Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of UkraineToday. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Dekisugi (
talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You posted a message to other user page with a signature of other person [1]. If you do that again, then you'll be blocked. Consider you have been warned. And please do not make a graffiti on a closed debates as you did here: [2], [3], and [4]. Dekisugi ( talk) 13:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocking User:DemocracyATwork
I'm not sure Blocking User:DemocracyATwork was such a good idea, although had a lack of tact a lot of things he said made sence + he made maps, shutting him up means only "Orange"-editors are working on the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article (atleat that's how it looks like). I think that that is unhealthy and will make this article unbalanced. I am in favor of unblocking him! Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WARNING: There is a select group of persons associated with one political party/bloc in Ukraine who are trying to rewrite the English history by selectively publishing statements and denying the publication of factual information that does not support their political ideology.\
The include Tag:Odessa, Timberframe, DDmima, Alex Khristov
Their actions include
- fraudulent registration of a user account under the name of their opponents to vandalise wikipedia pages in order to prevent factual material related to the constitutional court challenge of the Ukrainian president, Victor Yushchenko,'s dismissal of Ukraine's democratically elected parliament in 2007.
- publication of links to non NPOV publications such as the Maiden web site whilst removing links and citations to other sources that are more critical of their political pointy of view.
- false accusation against their critics in order to have them banned from participating in wikipedia.
- users TAG:Odessa and Timberframe are known participants on a public forum on Ukraine to which subscribers have been encouraged to log on to Wikipedia and vandalise the web pages in order to prevent their directors form being heard. This is a tactic that they have adopted as a modus operandi and they are doing the same here
- ongoing harassment of their victims using wikipedia as a forum for vilification. Citing the unjust and actions of Wikipedia having banned users as evidence of a crime. (No crime or act of vandelsiation has occurred by user UkrToday as they falsely claim)
- The process of administration and management by wikipedia leaves the system wide open to abuse. (See comments below)
Administration
Anon // September 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm
One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia that I have discovered is that its policies and administration in dealing with disputations or allegations has little to desire and breaches the principle of natural justice and a complaintants right to privacy.
If you seek to edit an article to provide what you consider is a balance to the issues/comments published more often or not you are subjected to a campaign of harassment and vilification by those that want to prevent the information you consider should be included in the article being published, Even if you go to the labor intensive effort of providing full citation and references and quotations backing up the information you wish to include. You are most likely to be subjected to persistent harassment and at times a gang-attack. Those involved have friends and contacts and they find a sympathetic Administrator who has a built in bias selectively applies a block to your account and forces you into going though a process of further breaches of your privacy and denial of natural justice as you now have to prove your innocence, the more complain the more you are subjected to vilification. (Aim to shame complaintants into not complaining and not consitibuting) te process adopted by Wikipedia is equivalent to being locked in stocks and those that you have been defending attacks against are permitted to join in and throw fruit and insults at you whilst you are denied the right to a proper defence or review.
Administrators reviewing the cases are more often then not associated or have a working relationship with the initial administrator approached by your critics to intervene.
In one such case there were over six administrators who all decided that they could opt-in, there is no random appointment process any administrator can pickup a case under review and add there two bobs worth) they can make determinations even though they had not actually made any real assessment of the facts or sought an explanation or further information by the complainant. There is no due process in a civilised or just maner.
Complaints are not dealt with in a confidential fashion and the person making the complaint is assumed to be the villain and not a victim. (Lack of good faith)
There is no natural justice or professionalism in the way on which cases are reviewed.
Unless your fairly persistent, or your have friends in high places, there is no way on which you will receive a fair and unbiased review.
If you persist by asserting your position then the administrators label you the victim as a vandal or claim someone other offence which is designed to prevent any complaints form proceeding beyond the first unjust intervention.
The process of review is akin to shopping around to find a court/judge you know to back your side.
It could be that a class action is exactly what is needed to bring Wikipedia to account for what is a seriously lacking in their administration policies.
