User:Ronline/Propunere/Arhivă
Де ла Википедия ын лимба молдовеняскэ
Contents |
[edit] mo-la:Propunere
Aici este propunerea mea pentru Wikipedia moldovenească, mo.wiki:
- Menţinem mo.wikipedia.org ca Wikipedia în limba moldovenească.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va folosi oficial ambele ortografii, cea latină şi cea chirilică. Cea latină va primi prioritate.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va conţine doar conţinut chirilic, conţinutul latin fiind mutat la ro.wikipedia.org.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va avea un portal în ambele ortografii, ca şi acum. Acest portal va avea legături la ro.wikipedia.org şi la o pagină principală chirilică, găzduită pe mo.wikipedia.org. Portalul va numi limba "Moldovenească/română".
- Mo.wikipedia.org va folosi numele "молдовеняскэ (чириликэ)" cînd va fi legată de la alte Wikipedii prin sistemul interwiki. Această menţiune va fi făcută ca să informeze lumea că această versiune este în chirilică şi că acestă ortografie este în minoritate.
- Vom organiza alegeri noi pentru administratori. Aceste detalii sînt încă în negociere.
(Mo.wikipedia.org va funcţiona independent de Wikipedia în limba română. Va folosi ambele ortografii pentru interfaţă dar avea conţinut doar în alfabetul chirilic pentru a nu se dubla conţinutul cu ro.wikipedia.org în alfabetul latin.)
Această propunere este în perioadă de consultare comunitară pînă la 24 iulie.
[edit] mo-cy:Пропунере
Аичи есте пропунеря мя пентру Википедия молдовеняскэ, mo.wiki:
- Менцинем mo.wikipedia.org ка Википедия ын лимба молдовеняскэ.
- mo.wikipedia.org ва фолоси офичиал амбеле ортографий, чя латинэ ши чя кириликэ. Чя латинэ ва прими приоритате.
- mo.wikipedia.org ва концине доар концинут кирилик, концинутул латин фийнд мутат ла ро.....
- mo.wikipedia.org ва авя ун портал ын амбеле ортографий, ка ши акум. Ачест портал ва авя легэтури ла ro.wikipedia.org ши ла о паӂина принчипалэ кириликэ, гэздуитэ пе mo.wikipedia.org. Порталул ва нуми лимба "Молдовеняскэ/ромынэ".
- mo.wikipedia.org ва фолоси нумеле "молдовеняскэ (чириликэ)" кынд ва фи легатэ де ла алте Википедий прин системул интервики. Ачястэ менциуне ва фи фэкутэ ка сэ информезе лумя кэ ачястэ версиуне есте ын кириликэ ши кэ ачестэ ортографие есте ын миноритате.
- Вом организа алеӂерь ной пентру администраторь. Ачесте деталий сунт ынкэ ын негочиере.
(mo.wikipedia.org ва функциона индепендент де Википедия ын лимба ромынэ. Ва фолоси амбеле ортографий пентру интерфацэ дар авя концинут доар ын алфабетул кирилик пентру а ну се дубла концинутул ку ro.wikipedia.org ын алфабетул латин.
Ачястэ пропунере есте ын периоадэ де консултаре комунитарэ пынэ ла 24 июлие.
[edit] ro:Propunere
Aici este propunerea mea pentru Wikipedia moldovenească, mo.wiki:
- Menţinem mo.wikipedia.org ca Wikipedia în limba moldovenească.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va folosi oficial ambele ortografii, cea latină şi cea chirilică. Cea latină va primi prioritate.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va conţine doar conţinut chirilic, conţinutul latin fiind mutat la ro.wikipedia.org.
- Mo.wikipedia.org va avea un portal în ambele ortografii, ca şi acum. Acest portal va avea legături la ro.wikipedia.org şi la o pagină principală chirilică, găzduită pe mo.wikipedia.org. Portalul va numi limba "Moldovenească/română".
- Mo.wikipedia.org va folosi numele "молдовеняскэ (чириликэ)" când va fi legată de la alte Wikipedii prin sistemul interwiki. Această menţiune va fi făcută ca să informeze lumea că această versiune este în chirilică şi că acestă ortografie este în minoritate.
- Vom organiza alegeri noi pentru administratori. Aceste detalii sunt încă în negociere.
