User talk:UkraineToday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent UkraineToday (talk • contribs • block logauto • ssp confirmed sockssuspected socks) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

This is UkraineToday's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to UkraineToday.

Contents

Wikipedia Pages of Interest

Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 Constitutional Court challenge

I am an independent observer. I have no affiliation with any political party within Ukraine.

I have noticed a deliberate campaign of deception on behalf of the president and his supporters. The facts outlined in this article highlight to some extent that deception. If other users feel they have additional comments and information then they should include it but not seek to exclude or remove information by way of selective censorship UkraineToday(U|E) 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 Constitutional Court challenge

This article was removed from the main article on Ukrainian elections without discussion prior to the existing edit block. It covers issues of concern in relation to the constitutional court challenge about the legality of the president's dismissal of Ukraine's democratically elected parliament and the 2007 election. This issue stands alone and although related is separate.

All published statements are supported by facts and citations and of significant interest not just to Ukraine but also internationally. It is encyclopedic in its content. The Topic covers the president's illegal interference in the operation of Ukraine constitutional court in order to prevent the court from ruling on the legality of the election and his corresponding decrees.

It article also covers topics discussed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and includes extract quoations related to PACE's concerns in relation to Ukraine's judiciary in which the Assembly expressed serious concern in relation to the president's alleged interference in the courts and the need for the constitutional court to make a decision on the appeal before it. Clearly some people want to have this factual information removed or buried within the context of other issues. Censorship at its worst. It is proposed that further information be added which warrants publication as a separate article.

Democracy is based on rule of law and any breach of a states constitution must not be taken lightly even more so when the breach is undertaken by a Head of State. What sought of precedence does it set? Does it mean that any despot dictator that wants to see the overthrow of an elected government or not face judicial review can do so with immunity without condemnation by the international community. Are rules to be decided by the political agreements of a few be they the majority and ignore the rights of the minority. If you take time to read the constitution and the arguments presented by the government the president has not acted in accordance with Ukraine's constitution. His interference in the operation of the Courts in order to avoid accountability and prevent the Constitutional Court from ruling against his decrees only undermines confidence and furthers division. What respect can someone have for the principle of rule of law and democracy when the head of a state blatantly acts undemocratically.

The Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 Constitutional Court challenge highlights some of the facts surrounding the question of legality and the authority given to the president.

The only right given to the president to dismiss the parliament under the current circumstances is pursuant to article 90 section 3 of Ukraine's constitution. If the Parliament on September 4 is unable to convene its regular session then 30 days following September 4 the president has the right to terminate the authority of the parliament but not before. If 300 or more members of Parliament attend the session then the authority of the president to dismiss the parliament does not exist. the date of the September 30 election is already outside the parameter set by Ukraine's Constitution in that the president has no authority to act until October 5. (turning a blind eye to that fact the divisions and conflict that has engulfed Ukraine has been of the President's making. A president that seeks to usurp power over an elected parliament.

The issue related to this Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 Constitutional Court challenge is important. The Constitutional Court should have been required to make its ruling based on the argument of law. The president's interference in the Court has prevented the court from reviewing the legality of the president's actions. To not make a ruling is worst then making a ruling that either side may not agree with as it leaves the question open to debate and the likelihood of being reported in the near future.

What happens if an aggrieved party decides to not recognise the outcome of the early elections and decides to apply the same tactics applied by the opposition and refuses to participate in the new convocation. The crisis continues and is escalated.

Significant information has been left out from the article on the Ukrainian Political Crisis including information related to the legality of the president's decree.

A select group of users and administrators who are supporters of the president's campaign are seeking to prevent the publication of factual information that presents the alternative point of view.

September 4 Parliamentary Session - Outline of issues missing from main article

The following text highlights some of the information that is missing for the main article on Ukraine's Political Crisis and Constitutional Court Challenge. Information that certain users want to prevent being published.

Ukraine's Parliament today September 4 convened its Autumn session according to the requirements in Ukraine's constitution (Article 83 ).

The session was attended by 269 members of parliament.

The Autumn Session of Parliament was held under controversy in the midst of a constitutional crisis and power struggle between the President and Ukraine's democratically elected parliament

An agreement was struck in late May between the The President, the Prime Minster and the Speaker of the Parliament that early parliamentary election could be held subject to the determination of the president complying with Ukraine's' Constitution.

Under Ukraine's Constitution (Article 90) The President of Ukraine may terminate the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine prior to the expiration of term, if: .., (s3) the Parliament fails, within thirty days of a single regular session, to commence its plenary meetings.

In July members of the opposition resigned their parliamentary positions and canceled their respective party lists reducing the member of elected representatives in the parliament to below two-thirds of the total 450 parliamentary seats.