Wikipedia does not have qualified privilege and must respect the rights and dignity of all aggrieved parties and not subject complaintants to a unjust, unfair trial by mob rule.
Need for reform
kotepho // September 7, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I think one of Wikipedia’s main problems is that it hasn’t grown up yet. Flying by the seat of your pants without firm rules works great on a small scale. The community is small enough that worthwhile discussions can take place, actually consensus developed, and everyone can be on the same page. In this environment, AIR and “policy is what we do” makes sense and works.
Wikipedia is not small anymore; and the practices of the past are becoming untenable. The problem is that Wikipedia and the old-timers do not see this as a problem that needs fixing. Their view is that the way that things have been done should and will work forever, it is just the new people that need fixing. (argumentum ad antiquitatem, status quo bias, social inertia, and a bit of True Scotsman thrown in)
Currently, the rules are used as weapons by many people. If you disagree with someone, instead of trying actual discourse they rattle off a litany of policies, TLAs, and aphorisms. It becomes a game of who can quote the most rules instead of cogent arguments and agreement. Even if the rules are made with good intentions it is impossible to codify every possible situation.
On the other end of the spectrum, when it is pointed out that something you have done that may have broken the rules all you do is cite IAR. Some have said that if they like you the rules do not apply, and if they do not like you they do; I have seen many examples of this, but it applies to content as well as people. Selective or uneven application of content guidelines is a great way to shape an article to your liking. There are also times when someone in good-faith applies the rules for the sake of applying the rules actually harms an article.
People abhor process, instruction creep, and exact rules when they work against them, but not when they abet them. It is true that whenever you try to make firm rules people will follow the word while breaking the letter. This is not something limited to trolls, however. Watching an/3rr for example, there are many instances of someone breaking 3rr and being blocked, but the person(s) that were reverting them (even three times) are not even admonished. If you have a friend revert once for you, you are given even more latitude. On the other hand, if an admin does not like what you are doing they will block you for 3rr when it does not strictly apply.
Obviously, having a strict enforcement of 3rr is naive at best. With that you end up with people getting away with edit warring and someone that reverts to blank a copyright violation is blocked (yes, this has happened), but the current situation of wishy-washy enforcement results in more people being able to get away with editwarring (if they are ‘right’) and more people being blocked (because they are ‘wrong’). Some have criticised the same thing happening in arbitration cases. Those that wheel war on the side of ‘good’ are congratulated or at worst ignored while those on the ‘wrong’ side are desysoped.
Both applying things strictly and arbitrarily have their pros and cons. On one side you have have idiotic decisions and on the other there is dissent from those that view various interpretations as unfair, uneven, or incorrect. As the community grows and changes, what works best may change. What works best for a small business or a city council may not be the best for a Fortune 500 company or a national legislature.
Needs serious reform // December 8, 2007 at 3:44 am
The authority of the President to dismiss Ukraine's parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court amidst concern that the President's actions are unconstitutional in that he has exceeded his authority to dismiss Ukraine's parliament. [1]
An appeal against each of the president's decrees has been lodged in the Constitutional Court.
- On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) [2] stated:
| “ | The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution.
The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides. |
” |
The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that
| “ | "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67) | ” |
In emphasis the report (item 68) stated
| “ | This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions | ” |
- On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the legality of the president's decree dismissing Ukraine's parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of "oath treason." [3] His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court. [4]
- On May 16,Viktor Yushchenko, for a second time, issued another decree dismissing the two Constitutional Court Judges Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy. [5]
- On May 17, the Constitutional Court Chairman Ivan Dombrovskyy resigned and Valeriy Pshenychnyy was appointed chairman in replacement.
- On May 23, The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acted to prevent the president's undue influence on the court system. [6] The court's ruling was made after Viktor Yushchenko unduly sought to influence the court by illegally dismissing two Constitutional Court judges Valeriy Pshenychnyy and Syuzanna Stanik for allegations of "oath treason." [7].
