the article more than the court case itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2022 Council of Europe report On the length of criminal proceedings that were concluded in April-May 2020 following the appellate review (accessible here) says that in Ukraine the average duration of a criminal proceeding is 1.9 years. 66% of criminal proceedings are concluded within 2 years; 84% of criminal proceedings are considered within a 3-year term; the length of 9% of criminal proceedings exceedes 4 years and only 5% of them exceedes 5 years. The trial against Kotsaba has already taken almost 8 years, and they're still in the first instance, which means that it's possible that the judgment will be subject to appeals to the court of appeals and to the supreme court. The facts of the case are not in dispute, as anyone can watch the video on YouTube and read Kotsaba's news reports. As far as I understand it, the hearings are spent listening to witnesses of the war in the Donbas to prove that the defendant lied. There's nothing normal about this trial. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That most cases are short doesn't make a long case unusual, this case is obviously thorny and so has dragged on. I'm not saying this shouldn't be covered, just that the level of detail is undue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the description . It is certainly more readable now. I hope, however, that the Kafkaesque nature of the trial is not completely lost. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading it is a lot easier. If there are any reliable sources reporting on the personal effect to Kotsaba of being continuously prosecuted it would probably better show the issue I think you're trying to show. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, he recently fled the country. It's difficult to say whether the trial and the prospect of imprisonment or the death threats and risks to personal safety counted more in this decision. Let's wait for sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:POV
Hello @Lute88, since you placed the template:POV a few days ago, could you please explain why? What issues did you find? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The page is dripping with PoV. If it weren't there I would put it there right now. Feel free to refrain from having Just Prancing come sign in here to agree with you.Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Where did he flee to?
Just wondering....Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I read that I fled to Germany and was planning to reach the US. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that he is a journalist
(which I question, but for the sake of the argument) he is a journalist because he worked for 112, which lost its license for broadcasting Russian propaganda. He then went on to a different pro-Russian outlet owned by the same Russian oligarch, Viktor Medvedchuk, a close friend of Putin, for whom Moscow was willing to trade prisoners. If I am not mistaken, he's the godfather of Putin's daughter, no less. Pretty sure he doesn't meet ICIJ standards. So...possibly a video blogger, conscientious objector, ok, maybe, although I have yet to see an actually-articulated objection. He said he was confused. But ok, he is a draft-dodger; what happened to draft-dodgers in the US during Vietnam? I really fail to see why he is worth the effort you are putting into this article. Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Is Viktor Medvedchuk a journalist? Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this is in the WP:NOTFORUM area. Since Amnesty, OHCHR, The Guardian and dozens of other reliable sources call him a journalist, your POV on what qualifies as journalism is just WP:IDONTLIKEit, not to mention your views on Medvedchuck, who is not even mentioned in the article. Please be considerate of other editors' time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * snort. No hand-waving, please. The onus is on you to provide sources that support the text you want to include, remember? We talked about this, I am sure there are copious reports with no page numbers that all back you up, sure. Please do provide them. Quotes would be nice also. Speaking of things we've talked about before,your tone in your answer above is extremely out of line, especially considering how wrong you are. I am trying to explain Wikipedia policy to you, and I agree that it's a waste of time, but here we are. Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * just to be clear: you're saying that Putin's best bud is a great source or information? A reliable source in every way? Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already answered your question: Amnesty, OHCHR, The Guardian. I'm sure you'll be able to find them without my help: they are quoted in the article, "Notes" section, and if you click on their title, your browser will automatically open the page, or download the pdf file, with the source you're looking for. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Correction to my earlier comment: Medvedchuk isn't the godfather of Putin's daughter, Putin is the godfather of Medvedchuk's child. Correcting this since I did misstate it. I realize that you're aware of this relationship, since you recently removed it from the lede of Medvedchuk's article saying it was irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was irrelevant; what I said was this . However, Medvedchuk is not even mentioned in this article and you're just following your thread of thoughts. Please pay attention to WP:NOTAFORUM. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Viktor Medvedchuk ran the propaganda outlets for which this guy you are trying to lionize was a volunteer propagandist, according to your own sources. That's highly relevant. And would you mind illuminating me as to the train of thought that led you to go curate his en-wikipedia page at this particular time? Your repeated invocation of NOTAFORUM feels a lot like bludgeoning, btw. Had you worn out NOT CENSORED? I just noticed a couple more POV and RS issues, gonna make coffee. Later. Elinruby (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Is this a reliable source?  Volunteer Marek  07:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Volunteer Marek - Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group IDK to be honest - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FaceBook page of that NGO. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Gitz6666? The question is directed at you since you're the one who added this source to the article.  Volunteer Marek  15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question: are you doubting their integrity? do you think they are Russian propaganda? As far as I know, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group is a very decent not to say heroic (since they started their activities under USSR rule) Ukrainian human rights organisation, widely respected and praised by anyone. However, as far as reliability is concerned, they would be reliable here even if they were pro-Russia (which is false and absurd, as their Facebook page shows and GCB tried to tell you). In fact, the article is now quoting the source to support the statement Criticisms of Kotsaba's arrest were voiced also by ... the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. In this context, the source is a reliable primary source on its own views per WP:SELFSOURCE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean you don't "understand the question"? Are they a reliable source or not? This is kind of basic.  Volunteer Marek   18:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I answered you question. Did you understand my answer or do you want me to repeat it using different words? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 You said you don’t understand the question 🤫 and you answered it..🤔 So it’s reliable you think. Okay, I’m still not so sure. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the website https://khpg.org/ is a reliable sources of information about the views of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. I personally believe that it also qualifies as WP:RS about human rights violations in Ukraine, but that here is beside the point. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources
@Volunteer Marekcould you please explain the following removals?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you explain ty for reminding me - can we please not link to whatever sketchy ass website this is? Why is it sketchy? I see the "ru" there, but isn't it Amnesty International? I'm pretty sure what they say is correct because other sources confirm that Amnesty called RK a "prisoner of conscience".
 * Click the link I removed. Not the one you provide. It redirects to some Russian online casino site. This has already been explained.  Volunteer Marek   03:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . still not a reliable source. Why not reliable? "Firtka" news agency is described as "the most visited and influential information site in the Ivano-Frankivsk region". It's Ukrainian local press. The source supports the statement "in the camp of the Aidar battalion he interviewed Nadiya Savchenko".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * </re . Why not RS? "Liva" is an Ukrainian leftist website. This source also supports the statement "in the camp of the Aidar battalion he interviewed Nadiya Savchenko".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually have trouble understanding how anyone would think this is a reliable source. Why? Anyway, we can get rid of this one, since the statement "he had spent 524 days in custody" is also supported by RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * dubious and primary. You are right that it's primary, but is it dubious? It looks like a very professional Ukrainian website for legal research, comparable to LexisNexis, JustCite, WestLaw and the Italian Normattiva. The website supports the statement "As of December 2022, Kotsaba was still under trial for hight treason."


 * Thanks for fixing that link. I thought the "sketchy ass website" you were referring to was Amnesty.ru, where the "ru" spoils the "Amnesty". What about the other sources? Is there any reason not to include them in the article? I'm referring in particular to "Firtka", "Liva" and "ZakonONline". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain this tag:Unreliable sources @Volunteer Marek? In the edit summary you say Lots of questionable sources in this article . The only source I restored since your removals is Firtka. Why do you believe that Firka is unreliable? And are there other sources you deem unreliable apart from Firtka? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International
The Russian link connects to an online casino. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)