Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia

< Talk:Proposals for closing projects
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Kazak~metawiki (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 1 February 2007 (→Is anyone in charge here?). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Kazak in topic Is anyone in charge here?
  1. Support And I hope FSB will care of you soon, Slavik the trickster. Info-terrorism must be stopped! Олежа, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support DELETE THIS FAKE WIKI IMMEDIATELY. It has no right to exist at all. All arguments are useless and hypocritic as the matter itself. "Siberian" language doesn't exist as well as such a counrty called "Siberia". It is a part of Russian Federation and used to be a part of USSR and Russia itself always. The only matter of that project's is using it as a tribune for separatist and sectant propoganda. It breaks Russian and international laws, and also may be connected with international terrorist groups. Adminstration must close "Siberian" wiki as soon as possible. There is no sense in opposing this one-man-army of Zolotarev, supporting his own politic clownade. Wikipedia is not a place for such things! Just ban him permanently and delete sib-ru project. --Galova 13:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Whether or not Siberia is part of a particular state is of no relevance here. And there is nothing in the International Law, preventing you from setting up web sites in any language you want, artificial or natural. I would be highly surprised if Russian law (which recognises the multinational composition of the country) would prohibit putting texts on the Web in a conlang based on an obscure dialect. I do have my own reservations about ru-sib, but these Old-Soviet style accusations here are just ridiculous. --Johannes Rohr 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oppose closing the Siberian wiki (62 votes, 48 signed)

  1. Oppose Oppose Some people here claimed they can understand all Slavic languages just because they are native speacers of only one of them. I'm a native speaker of two but sometimes I can't understand my countrymates (Ukrainians) who speak another dialect. And you should have seen Russians trying to understand at least meaning of what was said in standard Ukrainian. After all every language was a dialect of some other language once. The Church Slavonic (aka Old Russian, Old Bulgarian) died and gave birth to at lest half a dozen tongues and this process is permanent for every language with a large number of native spekers (German, Arabic etc). And every language should be preserved irrespective of its history. --Aledubr 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) auth [1] by --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose I do not see a reason why it really has to be closed. Wikipedia exists in a lot of languages, even distinct ones. (see authorization at my user talk page)--VictorAnyakin 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    1. As the page remains unavailable for editing, I've put my vote here --VictorAnyakin 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose Small nations must be protected and supported to develop their own culture: Siberians against Russian chauvinism, Montenegrins against Serbian chauvinism and Moldovans against Romanian chauvinism. Not to mention that there are a lot of articles (about 6500). Mauco 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Oppose Oppose - UP3 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose The language dose exist! Ant it is a political chauvinism behind efforts to close great wiki:((( Authorization - [2] TestPilot 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
    1. I have updated main page - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia&diff=490963&oldid=490900 TestPilot 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Quotes of Russian soldiers in Chechnya
"I remember a Chechen female sniper. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it." - russian soldier
Violence has severely affected Russian society with the increase of terrorist attacks since 1995. The school massacre in the Ossetian town of Beslan caused shock and awe in all of Russia and beyond. It culminated a series of terrorist attacks whose foundations were laid in the history of the two Chechen wars in which Russian troops brought havoc to Chechen society. Though terrorism is usually regarded as a iolation of basic Islamic principles, today Islam is effectively used in Russia by radical nationalist factions to justify their political strategies.
On 1 September 2004 the festive beginning of a new school year in Russia turned into a national tragedy. A group of about 30 armed men and two women wearing explosive belts seized a secondary school in the small town of Beslan near Vladikavkaz in Northern Ossetia. Teachers, pupils, and their relatives were taken hostages. Their number reached about 1300 and consisted mostly of children. The hostage- takers demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from neighbouring Chechnya. Russian commandos and local militia surrounded the school. In a bloody assault that ensued on 3 September most hostages were freed, but in the fighting the school was destroyed, leaving most terrorists together with 11 Russian soldiers and 344 civilians killed and many others injured. Some of the terrorists escaped. The impact of the Beslan massacre in Russia is comparable to that of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Russians felt and expressed solidarity with the Beslan victims. The State Bank opened an account for numerous donations to be transferred to them and a special Internet site on Beslan was created (www.beslan.ru). About 135,000 people took part in an anti-terrorist demonstration held near the Kremlin in Moscow on 7 September. The official Russian media blamed “international Islamic terrorists” for carrying out the Beslan assault and named al-Qaida as responsible for it. At the same time fears from “Caucasians” and Islam in general grew. A Levada-Center poll indicated that 33% of Russians were in favour of preventing Chechens from entering Russian towns. In Moscow, over 10,000 Muslim migrants were detained by the police, among them the Daghestani cosmonaut Magomed Tolboev who was taken for a Chechen. --Mauco 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Siberians are not a nation, and do not consider themselves as "Siberians". Go to any Siberian town and ask about it, you will be given a quite fair answer... <_<
And incidentally, how is the above quote related to the topic? -- Grafikm fr 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, Siberians are nation, but you filled our towns with prisoners from Russia, who are not Siberians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
With no recognised borders and internationally not even known...laughable

I will never forget how the bloody Russians killed my parents. --Mauco 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My condolences. Do tell me more about this. --Kuban kazak 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


  1. Oppose Oppose

Siberian Wikipedia is a marvellous creative endeavour, its destruction is a disgusting act of cowardice and vandalism. Especially so, because it is politically motivated. The fascistic crowd cheering destruction of this Wiki would be just as happy at Nazi rallies, burning books. Tiphareth 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC), see my authorisation at my talk pageReply

  1. Oppose Oppose I, myself, have know a Siberian Volga German family speaking a Siberian dialect complete with the 'okanye', 'Dyk's, 'ayda's, odd grammar and obsceneties (from the POV of someone knowing only 'Great Russian') - they do deserve an own wikipedia, HOWEVER, it should be edited by actual speakers of the dialects - as it's the case in the Bavarian wikipedia for example, not by two weirdos or Ukrainian nationalists. Though these dialects exists, words like Moskal' or the month names are borrowed from ukrainian and belarusian languages - that's so wrong. To make it short: Keep it, but not in the current state. The dialects of Russian need a better coverage in the english wikipedia. Too bad hardly any speaker (i.e. rural Siberians) have access to the internet. INTERNAZI 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
The month names are not equal to Belorussian or Ukrainian ones, please ask any Belorussian or Ukrainian about this. They are taken from Dal's vocabulary and they are real old northern Russian names of the month. They are similar to Ukrainian, this is relative language, but only about 70% of them. As to Moscal, you can also check Dal, where he said; "Moscal is Ukrainian, Don Cossack and Siberian word, with primal meaning of "a soldier who fights for Moscow"" And we have native speakers of the dialect, including me. Yes, we have several Ukrainians, who support us, too. And because you can see full consensus between ruwiki to prohibit every attempt to write in Siberian, it is doubtful that anybody will write here except us, or they will fill this with broken Russian without any system. The work of Volgota was begun a year before the wikipedia, and we have several other sites, and the vocabulary group is still working, collecting the old words. And all this political stuff is mere accusations invented by persons who are themselves politically motivated. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
the aforementioned Dahl dictionary:

[...]На Дону, московский, все русское, кроме Дона или Украины; московский офицер, не казачий, армейский; то же, что в Сиб. русский, не сибирский, из европейской Руси. [usage in other regions of Russia...]On the Don, muscowite, everything Russian, aside from Don and Ukraine; muscowite officer, not cossackian, military(adj.); the as in Sib.(place name, since written with cap. letter) russian, not siberian, from european Rus'. [3] You interpreted it the way it fits you most, but OK, OK, it's YOUR language after all! (see Elk Salmon's pro-deletion comment) Just keep the pseudoscientific claims of it being an actual spoken or authentically reconstructed language out of it. 84.167.224.12 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

So Dal says that the word is not Ukrainian but was also used in Don and Siberia. As to moderv usage, please visit Tomsk and Novosibirsk, where there are many graffiti "Death to Moscals!" Please visit Babr (Irkutsk Internet Forum) or Tomsk Forum, filled with topics "Moscals plunder Siberian Land", "Great cold in Moscow: maybe this moscals will be die from winter at last" and others. Should I provide your links or you will found yourself? Our nation uses this word even now. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yaroslav Zolotaryov:

But Moscal is not equal to "russian", no dictionary says that. It is equal to Russian only in paranoic minds of nationalistic Russians, driven from ruwiki "to stop separatists".