(Mo.wikipedia.org va funcţiona independent de Wikipedia în limba română. Va folosi ambele ortografii pentru interfaţă dar avea conţinut doar în alfabetul chirilic pentru a nu se dubla conţinutul cu ro.wikipedia.org în alfabetul latin.
Această propunere este în perioadă de consultare comunitară până la 24 iulie.
[edit] en:Proposal
Here is my proposal for the Moldovan Wikipedia.
- We maintain mo.wikipedia.org as the Moldovan-language Wikipedia.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will be officially biscriptal in interface, with Latin given priority.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will contain Cyrillic content, with Latin content going on ro.wikipedia.org
- Mo.wikipedia.org will have a biscriptal portal linking to both ro.wikipedia.org and a Cyrillic Main page hosted on mo.wikipedia.org, as currently. The biscriptal portal will call the language Moldovan/Romanian.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will be linked from other Wikipedias using the name "молдовеняскэ (чириликэ)". This is to signify that the link is to a Moldovan (Cyrillic) page and that Moldovan is usually written in Latin script.
- We will organise a sysop election. Node ue will not be sysop unless he gets voted democratically. He can, however, be interim sysop for interface translation purposes. The fact is - everyone's entitled to a vote, even if they're Romanian "nationalists". The current mo.wikipedia.org community is us here. There are not many Moldovans yet. Sorry to put this so bluntly but if they're not here, then we can't involve them in the decision-making process. People who vote in the sysop election will need at least 5 edits in the article namespace at mo.wiki to prove they are community members who want to actually contribute to this wiki. EDIT: Sysop election details are still in negotiation.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will function independently of the Romanian Wikipedia. It will be a biscriptal Moldovan Wikipedia with mainly Cyrillic content to avoid duplication of content with ro.wikipedia.org.
This proposal is in consultation period until July 24.
[edit] Comments
ro: Vă rog scrieţi orice comentarii, în română sau engleză, despre propunere mai jos. Ca subtitlu, folosiţi numele de utilizator (===Numeletău===). Veţi primi replică la fiecare comentariu.
en: Please comment on this proposal below, in English or Romanian. As a subheading, please write your username ((===Yourname===). You will receive a reply for each comment.
[edit] Domnu Goie
In its current format I will deffinately vote against this and for a compleete deleation. However I am willing to vote for it if the proposal is changed to the following:
- We maintain mo.wikipedia.org as the Moldovan(Romanian)-language Wikipedia.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will be officially biscriptal in interface, with Latin given priority.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will contain Cyrillic content, with Latin content going on ro.wikipedia.org
- Mo.wikipedia.org will have a biscriptal portal linking to both ro.wikipedia.org and a Cyrillic *Main page hosted on mo.wikipedia.org, as currently. The biscriptal portal will call the language Moldovan/Romanian and so will the Cyrilic version.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will be linked from other Wikipedias using the name "молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ)". This is to signify that the link is to a Moldovan/Romanian (Cyrillic) page and that Moldovan(Romanian) is usually written in Latin script.
- We will organise a sysop election. Node ue will not be sysop unless he gets voted democratically. He can, however, be interim sysop for interface translation purposes. The fact is - everyone's entitled to a vote, even if they're Romanian "nationalists". The current mo.wikipedia.org community is us here. There are not many Moldovans yet. Sorry to put this so bluntly but if they're not here, then we can't involve them in the decision-making process. People who vote in the sysop election will need at least 5 edits in the article namespace at mo.wiki to prove they are community members who want to actually contribute to this wiki. EDIT: Sysop election details are still in negotiation.
- Mo.wikipedia.org will function independently but in close communication with the Romanian Wikipedia. It will be a biscriptal Moldovan/Romanian Wikipedia with mainly Cyrillic content to avoid duplication of content with ro.wikipedia.org.