Pursuant to Article 149 of Ukraine's Constitution Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are subject to the guarantees of independence and immunity and to the grounds for dismissal from office envisaged by Article 126, and the requirements concerning incompatibility as determined in Article 127, paragraph two of Ukraine's Constitution
- On July 20 Susanna Stanik won an appeal against the President in the Shevchenko district court of Kiev. The Court ruled the President's actions illegal and reinstated Ms Stanik's entitlement as a member of Ukraine's Constitutional Court. According to the ruling, the President is obliged to cancel his decree on discharge of Mrs. Stanik.." [8] The other two judges who were also illegally dismissed had previously tendered their resignations and as such were not subject to the courts order.
Following the president's intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president's actions.
Stepan Havrsh, the President's appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24
| “ | I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections... How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions. [9] | ” |
Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainain Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying
| “ | According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we've understood, political agreements substitute for the law, ... The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms. [10] | ” |
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Comet styles 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) by Jehochman Talk 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "Legal Opinion with regard to the results of legal examination of Decree of the President of Ukraine dated April, 2 the year 2007 N 264 "On pre-term abatement of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine"" (DOC). Ministry of Justice Ukraine.
-
^
PACE (
2007-04-19).
"Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine".
PACE.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ "Yushchenko dismissed CCU judges". for-ua. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
-
^
"Stanik and Pshenychnyy returned to CC".
Korrespondent.
2007-05-17.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Stanik and Pshenychnyy again became ex-judges of Constitutional Court".
Korrespondent.
May 16,
2007. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Constitutional Court of Ukraine restricts president's influence on courts". Ukrainian National Radio.
2007-05-23.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ "Yushchenko dismissed CCU judges". for-ua. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
- ^ "Stanik Back Into the CC". Retrieved 2006-07-20.
-
^
"Constitutional Court Judge Havrysh Doubts Constitutional Court Will Consider Petition On Constitutionality Of September 30 Rada Elections". Ukrainian News agency.
2007-07-24.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Lavrynovych: Early elections should have been already recognized invalid today". Inter-Media, ForUm.
2007-08-03.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help)
Sockpuppetry case
|
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of UkraineToday. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Dekisugi (
talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You posted a message to other user page with a signature of other person [1]. If you do that again, then you'll be blocked. Consider you have been warned. And please do not make a graffiti on a closed debates as you did here: [2], [3], and [4]. Dekisugi ( talk) 13:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocking User:DemocracyATwork
I'm not sure Blocking User:DemocracyATwork was such a good idea, although had a lack of tact a lot of things he said made sence + he made maps, shutting him up means only "Orange"-editors are working on the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article (atleat that's how it looks like). I think that that is unhealthy and will make this article unbalanced. I am in favor of unblocking him! Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WARNING: There is a select group of persons associated with one political party/bloc in Ukraine who are trying to rewrite the English history by selectively publishing statements and denying the publication of factual information that does not support their political ideology.\
The include Tag:Odessa, Timberframe, DDmima, Alex Khristov
Their actions include
- fraudulent registration of a user account under the name of their opponents to vandalise wikipedia pages in order to prevent factual material related to the constitutional court challenge of the Ukrainian president, Victor Yushchenko,'s dismissal of Ukraine's democratically elected parliament in 2007.
- publication of links to non NPOV publications such as the Maiden web site whilst removing links and citations to other sources that are more critical of their political pointy of view.
- false accusation against their critics in order to have them banned from participating in wikipedia.
- users TAG:Odessa and Timberframe are known participants on a public forum on Ukraine to which subscribers have been encouraged to log on to Wikipedia and vandalise the web pages in order to prevent their directors form being heard. This is a tactic that they have adopted as a modus operandi and they are doing the same here
- ongoing harassment of their victims using wikipedia as a forum for vilification. Citing the unjust and actions of Wikipedia having banned users as evidence of a crime. (No crime or act of vandelsiation has occurred by user UkrToday as they falsely claim)
- The process of administration and management by wikipedia leaves the system wide open to abuse. (See comments below)
Administration
Anon // September 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm
One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia that I have discovered is that its policies and administration in dealing with disputations or allegations has little to desire and breaches the principle of natural justice and a complaintants right to privacy.