[4]. We've just found a dictionary which says. --Anton Khorev 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Dal says that this is only in Don dialect, and do you want to say that Cossacks are not Russians? In their dialect Moscal means "not Cossack". But in Shevchenko verses even Ukrainians are called "moscals" sometimes - when they are serving to the Russian Empire. Actually bad word for a Russian is kacap but not moscal, and you know this, but do not cease in invent accusations. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
After looking again at the Dal dictionary entry I see that Siberia is mentioned in the definition of word Московский, not Moscal. So Dal didn't say Moscal is a Siberian word. --Anton Khorev 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
All the same, it is used in modern Siberia in the same meaning as in Ukraine - not in meaning "bad Russian", but in meaning "Russian imperialist". Majority of Siberians consider themselves Russians, why do they use this word if it's meaning would be "bad Russian". Actual old Siberian word for "bad Russian" is "bloshnik", check at Dal. Because word is used in modern Siberia, we have included it. And this makes us free to interpret this rather unclear Dal's sentences as evidence that Moscal was used in old Siberia too. All the same, it were many Don Cossacks in old Siberia, they definitely used this word according to Dal, so the word may be included in the restored codified language. And again: all your "arguments" in this voting are fakes, and this "political correctness" argument as well. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1) That's right, "Moscal" is not an argument in support of closure. I'm telling that Dal didn't say it's a Siberian word and that you shouldn't be surprised that others find it derogatory. Articles with verses that use or don't use this word are another matter. 2) At least a half of closure arguments are valid. Opposition arguments however are either invalid ("our enemies are xenophobs/from ruwiki") or counter some of closure arguments ("we have x articles"). I don't see any valid arguments for opening of "Siberian" wikipedia. --Anton Khorev 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
But you can imagine and say that any word is derogatory. And about opening - discussion about opening was a half of year ago and was already closed. So you simply want to revote - that's why you invent all this accusations, though all of them irrelevant to the closure - because no wiki was ever closed because of this things - even if they were truth, but all of them are fake, and it was proven by us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
1) You said Moscal is "equal to Russian only in paranoic minds of nationalistic Russians". You refer to Dal. Dal dictionary says Moscal = Russian. Conclusion? 2) Considering opening - see closure argument 6. --Anton Khorev 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
But Dal just said that Moscal = "Russian soldier and not Cossack", but not "Russian". Why do you falsificate even now, when correct quote from Dal was copied? The answer about argument 6 and other arguments was given - this "argument" is lie, as usual. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yaroslav, I gladly repeat myself, with your very own triads on 'nationalistic Russians surpressing Siberian separatism' you're driving the whole project to Nirvana. You are pushing a POV, you are trolling and making ugly things as faking newspapers, arranging mutual support with fake votes arrengements with people voting at other Wiki closure rehearsals - Now you refer to a forum post as to a reliable source trying to proving knows-god-what. What kind of source is it? All that is putting you in really bad light and raises questions as the one posed by RocketHRO. If you would use the energy you waste here on rather clumsy and counter-productive debates on bringing the intensive research of your Kondopoga group on a detailed linguistic work of high niveau (what about a peer review?) dealing with every aspect of the language in greatest detail (f.e. how and why each word was composed. Such information is provided for all constructed languages.). . This wouldn't be too hard, considering how much time you have on your hands. Logically, then write an article on EnWiki quoting your work as source and your wiki would maybe stay. As of now you're blowing to the wrong direction.INTERNAZI 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is interesting, why do you pay attention only to my political accusations, but do not pay attention to other part's political accusations, which are more abudant and which were initially, because I was accused initially, and only after that I began to accuse. The project can not be drived to Nirvana - we already have http://sib-wikipedia.volgota.ru (full mirror), and many other sites, several music groups which play songs in Siberian, etc. All this wiki-activity is only one - and small - part of the whole Volgota activity. Actually we will even make profit from the closure itself. What can be damaged, this is Wikipedia, which gradually falls into arms of Russians, because examples of pushing their POV are already many, and this voting is only one of them. The newspaper was not fake, the votes are not fake. About the article - why do you ignore all the story about it in my talk page? It was real and neutral article - written not by me, but by Nat Krause, it was Russians who tried write politics into it, and who deleted it by flashmob using political accusations. I do not know who you are in English wikipedia, but all your conduct with totally ignoring direct facts from our side, accusing in POV-pushing, etc, seems pro-Russian, have you some treaty with them? Because you accuse me in fake and POV-pushing, this makes me free to accuse you in something)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
And that's good illustration of your double standards - why use word Moscal about a Russian imperialist in verse (even not to anybody personally) is bad, but use word troll personally about me is good?:-)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you got it perfectly right. Since you are the creator of ru-sib thing, you are it's admin and you have done a lot on the creation of the lanuage itself more is demanded from you than from some unrelated ultranationalist war volunteer weirdo like KubanKazak. They started it is NOT AN ARGUMENT here. I did not call you a troll, i said you trolled - others did too, certainly, but you're Zolotaryov, the admin and progenitor. I've seen what they have done to your Userpage, you've shown quite vulgar attacks at the Siberian Wiki. They way you act now, they (your harrasters) have acchieved their aims. Try to calm down. And write a neutral article on the language, so that non-russian speakers can get what the discussion is about and if you fixed the points of accusation, such as empty pages and the Belorusian article, you'd steal them some arguments.;) INTERNAZI 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yes, and take a look at lulu.com, there you can have any book published in any language in no time.;)INTERNAZI 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again: the article was written, deleted by Russian enwiki admin and than deleted by Russian mob at Afd discussion. This is text of the saved article: http://volgota.com/lib/sibengart.html = we saved it before Russian edits, which all were political and destructive. As to points of accusation, since they are irrelevant to the problem of closing the wiki, I think this is not necessary to fix them - just fixing them we will recognize that wiki should be closed if we will not fix, but even with this problems wiki may exist and this problems certainly are not cause to it's closure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fine then. I've just been reading the arguments on the talk page, and i must disappoint you on that you are hardly convincing. You counter valid arguments with accusations in nationalism. You want your wiki to be closed, keep it that way. If not, try to provide proofs for your argumentation - i.e. detailed description of those 500 dialects you supposedly have collected each word from, as mentioned before, provide a linguistically valueble work. However, if you want to see it closed, continue your odd ways with Russian nationalist conspirors organizing 'flashmobes' to close down the project out of sheer chauvinism.INTERNAZI 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand what do you want. Scientific sources about northern and siberian dialects? There are thousands of them. I can provide thousands of valid sources in Russian and maybe hundreds of English - this will prove that the dialects itself exist. But it is already proven, enwiki even has an article "Northern Russian Dialects". The corresponding Russian article was written just by me, and ruwiki team did not change any word in it. They fear only codification attempt, because notion of "Language Standard" is equal in their minds to "Independent State". But they recognize the existence of the dialects itself, so if I will provide bibliography about dialects it will be senseless work I think. They are not against dialects, but only against their codification, Ukrainian and Belorussian dialects were once upon a day codified, and now Ukraine and Belarus are independent countries. The same will be with Siberia - this is logic of many our opposers and yes, of many supporters. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

< - - - - - reset indent
You're the sole one talking about nationhood, please stop for now, it's not about it. Your somewhat dubious claim about 'them' and 'their minds' fearing an independant state crosses all imaginable borders. Nobody doubts the existance of the very dialects, the only righteous doubt is that about your authority in regard to them,that is why I want this project to live, but without you as it's leader and administrator. First of all, ru-sib was started as a place for your constructed language, it's fine with me, as long as there are enough speakers which are not sock-puppets, the big huge problem is, however, that you usurped the true dialects as a part of the wikipedia and talked about your creation as a standartification, your whole line of defence bases around the fact there are Dialect wikipedias as the Bavarian one and that yours isn't different being surpressed by vile imperialists and that is wrong. Your language can by no means be called a standard language.
The Bavarian language is in a very similar situation as the one you ascribe to yours - however, it is well-researched. Take a look here, on that site you get a description of the local dialectal differences, you get videos of conversation with local variations and much more information - there are numerous sites like that on German dialects (f.e. in the German wikipedia). There is even a big huge dictionary of the different dialects of Bavarian dialects in print with 4 million terms + 3 tomes on grammar of the dialects - that essence is enough for a standartification attempt - nevertheless the Bavarian wikipedia lets the dialect users use the language they speak. Some 300 years ago Bavarians had their month names, they even had a word for unbavarian Germans - Prussians. Now it's an ethnical slur for FRG-citizens in Luxembourg and Switzerland - similarly to your "Moskal'" and no bavarians today uses either. And nevertheless there is Bavarian separatism, there is a political party using rhethorics similar to yours, Bayernpartei. Yep, first of all, they want to get their language acknowledged, only then a standard version can be spoken of. Similarly, Eliezer Ben Yehuda would be have absolutely no authority over the Hebrew language prior to 1953, however he could have created a Wikipedia project about a constructed language ;). What I'm steering at is that you start building the house from the roof - according to you hardly anyone acknowledges the existance of the dialects in Russia - fine then, that's where you could have work to do, codify the language, record samples, I assume the Kondopoga group did it all, put it online, get a peer review - if the evil putinoid Russkies'll persecute you, send it to a western institute, like that of Goethe, or to a linguistic journal. There is really little research done on Russian dialects, the wikipedia pages only speak of minor differences - you could use your elan for it. Take an example on the German ones. Your Kondopoga group has done quite something accoring to you, if I'm not wrong. That would be enough essence for several books - and certainly for a few articles. Your standard popped out of nothing without ANY evidence for it's accuracy (and actually with quite alot against it - take the LJ elections), so the only way you can defend it is either remain with it called a fully constructed language or retire and make a project for Russian dialects out of this one.INTERNAZI 04:09, 07 Jan 2007 (MET)