According to Ukraine's constitution (Article 82 ) The Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine is competent on the condition that no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition has been elected.

Following the resignation of opposition members it is argued that the parliament is no longer competent and as such the holding of the plenary session on September 4 could not be convened.

The president's earlier decrees seeking to dismiss the parliament has been subject to an appeal in Ukraine's Constitutional Court including the current decree scheduling election for September 30

The basis of the appeals to the constitutional court is that the president has usurped power in that his decrees do not conform to the requirements of Article 90 of the constitution.

The session of parliament held to day holds two points of interest in terms of provisions of constitutional law which is open to augment and interpretation which can only be determined by the Ukraine's Constitution Court which has been muted since the president interference in the operation and composition of the court.

First Question: Can the Parliament convene its parliamentary session given that it does not maintain the requisite number of elected representatives? The parliament could be skating on thin ice and the court could very well rule the session invalid accordingly.

Second Question: Does the president have the authority to dismiss the Parliament? If the September 4 session is considered invalid then the president under Article 90 can within 30 days from September 4(October 5) terminate the authority of the parliament but not before.

Prior to September 4 the president had no grounds or authority in which he can dismiss the parliament. The government maintains the support and confidence of a majority of elected parliamentary representatives, there is no division and there is no vote of no-confidence which would normal be a pre-condition for a parliaments dismissal.

For the sake of 30 days the president has placed the legality of the September 30 election and undermined confidence in Ukraine's constitutional rule of law having himself breached the provisions of the constitution.

Ukraine's Constitutional Court

The current division questions of legality hinges on the the ability and willingness of Ukraine Constitutional Court to fulfill its duty which following the president's intervene in the operation of the court has failed to rule on the appeals before it.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Back in April 19 this year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its report and resolution on the Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) [1] passed a resolution in which it 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. and has not allocated the required funding for these elections.

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 (item 67)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. ”

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 ”

Whilst the Council or Europe understandably has called on Ukraine to resolve the current crisis internally it has seriously erred in not insisting that the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the legality of the president's decrees be fulfilled. This has set a dangerous precedence which implies that any government or head of state can ignore the necessity or compliance with international and constitutional law if they act to prevent the functioning of the judicial system - effectively endorsing a lawless state.

In the absence of a ruling form the Constitutional Court, it is unlikely that the outcome of the election will resolve the current political and constitutional crisis. Democracies are based on the rule of law and in the absence of a definitive determination by Ukraine's Constitutional Court, the actions of Ukraine's president will continue to divide Ukraine.

(Edited) UkraineToday(U|E) 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported vandalism

I have received an email in which the author has advised me that a suspected sockpuppert user:Michael.Fredericks has vandalised the main article by inserting text into the quotation that is not part of items and 13 of the report. The addition of information that is nnot part of the quotation seriously is a serious breach of integrity. It would be helpful is the Administrators where able to properly monitor the text of the main article to ensure that its integrity is maintained and not subject to selective editing. This issue has been reported to user:Alex Bakharev UkraineToday(U|E) 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am informed that this user has twice sort to modify the conent of the article by again altering the published statement out of context as to what was quoted.

Links to resources and further information on Ukraine

http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com Political, News, Analysis and Review
http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com News, Analysis and Commentary
http://digg.com/users/UkraineToday/news/dugg Catalogue of selected News reports

Wikipedia policy on Links misinterpreted by User Odessa

The following extract from Wikipedia's Link policy pages are presented to highlight the false and misleading arguments made by User Odessa in seeking to prevent the publication and inclusion of informative and relevant links

Wikipedia:External links#What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader? Yes
Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes
Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Yes

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question:

Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.


Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. (Applies) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.


Participation rate on election polls

  • At first - there is no needs to include both Participation and Non-participation rates. One is sufficient, second can be calculated by 100-X formula ;-)
  • At second - Participation rate has no any effect on seat allocation. Those are proportional to % taken by parties with over 3%. --TAG 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WRONG AND MISLEADING - The Participation rate is essential in calculating the number of seats allocated to each party. the 3% threshold is based on the percentage of the participation rate not the percentage of population which is reflected in the poll. A lower participation changes the seat allocation percentage. Any party/bloc that is around 2.6/2.9% of the adult population can readily exceed the 3% threshold subject to the voter participation. without this information the calculation of the national seat allocation is false and misleading. An example is Lytvyn Bloc who polled 2.8% but when adjusted to reflect the polls participation rate brings his party above the 3% participation rate threshold entitlement. UkraineToday 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please become familiar Wikipedia guidelines