If you seek to edit an article to provide what you consider is a balance to the issues/comments published more often or not you are subjected to a campaign of harassment and vilification by those that want to prevent the information you consider should be included in the article being published, Even if you go to the labor intensive effort of providing full citation and references and quotations backing up the information you wish to include. You are most likely to be subjected to persistent harassment and at times a gang-attack. Those involved have friends and contacts and they find a sympathetic Administrator who has a built in bias selectively applies a block to your account and forces you into going though a process of further breaches of your privacy and denial of natural justice as you now have to prove your innocence, the more complain the more you are subjected to vilification. (Aim to shame complaintants into not complaining and not consitibuting) te process adopted by Wikipedia is equivalent to being locked in stocks and those that you have been defending attacks against are permitted to join in and throw fruit and insults at you whilst you are denied the right to a proper defence or review.
Administrators reviewing the cases are more often then not associated or have a working relationship with the initial administrator approached by your critics to intervene.
In one such case there were over six administrators who all decided that they could opt-in, there is no random appointment process any administrator can pickup a case under review and add there two bobs worth) they can make determinations even though they had not actually made any real assessment of the facts or sought an explanation or further information by the complainant. There is no due process in a civilised or just maner.
Complaints are not dealt with in a confidential fashion and the person making the complaint is assumed to be the villain and not a victim. (Lack of good faith)
There is no natural justice or professionalism in the way on which cases are reviewed.
Unless your fairly persistent, or your have friends in high places, there is no way on which you will receive a fair and unbiased review.
If you persist by asserting your position then the administrators label you the victim as a vandal or claim someone other offence which is designed to prevent any complaints form proceeding beyond the first unjust intervention.
The process of review is akin to shopping around to find a court/judge you know to back your side.
It could be that a class action is exactly what is needed to bring Wikipedia to account for what is a seriously lacking in their administration policies.
Wikipedia does not have qualified privilege and must respect the rights and dignity of all aggrieved parties and not subject complaintants to a unjust, unfair trial by mob rule.
Need for reform
kotepho // September 7, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I think one of Wikipedia’s main problems is that it hasn’t grown up yet. Flying by the seat of your pants without firm rules works great on a small scale. The community is small enough that worthwhile discussions can take place, actually consensus developed, and everyone can be on the same page. In this environment, AIR and “policy is what we do” makes sense and works.
Wikipedia is not small anymore; and the practices of the past are becoming untenable. The problem is that Wikipedia and the old-timers do not see this as a problem that needs fixing. Their view is that the way that things have been done should and will work forever, it is just the new people that need fixing. (argumentum ad antiquitatem, status quo bias, social inertia, and a bit of True Scotsman thrown in)
Currently, the rules are used as weapons by many people. If you disagree with someone, instead of trying actual discourse they rattle off a litany of policies, TLAs, and aphorisms. It becomes a game of who can quote the most rules instead of cogent arguments and agreement. Even if the rules are made with good intentions it is impossible to codify every possible situation.
On the other end of the spectrum, when it is pointed out that something you have done that may have broken the rules all you do is cite IAR. Some have said that if they like you the rules do not apply, and if they do not like you they do; I have seen many examples of this, but it applies to content as well as people. Selective or uneven application of content guidelines is a great way to shape an article to your liking. There are also times when someone in good-faith applies the rules for the sake of applying the rules actually harms an article.
People abhor process, instruction creep, and exact rules when they work against them, but not when they abet them. It is true that whenever you try to make firm rules people will follow the word while breaking the letter. This is not something limited to trolls, however. Watching an/3rr for example, there are many instances of someone breaking 3rr and being blocked, but the person(s) that were reverting them (even three times) are not even admonished. If you have a friend revert once for you, you are given even more latitude. On the other hand, if an admin does not like what you are doing they will block you for 3rr when it does not strictly apply.