No, the actual situation is quite different.
1. The Russian dialects are very well researched, I am surprised why are they so poor represented in Wikipedia. There are large vocabularies, thousands of dissertations, many, many recorded speech examples. So there are many books and articles of scientific value, you should only translate them.
2. But during communist and czarist times it was prohibited to make codifications. Why can not you understand that the Russian tradition about it can be different from German? When Shevchenko began to write verses in Ukrainian dialect, they exiled him to Mangyshlak. The same was during Communist's times a) dialect very well described b) codification and making of standards is prohibited.
3. After 1991, the codifications are not prohibited, but they are not supported by Goverment, according to the previous tradition. Every dialect which was codificated before (Ukrainian and Belorussian), constituted a nation. So creation of new standards for dialects can not be done by official science, to prevent split of Russia. That's why you can see big space of Russia without such regional language richness as in Europe. Why it is so? Because there are no dialects? No, Russian are the same people as Germans, they have dozens of them. That's because of goverment politics and because of local mentality.
4. Ukrainian and Belorussian initially were not codified by official science, but separatist groups (Shevchenko, Kalinovsky) began to write something in them, and after that, when separatists already have developed the languages, yes, official science took part in this.
5. What we have in the siberian case:
a) Yaroslav Zolotaryov, member of siberian oblastnik movement, in May 2005 proposed creation of siberian standard basing on dialectologist's work. Three large groups began to support this a) siberian nationalists/regionalists/separatists (there are many political groups in siberian movement itself, from radical to moderate ones, I think this is offtopic here, but all of them support the language) b) ukrainians c) belorussians. All this initially was in LJ just because LJ has significant role in intellectual live of Russia itself - you can found this in Google or in LJ statistics (when American LJ-users are teenagers, Russian are mostly adults). Lack of freedom in real-life attracts intellectuals to online communities
b) all the 2005 the discussion groups work. LJ community learn_siberian makes about 50 members in few days, the idea becomes very popular. In June Russian Wikipedia already has an article about the language, and considers it notable in that times.
c) in summer 2005 I open Siberian Wikipedia in Wikia, in conlang section, because I think in that times that the language is too undeveloped and more similiar to conlang.
d) in autumn 2005 volgota.com, big site of the language, with news section, with forum, with big collection of translated texts, was started.
e) in June 2006, having already vocabulary of 15 000 words, we make the request for wikipedia, which seems quite obvious idea for Siberian and Ukrainian groups, because we see no difference between Siberian and Ukrainian - all languages are based in real dialects.
f) only from this the real opposition from ruwiki begans - they delete the article "Siberian language" in ruwiki (restored now), and began flashmobes, accusations, etc - the real idea which was abusive for them is idea of equality of Siberian and Russian languages.
g) in end of 2006 several songs were recorded in mp3 format, number of fluently writers increases to 8-12, and we make the mirror http://sib-wikipedia.volgota.ru/ just for be independent from all this moscal crap.
Resume
1) Russian academic science will never work with codification of the dialects in similar way like the German one. There are different traditions, you should understand this.
2) Russian civil groups will do this, because the dialects really exist, the regional thinking also exists. Besides me, we have already Pomor project, and attempts to make a Don Cossack language as well. The situation of promoting of regional languages by independent organizations but not by official ones is common in Russia, the same was with Ukrainian and Belorussian languages.
3) Siberian language movement has enough resources to develop the language without wikipedia.org, we are popular, and have several good sponsors for the movement. So my actual goal here is to represent the idea properly, but not to save the ru-sib.wikipedia.org. If it will be saved, then ok, we will behave according to your rules, if not, it will not big harm for us now, when it was already opened. Urkainians already have a separate wiki http://www.openwiki.org.ua/ - just because they are tired of Russian POV-pushing here, ok, we also will have it.
4) Yes, number of Russians (and russified jews etc, etc, let us say "Russians in general", speaking about culture but not about blood) is greater them number of Ukrainians and Belorussians. This is the only cause of score at the voting, where they have more voices now. But for example, number of Chineses is greater than number of Americans, so if Chineses will together vote for Communism here, will Wikipedia do according to wishes of this "majority"?
uff, I tried to explain the situation as I see it. When your behaviour seems agressive to me, you ask some questions but not only accuse, so I have spent some time and tried sincerely explain the situation just as I see it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please do 3) develop the language without wikipedia.org --Anton Khorev 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why?) Because you do not want this?))) But I have about 100 signed accounts who want just this, and I am their representative here. So I will quit only by violence, but not volunarily. Why do you fear any opposition to Russian POV in Slavic dialect issues in Wikipedia? Your words just illustrate all that I have said. You just want to prohibit this by violence, by political and troll accusations. etc. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
  1. Oppose Oppose Not like it - not use it! Why you not vote for closing e.g. anglo-saxon wiki? (sorry, forgot to log in) --Dmitry Petuk 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Irrelevant edit/PA

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Siberian language aside, I really loved the part about how the USSR gave us our language. Thank God, you did not have an entire century to develop it, only a half never the less during the time your idols did quite a lot deporting hundreds of thousands of Latvians and heavily colonizing the country with Russians, reducing the native population to just over 50% of the country. I find it absolutely mind blowing that 15 years after the collapse of the soviet union there still are people like this. BTW I'd like to invite everyone to take a look en:User:Kuban kazak just to see what sort of person you're dealing with. Чья бы корова мычала, а твоя бы молчала.

Я тебе не пастух, but the first textbook on Latvian was published in 1860s in Russian! Is that enough, oh and btw as for native populations, 15 years later, there are 28.5 thousand Latvians in Russia right now and nobody is persecuting them or denied them citizenship in 1991. As for other comments I do not to feed trolls. --Kuban kazak 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here is a nice article on your topic

Первый перевод Библии на старославянский язык был осуществлен греческими монахами Кириллом и Мефодием (с изобретением для этих целей оригинальной славянской письменности на основе греческого алфавита) примерно в 860-х годах, т.е. в 9 веке. Вот вам и ортодоксальное православие! Первые переводы Библии на немецкий язык были осуществлены примерно тогда же (на готский еще раньше - в 6 веке). Однако, в силу ограничений римско-католической церкви, первый официальный немецкий перевод Библии появился только во времена Реформации и сделал его Мартин Лютер в 1521 году.
Итак, русские и немцы имели письменность и национальную религиозную культуру примерно начиная с 9 века, а с 16 века и у русских, и у немцев были свое национальное книгопечатание и Библия на современном им языке.
Теперь внимание! Цивилизованные латыши получили переведенную на латышский язык Библию только в 1694 году. И сделал этот перевод человек, которого звали просто - Эрнст Глюк. Чудная латышская фамилия, не правда ли! Ха-ха-ха! Параллельно для этих целей немцы изобрели для латышей письменность на основе немецкой грамматики. Это сделали люди носящие следующие фамилии (чтобы потом небыло вопросов) - Регегаузен (1644) и Адольфи (1685). Окончательно латышскую письменность создал Г.Ф.Штендер в середине 18 века.
Дальше начинается вообще комедия. Первый учебник латышского языка вышел в Риге на русском языке в 1868 году! Таким образом, усилиями двух народов - в первую очередь немецкого и во вторую очередь русского высококультурные латыши получили письменность. Правда, на восемьсот лет позже всех! И на том спасибо.Сами же латыши для этого не ударили пальцем о палец. Культура была им подарена на блюдечке с голубой каемочкой.
Сейчас я скажу крамолу. Даже не знаю, как такое и говорить-то. Ну да где наша не пропадала! Латыши получили письменность всего на пятьдесят лет раньше чукчей! Чукчам товарищ Сталин подарил письменность в начале 30-х годов 20 века.Чукчей - в единую Европу! Срочно! Русские их оккупировали, а теперь они свободные, цивилизованные и т.д. и т.п.
Попутно оговорюсь, что этого нельзя сказать о литовцах (у них к тому времени уже была великая история) и эстонцах (эти спокойно функционировали внутри финской культурной традиции, которая никогда не теряла духовную связь с Эстонией).