Domnu Goie
- So, your entire purpose on this website is that you want the NAME changed?? Domnu, mo: is the ISO code for, and I quote, "Moldovan". The ISO does not comment on whether Moldovan is the same as Romanian. So neither should we. 33% of Moldovans believe it is a separate language, even when it's written in the Latin script, so this thing you want us to insert is POV. --Node ue 14:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duca
I agree with Domnu Goie. Read Domnu Goie's comments above in Romanian! Ohh wait I forgot, you don't speak Romanian. Anyways let me translate for you: he made a very good point that just because 33% of Moldovans say they speak Moldovan, that does not automatically mean that by that they mean that Moldovan is not Romanian. In any case I think your stubborness will lead to this page being deleated since already you have 2 votes for erasing the wiki. It would be so much easier even for you since you would be able to keep ur wiki, to just make this minor clarification.
Duca
[edit] Mihaitza
I have been following this discussion as well as the one about Transnistria for some time. I am in total concurrence with the two above. A lack of compromise and understanding on the part of Mark Willson or whatever his name is, can only result in his subsequent demotion and replacement as sysop and the termination of the mo.wiki. I therefore must add to Domnu Goie's points that an outcome based on a vote of plurality, not majority should occur, since there are many options on the table.
PS: by saing 5 edits at mo.wiki it is suggested that edits in the latin version count as well. In any case I do count since I have made changes to the main page of the cyrilic version as well and minor ones in the transnistrian page.
Mihaitza 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dmitriid
Even though I spoke strongly against mo.wiki in the past, here are some considerations.
The wiki is already created and is being developed, albeit slowly. It's always easier to destroy, than to create, as an old Russian saying goes. So I agree with the proposal.
There is one sort of obstacle though: "*We will organise a sysop election. Node ue will not be sysop unless he gets voted democratically. He can, however, be interim sysop for interface translation purposes. "
Since interest in mo.wiki is low (apart from the obvious willingness to contribute to flame wars), we might have problems finding a sysop other than Node ue. I would propose to leave Node ue as a sysop for an indefinite period of time. If something (anything) goes wrong, his and other contributors' actions can be easily tracked and discussed.
Other than that, I have no objections to the existence of a Cyrillic mo.wiki under conditions described in the proposal.
Sorry for a late comment... Dmitriid 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Pai da dar rusii cind au zis asa, ei nu au zis/o ca pe o chestie rea, ca daca te uitzi la istoria lor, cu exceptzia unor scriitori si artishti, ei ca tara mai mult au distrus decit au construit:)
-
- Despre sysop, eu zic ca daca il pastram pe asta chiar ca nu o sa progreseze deloc vichipedia asta. Mai bine te nominam pe tine sau Domnu ca sysopi.
-
- Si inca ceva la care propunere te referai? La prima a lui Ronline, la a doua a lui Ronline sau la a treia, a lui Domnu?
- E o mica diferentza intre ele.
-
- Numa bine,
-
- Mihaitza 17:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I prepared a long-long answer and then the computer crashed :( Scuza-ma ca raspud in Engleza, dar n-am vorbit Romana in timp de 6 ani si nu cred ca pot sa ma explic corect :'-(
-
-
-
- I've browsed through pages in mo.wiki using the Special:Randompage link and I should say that theses pages are actually neutral in opinion. What they lack is proper language. Some of them are clearly transcribed from corresponding Romanian pages using some sort of an automatic converter. The others are written by hand, but they are full of grammatical errors.
-
-
-
- These problems could be corrected by someone with a steady knowledge of both Romanian and rules for writing Romanian in Cyrillic. However, such people are hard to come by :) I personally last used Cyrillic to write Moldovan when I only started learning the language.
-
-
-
- Anyway. The primary problem of mo.wiki still exists. The only person still willing to contribute to it is Node ue, whether we like it or not. I personally wouldn't be want a sysop because I obviously lack the knowledge of Romanian that is required to do the job (I can read and understand Romanian perfectly, but I wouldn't dare to do major edits to any pages though)
-
-
-
- In the light of this I've come up with the following:
-
-
-
-
- We use Ronline's proposal as the basis. It is an extremely well crafted proposal that could actually be used as it is and nobody would've opposed if it went into action immediately :)
- We change it as Domnul Goie proposed: mo.wiki should be linked as Moldovan/Romanian (cyrillic). The reason is that whenever you explain to someone what Moldovan is, you invariably start with "It is essentially the same as Romanian..."
- We leave Node ue as sysop for now. You may call this a "probation period" if you like. Apart from the opinions he expressed on the talk pages, the pages that exist in the wiki now are NPOV
- We elect a second sysop, preferrably with a good knowledge of Romanian to overlook the content in pages from grammatical point of view.