Obviously, having a strict enforcement of 3rr is naive at best. With that you end up with people getting away with edit warring and someone that reverts to blank a copyright violation is blocked (yes, this has happened), but the current situation of wishy-washy enforcement results in more people being able to get away with editwarring (if they are ‘right’) and more people being blocked (because they are ‘wrong’). Some have criticised the same thing happening in arbitration cases. Those that wheel war on the side of ‘good’ are congratulated or at worst ignored while those on the ‘wrong’ side are desysoped.
Both applying things strictly and arbitrarily have their pros and cons. On one side you have have idiotic decisions and on the other there is dissent from those that view various interpretations as unfair, uneven, or incorrect. As the community grows and changes, what works best may change. What works best for a small business or a city council may not be the best for a Fortune 500 company or a national legislature.
Needs serious reform // December 8, 2007 at 3:44 am
The authority of the President to dismiss Ukraine's parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court amidst concern that the President's actions are unconstitutional in that he has exceeded his authority to dismiss Ukraine's parliament. [1]
An appeal against each of the president's decrees has been lodged in the Constitutional Court.
- On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) [2] stated:
| “ | The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution.
The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides. |
” |
The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that
| “ | "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67) | ” |
In emphasis the report (item 68) stated
| “ | This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions | ” |
- On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the legality of the president's decree dismissing Ukraine's parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of "oath treason." [3] His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court. [4]
- On May 16,Viktor Yushchenko, for a second time, issued another decree dismissing the two Constitutional Court Judges Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy. [5]
- On May 17, the Constitutional Court Chairman Ivan Dombrovskyy resigned and Valeriy Pshenychnyy was appointed chairman in replacement.
- On May 23, The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acted to prevent the president's undue influence on the court system. [6] The court's ruling was made after Viktor Yushchenko unduly sought to influence the court by illegally dismissing two Constitutional Court judges Valeriy Pshenychnyy and Syuzanna Stanik for allegations of "oath treason." [7].
Pursuant to Article 149 of Ukraine's Constitution Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are subject to the guarantees of independence and immunity and to the grounds for dismissal from office envisaged by Article 126, and the requirements concerning incompatibility as determined in Article 127, paragraph two of Ukraine's Constitution
- On July 20 Susanna Stanik won an appeal against the President in the Shevchenko district court of Kiev. The Court ruled the President's actions illegal and reinstated Ms Stanik's entitlement as a member of Ukraine's Constitutional Court. According to the ruling, the President is obliged to cancel his decree on discharge of Mrs. Stanik.." [8] The other two judges who were also illegally dismissed had previously tendered their resignations and as such were not subject to the courts order.
Following the president's intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president's actions.
Stepan Havrsh, the President's appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24
| “ | I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections... How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions. [9] | ” |
Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainain Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying
| “ | According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we've understood, political agreements substitute for the law, ... The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms. [10] | ” |
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Comet styles 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) by Jehochman Talk 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "Legal Opinion with regard to the results of legal examination of Decree of the President of Ukraine dated April, 2 the year 2007 N 264 "On pre-term abatement of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine"" (DOC). Ministry of Justice Ukraine.
-
^
PACE (
2007-04-19).
"Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine".
PACE.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ "Yushchenko dismissed CCU judges". for-ua. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
-
^
"Stanik and Pshenychnyy returned to CC".
Korrespondent.
2007-05-17.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Stanik and Pshenychnyy again became ex-judges of Constitutional Court".
Korrespondent.
May 16,
2007. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Constitutional Court of Ukraine restricts president's influence on courts". Ukrainian National Radio.
2007-05-23.
{{ cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ "Yushchenko dismissed CCU judges". for-ua. Retrieved 2006-05-17.
- ^ "Stanik Back Into the CC". Retrieved 2006-07-20.
-
^
"Constitutional Court Judge Havrysh Doubts Constitutional Court Will Consider Petition On Constitutionality Of September 30 Rada Elections". Ukrainian News agency.
2007-07-24.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) -
^
"Lavrynovych: Early elections should have been already recognized invalid today". Inter-Media, ForUm.
2007-08-03.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=( help)