Nothing personal but I find that hilarious. --Kuban kazak 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppetry elimination

Latest comment: 18 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion

Does anyone see any other solution to address sockpuppetry? I hope no one thinks sockpuppetry is actually a good thing. --Irpen 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make new rules after starting of the vote. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look, 7 days is enough to let everyone know. This is doable. Anyone committed to his opinion has enough time to authorise his vote. Leaving it as is open to socks is clearly worse. Please don't make it look like sockpuppetry is something you see will help you. --Irpen 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Meta, but I guess that there must be some standard system to deal with this issue already. Isn't it so ? Meanwhile, I added crossed links in both my user pages -here in Meta (Ev) & in the English Wikipedia (Evv)- to indicate that, yes, it is me :-) Wouldn't that suffice ? - Best regards, Ev 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you create a cross-link from your user page in other Wiki to the userpage in Meta, that would suffice. If you create a link from Meta to Wiki, it won't. But still make sure you add the link to your en-wiki edit immediately after your vote here. --Irpen 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
lol Yes, I added links in both user pages, each one directing at the other. I voted a couple of days ago, adding the link to en:Evv. Thanks :-) Ev 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just add a link to this edit right after your vote here. --Irpen 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, that link. Ok, I'll do it when the protection is removed. Ev 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is not protected. It is semi-protected against the very new accounts only. Established accounts can edit. --Irpen 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Where are Meta rules for protecting vote pages and why vote pages was not protected when "support" part voted 10 persons in a hour, but was protected when "oppose" part voted 10 persons in a hour? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that protection is a bad solution. Many long time Wikipedians never edited at meta. But connecting the votes to legit accounts will help, unlike protection. Do you think giving 7 days is not enoigh time? --Irpen 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this is similiar to revoting - every part will inform it's users about new rules. So you actually want to revote - just because you see that you are loosing the vote itself. But there is only one vote and revotings are not allowed --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't see anyone loosing. I see socking and I want to do something about it while you try to keep a door open to socks. Yes, every parety will inform its users. There is nothing wrong with that. Go inform Bonny and his socks. Inform other friends as well. As soon as they authorize themselves, their votes will count. This is not a revote in any way. Do you think 7 days is not enough to inform all your friends to authorize themselves. Not a single authorised vote will be affected no matter for which side. --Irpen 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

For sure 1. 7 days is not enough. 2. The procedure of authorization sould be simple and understandable even for Fiji users. 3. I am against this rule at all, just because it is not necessary in other votings, so why siberian voting is something special? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  1. How many days you think is enough"
  2. What simpler procedure you have in mind, provided that it is as reliable?
  3. I think such rule would be best for every voting but I have not yet seen so much socking in any one vote as I see here. Socking obviously was used by both sides. This procedure will help eliminate sock votes from both sides. Do you have a better idea?

--Irpen 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. maybe 15 or more.
  2. maybe simply link to it's acount in national wiki. And infomation about this should be on top of the vote in 7-10 languages, and it should be explained very simple and understandable. We can help with Turk translation.
  3. do not delete votes anyway, because they contain remarks of people who maybe really exists. Assuming good faith we should not think that this is not a sockpuppet, so maybe he exists but for some reason can not understand what to do. But we can mark some votes as authorized but some as non-authorized. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, Yaroslav, now you start being reasonable. I appreciate that.

  1. How about 10 days? I won't mind 15, but we don't want to protract this forever.
  2. Translation, certainly a good idea.
  3. Votes won't be deleted, just, stricken out.

Also note, that users must authorize the connection between them and their vote an local wiki accounts, not at meta. Otherwise, we are still open to fraud. Like Bonny, created a meta account for William Mauco, who, being an enwiki user had no idea. So, the authorization should be made by a Wikipedia's account and a link to it should be added to each vote. This applies equally to Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and siberian users. Accounts created after Nov. 5, are not eligible. --Irpen 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


  1. It will be weekend, so really 2 days after this will be lost. 10+2 will make 12.
  2. Not only translation, but simplification of the rule - only link to it's personal account in national wikipedia should be enough. That will help against sockppupets, but why do you need this announcement in user page? Maybe somebody do not want to change his userpage by this?
  3. The days when explanations will be prepared and translated, should not be included.

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. I don't object to any number of days as long as it is not unreasonable. 12 is fine too.
  2. Link to an outside wiki account added here is definetely not enough. Nothing prevents Bonaparte from adding links to randomly selected pages of various unsuspecting users at different wikis or even register accounts here under the names others use at other wikis. Look what happened with user:William Mauco? It is very simple. A user should add a link either to his wikipedia user page or his talk that would point towards his activity in meta. Moreover, the user can remove it back in the very next edit. All we need is the authorizing diff not a permanent ___location.
  3. We have English and Russian instructions already. How many more translation you need. Romanian? What else? Finally, let me warn you about making friends with Bonaparte. He was banned from English Wikipedia specifically for creating multiple accounts and sockpuppet voting at en-wiki requests for adminship. The fact that he is campaigning for you may bring much more negative votes from people who remember him at enwiki and there are plenty. --Irpen 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  1. I know Bonaparte only by Meta. 12 days is ok, but why person should go to the Meta again and why link between the two accounts is not sufficient? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Лучше говорить по русски, чтобы избежать любого непонимания. Какого рода процедуру вы предлагаете, опишите четче, и на языке, который я абсолютно понимаю (на этом) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will explain in Russian at your talk shortly. --Irpen 21:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, why link between the two accounts is not sufficient? Why the person should go to Meta again and write something about authorization? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the link is only added to Meta it does not prove the authenticity. Anyone can paste any link to an account of an unsuspecting user in any Wikipedia so that the user who never visits Meta will never find out. Look what Bonaparte did with an account of William Mauco. We found that out only purely by accident. How many false votes are here at Meta pointing towards some unsuspecting accounts in various wikis? We won't know until we see the original accounts at their very wiki confirming confirming the connection with the Meta vote. After the person confirms at his account, he does not have to come here if he is lazy. You can add a link to his confirmation diff near his vote. --Irpen 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

And why the hell common checkuser procedure is not enough? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because of open proxies and IP's who never had any accounts anywhere. But mainly, open proxies.
Yaroslav, please ask your questions in one place. It is too cumbersome when you ask them at your talk and here? You want a discussion in Russian at your talk? Let's continue it there. You want a discussion in English here? Let's have it but not both. --Irpen 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why not have both of them? But if you want so, I prefer Russian, where at least I can correctly understand stylistics of messages. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's continue the discussion at your talk and post the results here. --Irpen 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have discussed this with some wikipedians and we propose to give us two days for decision on the matter, assuming that 1) we are new at wikipedia 2) you propose totally new thing 3) it is weekend now and many people do not participate --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

We had conversations by mail and in sibwiki and decided: 1) we are not against authorization itself and will make it 2) but definite limit of time is not necessary, since voting will last many months: Moldavian voting is quite similiar and it lasts about half of year. So this day 24 November is silly - what if puppets will come after 24 November? Maybe when voting will be stopped sometimes, we will delete the puppets, but now I propose combine the authorization company with not deleting of possible puppets. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yaroslav, we do not know how long the voting will continue. In any case, I did not mean to delete non-authenticated votes. They will simply be stricken out from the enumeration by adding "#:" formatting signs in front of them. When they are authenticated, the formatting signs will be removed so that the votes will be counted again by the software. So, on November 24, nothing will be "removed" at all. What will happened on 24th, is the number of counted votes will likely go down for both sides and even that will be restored for each vote confirmed by its alleged owner.
I find opposition of some here a very telling sign. It seems to me that the only reason why would anyone oppose the procedure symetrically applied to both sides aimed at eliminating sockpuppetry is the thought that sockpuppetry may actuall help win the voting. --Irpen 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nothing of it, simply we have worse resources - less people to notify everybody, etc. So I strongly propose 1 December as more realistic date. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, then. On December 1, we will indent all votes not authenticated to accounts established in any national Wikipedia such that they won't be counted but we will keep them on the page for some time. Finally, if I have time to, I will notify as many users from both camps as I can. --Irpen 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hope that there will also be a thorough Check User on all these accounts. I know this is against AGF, but I suspect Yaroslav needs all this additional time to explain to his followers how to take all these accounts and to get Bonny's socks registered somewhere. --Paul Pieniezny 09:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If the account on another wiki is registered after the voting on meta, it is obviously invalid, so registering these socks a posteriori will still be invalid...
And it is not against AGF, Bonny has a record as long as my arm... -- Grafikm fr 09:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are all accounts created November 3 and later unusable? And mind you, we will also have to check changes made to the user and talk pages in question after November 3rd. To make sure that people do not delete references about having another name on another wiki. Otherwise, people will allow their second, third, fourth, ... account to be hijacked by one of these socks. But Check User on all voters should stop that too, of course.--Paul Pieniezny 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Otto Rahn is marking votes as "authorized by me" without any link to an authentification statement by the voters. Since a number of people only took an account after the 3rd November, this is no good.--Paul Pieniezny 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I will improve his authorizations. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

How this could be started?