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you. Your political views represent only one out of many possible point of view and based on limited information you know. Others people can have others missing parts of information and have others views.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your statements about me been directly associated with the President's/Opposition camp is obviously false to my knowledge and offend me. Also you has blamed me for linking to biased James Foundation - in same time you link to own blog with totally different bias. --TAG 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Can you consider making your user page a little bit more neutral. Please read WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE and WP:TIGER. Your user page may create an impression that you are here not to promote neutral editing giving fair representation for the all points of view but rather to fight and advance one particular point of view. Wikipedia is a cooperative project and we have editors from all the persuasions and political opinion. It is important that the users assume assumed good faith about each other. If I were you I would put the essay about Legitimacy of Yushchenko's policies in a subpage and instead put on the User page some info about yourself, e.g. WP:Babel. Alex Bakharev 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Having been subjected to abuse, insults, threats and a target of a systematic vilification harassment campaign by supporters of the president I am reluctant to publish any personal information. UkraineToday 07:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well there is no pornography, ethnic slurs, encouragements of terrorism, etc. The views stated there are more or less mainstream. Thus, I do not see reasons to censure your User page. Still if you could make it more neutral you might make less enemies, receive less abuse and better support for your editing. You may think about it Alex Bakharev 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to have unjust block removed

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "

  • 1. The blocking administrator has erred in his assessment and in doing so has demonstrated a ongoing bias.
  • 2. The blocking administrator is party to disputation as to the content of an article to which he is seeking the removal of controversial information pertaining the legality and constitutional court challenge in Ukraine.
  • 3. The information in the article conforms to wikipedia policy. It is not offensive, abusive or false.
  • 4. All information contained in the content of the article(s) are backed by citation and references. This is a historical record of recent events.
  • 5. In applying a block the blocking administrator is seeking to prevent me from adding/editing content and information pertaining to this issue and other issues surrounding the current election in Ukraine.
  • 6. The email forward to the user was in accordance with Wikipedia policy in that the policy requires a notice to be forward to a user in the first instance. It did not include as asserted any threat of legal action.
  • 7. I have contacted the blocking administrator requesting an explanation and review and forwarded him a copy of the email in question which did not contain any threat of legal action.
  • 8. The application of an indefinite block in unjust and unfair.
  • If there are any issues or misunderstanding then I offer my apologies and request assistance and mediation in resolving any outstanding issues.
  • I request that the indefinite block be removed.
  • I am also concerned about the system put in place to review appeals as it appears very much open to abuse of process and denial of natural justice
  • Should you require further information please email me.
  • The principle of natural jutice is clear. I should not have to prove my innocence.
UkraineToday(U|E) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Your appeal to be unblocked has already been reviewed by two uninvolved administrators, both of whom have declined to remove the block, and I too would have to agree. As lucasbfr said, please contact the arbitration committee if you wish to appeal this block at this point. --krimpet⟲ 03:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

decline=After careful thinking, the fact that you don't want to reveal the content of the e-mail on-wiki makes me decline the block also. Unblock review needs to be a transparent process, and this would be far from one (regardless of your allegations). If you want your block to be privately reviewed, please contact a member of the arbitration committee (by clicking on the "email" button near one of the active's member name. -- lucasbfr talk 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
* How could you have made careful consideration of the issue without the facts?
* Copies of the email have been forwarded in confidence to lucasbfr as you can see There is no threat of litigation as alleged. The blocking administrator has erred in their assessment.
|decline=The blocked user has declined (see below) to make public the e-mail for which he was blocked. He has also not asserted that the e-mail contains private information that warrants confidential treatment. Under these circumstances, the appropriateness of his block cannot be reviewed. — Sandstein 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)}}
Copies of the email have been forwarded in confidence to Sandstein

There is no threat of litigation. The allegation is FALSE. UkraineToday(U|E) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

third party discussion

I like to think Wikipedia can demonstrate a high degree of professional in its administration even if some editors do not. UkraineToday(U|E) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please post below the text of the e-mail that triggered your block, if the mail was in English. That will allow us to assess the block. Do not change the e-mail; the blocking admin may be asked to review it. Sandstein 19:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Copy of Email sent in confidence to Administrator in good faith. It contains No threats of litigation as asserted UkraineToday(U|E) 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am trying to be constructive here and as I have suggested above if there is any misunderstanding then I offer my apologies and seek like wise from others. But in all sincerity I believe this is a political gang-bang.
  • Please note I have only one account that I use on Wikipedia and this is it.
  • Fact is they do not want certain information and facts published.
Yours in good faith UkraineToday(U|E) 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked

This user has been reblocked with email privileges disabled due to continued abuse. --Yamla 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Pro-Kygyzstan

A tag has been placed on Template:User Pro-Kygyzstan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Pro-Molodva

A tag has been placed on Template:User Pro-Molodva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)