Latest comment: 18 years ago40 comments8 people in discussion

I wonder how the "ru-sib" wikipedia could be created if it seems to be a nearly-one-person-project. Who is responsible for creating / approval of new wikipedia scions? --89.49.91.13 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)Reply

Technically, it is supposed to be a community consensus but the vote for creation was plagued with socks. And of course, the fact that most people don't bother to keep tabs on meta does not arrange things... -- Grafikm fr 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I have cross-links on meta, en, and ru & ru-sib, where I have a lot of edits. Although you are not interested in truth, but only in absurd things, it seems to me--Ottorahn 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is definitely not one-person project, see the RC of sibwiki [5]--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry. It seems to be a two-person-project, parsing the Recent Changes list. But I cannot find anything about the user "Ottorahn". Sock puppet of Yaroslav? Very strange. :-/ --84.72.188.217 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ((de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)Reply
Not at all - Nefis, Cyclodol, A1, Ilya, Coipish, and others. This is small wiki, for sure, but with real community. Inventing sockpuppets is against AGF, Ottorahn is well-known perwon in Russia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am ROBOT. And eat human children every day. When these absurd & preposterous accusations will stop? This voting is real amusement--Ottorahn 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's real fun, I always laugh all the evenings, reading what they say here)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, dude. We're charging our battery. And now we're full of energy. WE ARE THE ROBOTS! --Cyclodol 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am ROBOT too. And i too eat human children every day. Sorry for my english. Буду краток: СР! УВЛ!!! 00010000100011100001000001111
RokerHRO, I don't think Ottorahn is a sock, however judging from his LiveJournal, he is a definite neo-Nazist. I think a project having an admin like that should not be identified with Wikipedia just because of that (and there are a lot of other reasons). -- Grafikm fr 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you ready to prove that I am "neo-nazi"?! Or we have right to regard you, Grafikm fr, as liar and crock of sh*t? sorry for expression.
With such ranters as you, one can't evaluate earnestness of this so called "voting". So I don't care at all about results. You so funny creature.--Ottorahn 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oho, judging by the reaction, I might have touched something here. How curious... Yes, I'm ready to prove it. Let's start from your LJ:
  • A self-made banner saying "faithful judo-ghoul"
  • A link to a message of a so-called patriarch of an obscure orthodox sect ranting about Soviets and similar stuff, ending with an obscene picture comporting a swastika.
  • Calling "genius" a well-known neo-Nazi on livejournal and carefully quoting his post.
  • Having a translation into Siberian of the en:Fourteen Words, a well-known neo-nazi sentence.
  • Another link to the post of the same neo-Nazi, telling this text is "stunning" and talking about "mixed-blood elite" and other nazi words I just can't quote for decency's sake...
  • And finally, a podcast of some guy wearing a camouflage with the Totenkopf symbol...
Let's keep on rockin', let's check the profile, maybe we can find something there.
  • Website called "Космический лед" (Space ice), a well-known Nazi concept.
  • Lives in "Antarctic Reich, Antarctica" - no comment
  • Communities: a few things starting with "SS", "ru_zagovor" (a very "nice" community about the so-called Judeo-masonic conspiracy".) and a few other "nicies"
  • And finally, some well-known figures to those familiar with the Russian LJ Neo-Nazis as friends.
Wow, a very nice bunch... I think there is more than enough evidence. Come to think of it, it disgusts me... -- Grafikm fr 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Everything that was told (quotes, etc) is MY INTERESTS, as you mentioned may "interests" page. I am historian, so it isn't strange. It is not your business at all, especially my lj is not connected with wiki, and there is no links on ru-sib on my journal. And your behavior - rummaging about my PRIVATE INTERESTS - seems so fishy.--Ottorahn 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Private interests? Your LJ is public, you choose to display it. And while I might agree that your communities might be private interests, your posts are pretty much clear - and some of your LJ-friends too. -- Grafikm fr 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I DIDN'T cite any lj, but you do it. Is it necessary now to show own blog? Some new rules in voting? How about your lj and blogs by every supporters of closure?--Ottorahn 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Absolute indentical to Stalin KGB work: this Grafik would make a carier in 1937))) Зоркий выявитель фашыстов, друг чекиста))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Will you claim my evidence is forged? Anyone interested (and reading Russian) can take a look at this LJ. -- Grafikm fr 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Everything talled is quotes, totally lifted out of context. I am not even going to discuss this scum. It disgusts me.--Ottorahn 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Otto, all the "argumentation" against sibwiki is based on 3-4 quotes, totally lifted out of context of the wiki. And based on this "arguments" they want to close us)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
hahaha, it is even better go to place where Ottorahn lives and speak with old ladies which live in the street of Otto Rahn. According to this old ladies' tales maybe he is not only Nazist, but Schizomaniak and fucks cats and dogs every weekend. So you definitely should not only collect cites from Otto Rahn's diary, but go to his city and explore rubbish heaps near his flat - maybe there will be something even more interesting for an investigator like you)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
These men can not be taken seriously, Otto, they are too rotten to pay attention to them. Let us return to our science) For sure, if i was elected admin, I will fight for the wiki. But really, they are more clowns than serious enemies. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I may be rotten, but at least I'm not a Nazi... -- Grafikm fr 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
So you recognize that you are rotten. Let us call you rotten Grafikm fr.--Ottorahn 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh my, what a honor... Should I get a medal for that? -- Grafikm fr 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who cares about results, Otto? We will go to Wikia or Volgita, or in any place we want, but they will rest here in their own shit))) Just because it is funny and it's moral duty to reveal the truth I still answer to them) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yep, you can go, but don't plague a free encyclopedia with your nationalism (bordering, as I can see, on Nazism). And I should talk about some of your own LJ communities, it would be a nice read to our fellows on Meta, too... :) -- Grafikm fr 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is no nationalism in sibwiki, this is obvious)) hahaha, how great evening we have, Grafikm reveals his secret records))))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Recent bestseller "The Zolotaryov code".--Ottorahn 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't know whether Ottorahn is really a nazi. However, he knows that i am a Jew, and he didn't make any comments about it. I don't have the time to read all of his LJ, but from what i've seen there i've seen absolutely nothing offensive. Come on everyone on both sides - stop with the silly jokes and personal attacks already. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Probably, you are "neo-Nazy" too?--Ottorahn 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then pay closer attention to his LJ. If I see references to 14 words, "antarctic reich", "judo-ghouls" or something similar, the diagnosis is usually pretty clear. -- Grafikm fr 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
[6] History of 14 словов article. Do you still claim that I am the author? And this isn't your the only mistake. Your "diagnosis" is mistake on the whole.--Ottorahn 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Where did I say you were the author of the ru-sib article? However, quoting any variation of the 14 words is not a good thing to say the least... in fact... when I see it, it makes me want to put my gloves on... -- Grafikm fr 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
1. I am neither the author of 14 words nor the author of translation. 2. One more time: It's my own journal, I cite everything what I need. Nobody forces you to read it. 3. Quoting 14 words or even Mein Kampf isn't an argument for naming smbd "neo-Nazi" 4. According your arguments Russian Wikipedia (and every Wikipedia also) is a den for Nazi, because it contains a lot of articles about Third Reich, and even Nazi symbols [7], [8].--Ottorahn 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not interesting in politics, so I don't write about it. Because of that every your sentence about me as "Neo-Nazi" is not more than provocation and personal attack. By the way there is no policy forbidding participation in Wiki for nazi, because it is free for every person.--Ottorahn 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe explore ruwiki with the same suspiciousness? I think using your methods everybody can be accused in Nazism. Otto Rahn have written about 400 articles, one of them is about Nazism, so what? I have translated Horst Wessel to the siberian language, but I have translated L'Internacionale too - am I Nazist or Communist? Is anybody who writes something about Nazism nazist? Is Dalay Lama Nazist because he uses swastika in rituals? All this only illustrates spirit of bad faith which accusators have. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
If Otto Rahn is a nazi, then he is very strange nazi, which has Moslem and Jewish friends... --Cyclodol 20:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
By the way, as far as I know, Otto Rahn is russian. So existence of Otto Rahn between us refutes the lie that we are russophobes, and existence of Amir - the lie that we are nazists. But we really have international team in sibwiki, which lives in peace. So why so many vandals we see everyday, and why 102 persons collected to prohibit us? Even real famous russian fascist Krylov has come. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
For the Muscovy imperialists all people who oppose their chauvinistic imperial ideas are "russofobes" and "нерусь". But we don't give a damn. --Cyclodol 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Given the opportunity the Russians would certainly close also Ukrainian and Belarussian wiki's and just to be taken over by the Bulgarians (after the closure of Macedonian wiki of course). Why should here be Alemanisch, Luxemburgisch or Low_Saxon versions after all? Why do we need a Persian wiki with cyrrilic charachters called Tajik? Why are there 3(!) wiki's for Serbo-Croatian and none for Siberian. Every language at first didn't have printed books and other stuff mentioned here. And by the way it's believed that all Indo-European languages were one some time before, so let's type only proto-Endoeuropean instead of several dozens dialects. --Aledubr 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

False confirmations

Latest comment: 18 years ago43 comments7 people in discussion

I found at least 6 cases of false vote confirmations added by Mr. Zolotaryov (the references he added are not confirmations). There are probably more, I checked about 20 to 30 votes. --Yms 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If 1) this user exists 2) he was alerted about the voting 3) he does nothing - this is equal to authorization, because he is not an invented login and he is not against the vote like Mauco. For example Mienski (booxter) is well-known participant of siberian language movement, even contibutor to the wiki. Maybe he does understand the procedure or something like that, but he is real wikipedist, and he voted against the closure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think, only authorization is equal to authorization, and abscence of authorization is not equal to authorization. If these people really oppose closing Siberian wiki, they definitely care what happen to their votes and will do something to confirm them. Besides that, there are false authorizations from meta to meta. For example, that invented character, Stepsha... whatever he is. --Yms 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
And this procedure of authorization was proposed just for this voting and only by closurers, that's not equality. Yes, Spesha shuld be checked, but Mienski is definitely real person and support sibwiki all the time. He simply is not active in Internet now for some reasons, the same is with some others. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, this is not inequality but is preventing inequality. What is inequality is voting from non-existing persons and sockpuppets on one side, while the voters on the other side are too honest to do such things. --Yms 14:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Examples of "purity" of your side you can see in Siberian wikipedia just now, where 700 articles were deleted from many IPs in one night, and filled with Russian nationalistic slogans. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please explain what is the connection between somebody's vandalism in your wiki and sockpuppetry here. --Yms 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing of it, your side also has many sockpuppets like Novyj, probably Astronomer, and others. We did not check all the 110 yet, but according to yopur own count you have about 25 votes unauthorized. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Novyj is not "many sockpuppets", it's one. Probably two, counting Astronomer. :) --Yms 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually we did not do any exploration, assuming good faith))) But later we shall do it. And about many sockpuppets or impersonators in our part of voting - who knows, maybe just Russians made them? You have in your list Krylov and others well-known antisemites and ultra-right politicians, their friends can play all the dirty tricks they can do, and make "pro-siberian" sockpuppets as well. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by "assuming good faith", the words "your side also has many sockpuppets"? --Yms 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just because we did not check them, while we have many infomation about possible socks from your part occassionly - for exmple, Иваныч also is suspected in being a sockpuppet in ruwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, because after the Mauco thing, there is a strong suspiscion that some people were impersonated. Hence, unless the user added a link to meta on his own user page and/or authorized the vote in the same way, it should be considered as moot on both sides. -- Grafikm fr 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
If the person is notified, but does nothing, this is sufficient to prevent impersonation. Maybe thay understand english bad, or they are not presented in the Internet right now, or they do not like some view of their user page, who knows? Those rules are a week before invented by Irpen, and they are not a dogma. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
What about inactive accounts (like this one from English wikipedia)? --Anton Khorev 09:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This one is doubtful, but you have only 2 this doubtful accounts - this, and that of Stesha, but all the belarussian accounts for sure are active and real. We do not alerted other 40 voters yet, so I think even after hard critics we have about 70 votes, but striking out about 10 real persons is definitely a trick from "closurers". --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
< - - - - - reset indent
Only 2, you say? What about this one? --Yms 11:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This one is not alerted yet. Actually we have alerted only 50% of the list, so all you suspocions are against AGF. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is a vote left by an anonymous IP. Fraud is suspected. The real pl:User:Remigiu (ro:User:Remigiu) is User:Michał P. who didn't vote here. --Yms 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
And this does not excuses your attempts to strike out votes of well-known belorussians and ukrainians - Mienski, Czalex, Steel archer - this guys are well-known. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are lying. --Yms 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
But what's this - [9] --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is striking out your links which you put here instead of authorizations. The four letters "auth" do not make them authorizations. --Yms 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are striking out authorizations, and from the other side you are proposing do not count unauthorized votes, so this is equal to nullifying it's votes--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, you are lying again. I never stroke out authorizations. --Yms 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
But what's this - [10] --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is striking out your links which you put here instead of authorizations. The four letters "auth" do not make them authorizations. --Yms 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is authorizations, because they were alerted and did nothing. So this is not impostor posts. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yms crossed out the votes' "authentication" only, and not the votes themselves. - Ev 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
They were authorized, because we had alerted them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
They were alerted, but after being alerted they did not authorize their vote or confirm their identity. Everyone can alert users about this situation, but only users can authorize/authenticate their own votes. - Ev 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Their silence is their answer - they simply see that you invent new rules and do not know should they participate in this circus or not. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
< - - - - - reset indent
Well, honestly - I think Zolotaryov somehow has a point. I think some Belarusians only came here to vote for the new Belarusian wiki, and now, also having noticed that most if not all of those who are against the Siberian wiki vote in favour of the new Belarusian wiki, they do not bother anymore to confirm their vote. But they are real people. Though there certainly will be a few dubious ones amongst the other nationalities who did not confirm, like you found (some may actually be afraid that their IPs will be checked). User:Michał P. is a strange case, but I am not so sure the vote was by an impostor, because the page on Meta is rather old and contains wrong links (though he has recent contributions under that name). I agree that Troublemaker seems very dubious, particularly in view of what he put on his page himself (later deleted by an anonumous IP - that one's only contribution: [11]). By the way, Yaroslav, please teach Steel Archer to put up a diff, so he does not come back to vote here once more. --Paul Pieniezny 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was simply hard for the belorussians to understand the procedure, while they support sibwiki independently from the belorussian vote, and they supported sibwiki even in the first vote for opening the wiki. I spent two weeks explaining to Mienski what to do, and only now he has made the correct diff at least. This is because the procedure is new and unknown in wikipedia. Remember, that they are bilingual, and they can have troubles in understanding russian language, which is well-known in Belarus and Ukraine, but still not their native language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
What a lier!!! You're real clown! Belarussians are not bilingual but mostly speak Russian. And understand it perfectly! --Galova 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
He has a point, but the part about me "striking out votes" is not true. It were not votes what I stroke out. As for Mienski's account, it doesn't need to be confirmed at all, because it existed before the voting was started. (I still stroke out the false "confirmation", but it doesn't invalidate his vote.) --Yms 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
If accounts which existed before the voting does not need to be confirmed, than Troublemaker also need not. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I was probably wrong with this criterion (Troublemaker is much more doubtful than Mienski), but still confirmation is not what you tried to present here. --Yms 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
The goal of procedure is to check reality, but you are inventing new rules just before our eyes - I simply try to achieve goal of this procedure, but you invent contradictory formalities. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, no new rules are being invented. It has always been a wikipedia tradition that sockpuppets' votes do not count and that votes by impostors can be taken away. All Irpen did was to propose a system by which everybody could confirm his/her identity. Most elections require some sort of ID being shown by the voters. Have you had a look at my Troublemaker diff? That guy was not around for a very long time - if he ever was around as anything else than a sockpuppet. The absence since an anonymous IP cleared his talk page at least suggests that someone is impersonating him. So, the fact that that unused account is old enough does not strictly mean anything. Yms was just making it easier on you to have guys like Steel Archer confirm their votes if they really want to, but now you want to use that leniency to count voters with empty contribution lists, who may be targeted precisely for that reason by Bonaparte. Personally I would still insist on a diff being quoted, but if that is too difficult, let them say "I hereby confirm that the vote on the Proposal for closing Siberian Wikipedia made by X (=nick on Meta) on (=day) at (=time) was by me, Y (nick on English, French, Belarusian, Ukrainian ... wiki). Signed by" . Followed by their signature - not yours.--Paul Pieniezny 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, I totally disagree with this - this is yet another procedure you have invented just now. Sockpuppets can be checked by checkusers, but you invent this formalities only because you really had loose the vote - you have not the 2/3 majority and can not obtain it. So just my authorizations are correct. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Some people will object (and someone has already objected) to the kind of stringent checkuser procedure that is needed to eradicate every fraud. There is a pivacy issue. I mean, I can actually phone that clinic in Tournai and tell them one of their computers is a zombie. What's the problem with the phrase I quoted? YOU can put it on their page - they only need to sign it. Obviously, these are people who know how to sign - they do it practically every day. --Paul Pieniezny 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
The same is with your "authorizations" - some people may object to participate in this comedy, because you actually suspect all the 90 in sockpuppetry and invent some procedure to check them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe make subsections in "votes" section?

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

There are many discussions in votes section, about authorization and others. I propose to divide it into smaller sections like "Votes 1-30", "Votes 31-60" and others, for better loading them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because nobody opposes, I will begin the division this evening. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the "votes" sections could use some reduction, but I would propose an alternative to dividing them: removing the long discussions on votes/opinions instead, thus leaving the "votes" section only for brief discussions and authentications.
Currently, we have 5 sections, to which I would add a sixth one:
Arguments in support of closure.
Oppose to closure arguments.
Support closing the Siberian wiki
Oppose closing the Siberian wiki
Comments on votes/opinions
Comments
And to that new Comments on votes/opinions section I would move the long discussions (those after the votes/opinions by Paul Pieniezny, Morpheios Melas, Boleslav1, Kneiphof, Trapolator, Ilya Voyager, MariusM, Improv, Irpen, Dsol, Introvert, Yaroslav Zolotaryov, Anton Kazmyarchuk, Sataniuk, Zlobny, Andrusiak, Mienski, Viacheslav Volnehov, A1, Oleh Petriv, Shao, Oleg Kikta, Pirveli, Theios tou Euthymiou, Jose77 & a few anonymous IPs), along the lines of the "On arguments for/against closure" sections (repeating the original argument before the discussion), with the addition of adding a wikilink from the vote/opinion to the discussion on it.
Paul Pieniezny's vote/opinion would look like this:
  1. Support [...] --Paul Pieniezny 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    This vote/opinion is being discussed [#On Paul Pieniezny's vote/opinion|here]
...and below we would have...
===Comments on votes/opinions===
On Paul Pieniezny's vote/opinion
Support [...] --Paul Pieniezny 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion.
Discussion.
Discussion.
Just offering another option to simplify authentication while keeping all votes together :-) - Regards, Ev 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think this is too much work and some information may be ocassionaly loosed when we have many discussions with accusations like "you are lying! no, that's you are lying!" etc, so sometimes the participants of such discussions will search for diffs. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It would imply more work, yes, but I could do it. And information will be lost only as much as when I divided the "Arguments" sections into brief introductions followed by sub-sections on specific discussions: all text will be there -including the original vote/opinion/comment- , with the same signatures indicating time, thus allowing for diffs searches.
Anyway, it's only an alternative proposal to avoid separating votes, in case anyone has problems with that (I don't :-) - Regards, Ev 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok. you can do it if you want. If you will not be able to do it today, I will do the subsections tomorrow. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, I prefer that you divide the "votes" sections according to your original idea: it's much simpler :-) I offered the above alternative because I thought that some people would not like to "divide the votes", but so far nobody complained about it. - Regards, Ev 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

А где же итог? / Where is the result?

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Вроде по авторизованным голосам двухкратное преимущество за удаление 92/43 получено. Голосование идет фиг знает какую неделю. Когда же ее прихлопнут?...--Nikolay Kolpakov 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Не дождетесь:-)--Ottorahn 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm also interested to know when this voting will end. Voevoda 11:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

We did not end the authorization, and your "authorization" is only newly invented rule, which may designate nothing. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Zolotaryov, it is very difficult to discuss anything with you when you just keep repeating the old stuff. This authentication procedure helped resolve the sockpuppetry issue that was plaguing this voting by both sides. You do know that sockpuppetry is wrong. You do know that there was plenty of it. You do know that there is no other method to reduce the sockpuppetry than the method implemented here. Also, note that much more time was given for authentication than it was originally thought. And still you are whining and whining. If you think some of the non-authenticated oppose votes are still legit, why not leave a person a second reminder? An email perhaps. Note that it is statistically inevitable that both sides is likely to loose a small share of their votes because there are always people who care little. But generally, we resolved the sockpuppetry. We are not getting any more Bonaparte clones here casting votes and making inflammatory remarks. So, please stop whining about the "changing of the rules" which you know was rightful and leave a second reminder to your friends who hasn't yet authenticated their votes. --Irpen 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
We are not getting Bonaparte only because the page is protected. My friends do the authentifications, by slowly, because they do not like this procedure and some of them still do not understand it. Why steward elections do not have such a procedure if it is so excellent? You are just changing the rules, this is truth. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
About steward elections - why? See once more - votes by people without link to local wiki are striken (search by "No link to local" and you'll find several cases). Edward Chernenko 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Link to local wiki, but not this procedure invented by Irpen. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Zolotaryov, cut it will ya? Bonny's trick with William Mauco have taught us that link from meta to local wiki proves nothing. Only the reverse link is a real proof and you know that full well. Please stop whining and instead spend your time on collecting more confirmations. --Irpen 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not sire that that was Bonny's trick, but probably russians did this. Even if russians did this provocation, this is not cause to check all the 90. I think you have specially organized this Mauco and this sockpuppets, just to make this new and non-normal procedure, not according to the Meta rules at all. Maybe not your personally, but somebody from your team: puppets began to appear in the same day when vote started, regardless of Bonoparte's conduct--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Steward elections would be better off with this as well. However, stewards do not have much power and this is relatively unimportant. In any case, calm down. The rules enforce that the vote is going to be fair with no falcification. It amazes me that A1 and Yakudza who strongly opposed the vote fraud in their home country in 2004 do not support the measure here. But this is besides the point. Instead of whining, please admit that this rule eliminated sockpuppetry. Better yet, spend time contacting other editors whose votes are not yet confirmed. No one would oppose their votes being counted. --Irpen 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, it should be born in mind, that this is not an election. The issue will not be decided by majority vote. --Johannes Rohr 11:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is it?

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0#.D0.A0.D1.83.D0.BC.D1.8B.D0.BD.D1.8B

Look at that, Zolotaryov wrote literally following: "Romanians suggest us new votes against moscovians for our votes against moldavian wikipedia". Then he gave the following link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yaroslav_Zolotaryov#Moldavia

Romanians make trouble against Moldavian project also. -- Chronic Pain 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's almost sockpuppetry. --AndyTerry 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was suggestion of Boneparte, but it had no effect - almost no Romanian vote here for us. By the way - [12] - direct agitation in ruwiki forum go and vote against siberian wiki. While number of Russians is much more than number of ukrainians, belorussians, romanians, siberians, etc, etc. Is this almost sockpuppetry? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have to admit, that agitating for voting and trading with votes are not the same things. --AndyTerry 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
That was no trade, but attempted treat about mutual agitation. All the same, it does not work. But I have better link about Russian methods of vote-stacking: [13] This is ultra-right wikipedia of russian nationalists Wikitraditio, full with russian antisemites and neo-nazi. Some boy from ruwiki explains how to register in Meta and how to vote in this voting. He adds: "please do not say our usual sibirophobic and political statements, but say something like: I am professional linguist and this language is nonsense". Below there are call from leaders of this non-neutral political wiki "go and vote!". From this totally political wiki have come Krylov and other ultra-rights. There are many explorations of my LJ in this voting - please better explore LJ of your supporter Krylov, who is well-known Russian antisemite and leader of several ultra-right real political organizations of russian nationalists. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are even several advises how to trick the new user protect system in this ultra-right forum in the link above))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well then, we should be on the lookout for sockpuppetry from the pro-closure side. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. Kazak 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sib-wiki is not guilty of deeds of our supporters, for sure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply


Zolotarev is biased person

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Yaroslav Zolotarev is highly biased. Just take a look on (probably) his signature at petition for freedom of Taras Zelenyak. History of Taras Zelenyak imprisonment. Basically - this person was arrested for nationally offensive posting in forum and Zolotarev support his actions. --TAG.Odessa 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to our topic. The petition is about human righs violation and illegal traffic monitoring done by some Internet provider in Russia. It doesn't support Zelenyak's views. I think, many people on both sides of the vote would sign it too. --Yms 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are right, Yms. --Obersachse 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like the normal defence in libel cases. Argument 1: he did not say it. Argument 2: if he said it, it was true/innocuous. Argument 3: if it was not true/innocuous, he was just exercising his constitutional right to free speech. Zelenyak claimed he did not write it. His provider proved he wrote it. And you are going to be surprised, but I can assure you that the very same thing is happening, or will pretty soon be happening (the relevant laws have been voted or are being voted) in the USA and in Western Europe. It is called "war on terrorism", folks! But I agree that Zolotaryov signing the petition has nothing at all to do with our discussion. I did notice that one of the accusations against Zelenyak is, that he called Russians "Moskali". Now THAT is relevant.--Paul Pieniezny 00:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
So do you support Russian authorities who persecuted Zelanyak because of one word? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think there is no place for this discussion. Here is my personal opinion (I can be wrong and accept this in advance): It was not one word - but constant abuse (you was able to read about this in kyiv.vosvoboda link) and he was warned/banned multiple times. I feel that all people must take responsibility for their words and not only in form on bans or blocks on forums or websites - but also in real life. It's only can be discussed that means are acceptable for prosecution - fines, trial periods or jail. If you will read constitution - you are granted freedoms and rights with limitation that you will not hurt others people freedoms and rights. (Chapter 17 item 3). So freedom of speech must be used with care. --TAG.Odessa 15:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
So you think that a person should be persecuted because of his words? (Yaroslav) --62.68.146.96 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes --TAG.Odessa 20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Completely off-topic, but the guy did more than call Russians names. And as for the difference between words and deeds - how many Americans has Bin Laden killed personally? Still: the only thing relevant here is that the word "Moskal" is not the neutral term that some people are making it out to be. Just like "Muscovy" is not the neutral word that some people would make it out to be - anyone who knows German should have a good look at [14] --Paul Pieniezny 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Idea of freedom of speech is basic idea of Western Civilization and many, many Eastern prophets and religions. But I think it is waste of time to cast here pearls before swines. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yaroslav, please read en:Freedom of speech to have correct impression on freedoms you have and related responsibility for all your actions. --TAG.Odessa 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
So you support Russian secret services who persecuted Zelenyak because he discussed the national opression of Ukrainians by Moscow? Maybe Litvinenko also hurts others rights (Putin's rights for example) so he was rightly poisoned because of his speech? This is Nazi-like and Communist-like demagogy. Stalin and Hitler also said that they simply defend some groups from opression of other groups. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Poisoning is little bit different from trial. Also please read en:Godwin's Law. --TAG.Odessa 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please explain about Godwin's Law to Pienezny and Grafik who accused Ottorahn in Nazism just because he wrote something neutral about Hitler in his blog. And cease your demagogy, the things are simple: we do not do any harm to you, but you want to close us because of your political motivation - that's very simple and obvious truth and this conduct is totalitarian in it's essence. And persecuting us, you invent tales about our hurts to you, when we do not do proposals about closing Russian wikipedia, and do not do anything to stop it's work. You can not hide this fact with invented paranoic accusations. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I only mentioned Ottorahn's contributions because you had started to call the supporters of closure names. Godwin was already there, as a result of your reactions. Irpen elaborated. Neither does Godwin's Law apply to mentioning a link to German Wikipedia. It is not my fault that you prefer to read the part about "Geplantes Reichskommissariat Moskowien" rather than "Abwertende oder politisierte Bedeutung". Godwin's Law does NOT apply when you discuss extreme-right parties, euthanasia or antisemitism. Fortuitous mentioning of Hitler when Stalin would have been enough, does fall under Godwin's Law, however. --Paul Pieniezny 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
So you continue seriously state that Ottorahn is fascist? You are the most ridiculous person from all the Moscal clowns)) We can make you popular in Russia if you want)))))) We have many places to discuss you, you are the best of the presented wikipidors I bet))))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I kan not wote

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

how i kann wote?--Jaro.p 13:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You go to the page and vote, it should be easy for you --Feel free 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, when this farce will be over?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to know why I cannot vote here? Yes, my login at wikimedia.org is fresh, but my login name at en.wikipedia.org is much older. Futurix 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The page is semi-protected to avoid editing by anonymous IPs and new accounts, like yours :-) In a few hours (I don't know exactly how many... 12, 24, 48, 72 ?), after your freshness expires, you'll be able to edit normally. - Best regards, Ev 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
  1.   Oppose I vote oppose closing the Syberian language page 'cause I believe that every folk and every language has permission to exist nevertheless it is supposed to exist or not. If there are people who speak this language and they do believe that this is a language, not a dialect, why can't they?alexis_ch 0:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Russian attitude to sibwiki

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#War_of_the_Bots - Russian admins of enwiki try to prohibit interwiki to sibwiki even when the closure discussion continues, and ban the Ukrainian bot which do this. If this will pass, anybody will be able begin closure discussion on any wiki, and then go to delete interwikies. This is clear example of attempt of political persecuting in wikipedia. Surely this articles about Ingermland, Carlson and Rotokas language are a poison for them))) They even can not see an interwiki to those neutral and non-political articles. When this farce will be really over? I bet after Siberian Wikipedia they will begin a crusade to the Ukrainian one --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

locked.

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Can an admin let us know when the page is going to be unlocked? I want to vote for the removal of this hate site. --Larry laptop 10:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page is not locked, it is semi-protected. --Johannes Rohr 11:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Siberian wikipedia has no articles about hate or politics, somebody has disinformed you. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course it is a hate site, aimed purely at spreading dubious political propaganda. Substantive evidence was already presented below and on the page itself. -- Grafikm fr 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
hahaha, any example of political propaganda in sibwiki? On the page itself 2-3 articles are presented (from 7000), and those who present them even do not understand meaning of the articles - one of those articles is example of a verse, and other has translation of Shakespeare - this is all. Meanwhile, there are thousands of examples of political propaganda in ruwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
O.K., there have been some things that were not so nice. On the other hand, some from the pro-closure camp have also used very harsh language in their criticism. After all, I have absolutely no understanding for the level of fury, that I have observed here. It could all be so easy. We have a plethora of Wikis in languages/dialects spoken in Germany - Ripuarian, Plattdütsch, Allemanic/Alsatian, Bavarian, test Wikis in Palatian, Wikis in lower and Upper Sorbian etc. pp. Where's the problem? It sure wouldn't come to anyone's mind that the Bavarians want to separate themselves from Germany, because they have their own Wiki. I have my doubts, whether all those smaller Wikis have a real chance to ever develop into a real encyclopaedia, but that's another thing.
My main concern about this wiki is actually the name. The term "Siberian language" (Сибирской говор) is undoubtedly an invention. What exists is a set of Northern Russian dialects which are alive only in some extremely remote regions. So "Northern Russian" would have been a better name. And many of the features of Yaroslavs "Siberian language" have really been present in these dialects - the O-kanie, the postponed article, the "hard" sibilants etc., plus some grammatical phenomena which are foreign to standard Russian.
So, it is not all invented, there is a real base for it, even though the number of pure inventions (e.g. роботны веды for "natural sciences") seems to be quite high. After all, when I first saw this project, I was quite exited - from a purely linguistic point of view. It's a bit like "How would the Russian language look like, if there had been no Bulgarian and Greek influence and of the Northern dialect would have been taken as the basis for the written language?" Of course, the latter is original research and as such should take place outside of Wikipedia.
What made me distance myself from this project was the high number of unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "20 million speakers"), the artificially inflated number of articles, lack of neutrality ("ru-sib:Сибирской народ") and things like this here: A "Siberian" version of the Nazi anthem "Horst-Wessel-Lied": http://wikisource.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
Even though I'm deeply disturbed by this, I still cannot understand the level of fury in the pro-closure camp. Would anyone seriously believe, that the existence of a Wiki in a private conlang would be able to threaten the integrity of a state? --Johannes Rohr
Full name of the wiki is "Siberian/Northern Russian" - this is name under which it was requested, but after 2-3 days after it's creation I personally ask Tim Starling to make more short interwiki name (actually in the first days we had interwiki "Siberian/Northern Russian"). So your 1st argument about the name is ok, but we use "Siberian" and "Northern Russian" as synonims now, with full understanding that Siberian dialects are only part of the Northern Russian language as a whole (севернорусский язык, полношнорусской говор). So this is only terminology, everybody from us including me understands that this are northern Russian dialects (though they have no connection with so called "Standard Russian" which is basically Old Church Slavonic).
About claims on the number of speakers: we already discussed this - actually my notion of родной язык was something different of your understanding of "native language". Maybe this is because of my poor English. Actually in Russia some Tatar or Ukrainan guy can say "my native langugage is Tatar/Ukrainian" (мой родной язык татарский), when he in fact does not understand any real Tatar(Ukrainian) sentence. He simple wants to say that his father is Tatar or Ukrainian in that case. So maybe this is misunderstanding, but I did not want deceive somebody.
About POV discussions - let they will be in sibwiki itself according to the wiki-policies. All the wikipedias are full of them - this is not valid argument to close something. And about Horst Wessel - we have translated "L'Internacionale" as well, and many other songs. Simply I tried to make examples of some famous songs from different cultures and from different political POVs.
And since we have about 10 editors - I doubt that this is a private conlang. Actually "conlang" work itself was only collecting of the northern Russian words from different dialects - the language presented in sibwiki is still not well codified, and many of my friends use northern words which even I did not understand. We have hundreds of words collected by Otto Rahn, proposed by Coipish, by Steel Archer, etc.,etc. Even jew Amire participated in some discussions and made some propositions about the language. So this is not a private conlang for a long time. We have several songs recorded by professional Siberian musicians, for example ethnic rock group Bugotak has a song in Siberian language now (there is even a small clip made by Otto Rahn). Number of peope involved actively is about 50; number of readers is thousands times bigger, because language is understandable to Eastern Slavs. Many key figures of Russian net culture are involved, including en:Misha Verbitsky (you can see his vote as Tiphareth in the top), Vadim Shtepa and others: they wrote a lot about the language and about this farce voting. I personally have several sites provided by businessmen who support the language, including a site with Wikimedia engine installed. So this is definitely not a private conlang. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone in charge here?

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

When will this ridiculous vote finally finish? Is there an administrator who can put an end to this idiocy? Kazak 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Such idiocy like accuse Russians in Russophobia (70% of sibwiki authors are Russians) should be stopped, but unfortunately nobody deletes your votes with absolutely false reasoning)) No argument you have is valid. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your input wasn't required, as the question wasn't adressed to you. Kazak 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
And you even want to prohibit me to say something in the talk page. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can't prohibit you from doing anything, I'm merely saying that your comment was entirely off-topic. Kazak 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Project closure policy is documented at New project policy#Closing of a project.--Johannes Rohr 07:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

"If there's no or very little editing on the new project for several months, or if the reports stop coming in, or if generally the thing just starts winding down" - so all the political arguments are irrelevant. There is normal level of activity for a small wiki in Siberian wikipedia. All this crap about "Siberian terrorists-nationalists" should be simply striked out I think:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia&oldid=521835"
Return to "Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia" page.