-
-
-
-
- We could combine the last two points if we could find a suitable person. I think is out of th question for now (even though Ronline has contributed to mo.wiki as well :) )
-
-
-
-
- Hi Dmitriid, I wonder if you changed your idea a little based on what Mihai has just said.
- As for the automatic transliteration, the majority of pages here are made by User:Vertaler. I am responsible for Иоан Паул ал Ⅱ-ля, Михаил Горбачёв (is it correct to use ё, in a Moldovan context? Should the name be written like in Russian, or should it be a transliteration of Romanian??), partially Република Молдова, Лимба молдовеняскэ, O-Zone, Драгостя Дин Тей, and a couple of others. Most of the rest (the one on Chisinau, the newer Roman Catholic pope, etc) are by Vertaler or Ronline.
- My Cyrillic is obviously not perfect (the confusing of "b" and "v" is because of the keyboard... I typed Bikipedia when I mean Wikipedia), I did not learn it at school and it wasn't used by people outside my family. (everybody else wrote English only of course) So I am prone to make mistakes like how to transliterate "i", and occasionally in other ambiguous cases, but I certainly don't use automated conversion.
- The grammatical errors cannot be mine because I copied most of the content from ro.wikipedia.
- As for how "interwiki links" should be labelled. While it is certainly true that Moldovan and Romanian are essentially the same, most people who click on an interwiki link already know this. If we have to label the Cyrillic pages as "Moldovan/Romanian (Cyrillic)", then I think ro.wiki must label their pages as "Romanian/Moldovan (Latin)" or at least "Romanian/Moldovan".
- It is fine to elect a second sysop. I nominate Ronline. Mihai has suggested Goie. I think that this is a very bad idea because Goie's very position makes it such that he can't be in charge of a Wikipedia like this logically. Ronline is already an admin at ro.wiki and has already earned the trust nessecary. He has also acted as a wonderful mediator in this conflict, and has even begun to contribute to some new content here.
-
-
Ha Ha. In other words you would not nominate me because you know that if I would be a sysop I would immediately change the wiki to "Moldoveneasca/Romana", something which you for some very strange reason reject with a very curious stubborness.In any case my ambition is not to become sysop but to set things straight. I would very happy to nominate Ronline as well.
Your questioning about what Mihaita has said once again proves that you use translators and that you have no idea what in the world Mihaita really said. Well in any case, to spare you the time of looking for better translators, lemme tell you that he just asked which version Dimitriid agreed with because there were many.
Something else I have noticed is that you claim to be Moldovan, right? Yet you are born in the USA and you seem to know Russian( at least much better then Romanian it seems) but very( AND I MEAN VERY) little Romanian. Honestly, you seem to know as much Romanian as my nextdoor Egyptian neighbour who listend to "Dragostea din Tei" for 3 months in a row last summer. By this, I draw the conclusion that my next door Egyptian neighbour is just as entitled to be sysop here as you are. Secondly, I draw another conclusion. Most Moldovans are bilingual and they speak Romanian as well as Russian. (This does not mean as you seem to imply that they put the two languages toghether to make this creole-style language. I don't know where you got that from? Maybe the Russians do it and maybe your parents do it but since you haven't actually been to Moldova, I would not advise you to generalize like that.)
But what I wanted to ask you is this: Most Moldovans although they speak Russian, they certainly speak their native Romanian. Why is it that you seem to be better in Russian and almost a 0 in Romanian? Even Russians in Moldova nowadays know Romanian better then you do. Could it, maybe, be that your parents are actually Russians? And that you are Russian? Your last name is Williamson. I admit that the name does not sound very Russian but it certainly does not sound Romanian either. Forgive my curiousity but I believe that whatever you are, and whatever way you were brought up and tought, you were certainly tought to not like Romanians. It is not a big secret that most Russians in Moldova are not big fans of the Romanians. Look at Valerii Klimenko and Smirnov just to name a few. Again, forgive my bould statement, but you seem to really want this Wikipedia not for educational purposes, but rather to fulfill a certain agenda which is very similar to the one the communists and the one that Stalin wanted: to make people believe that Moldovans are not Romanians and that their languages are different. For this reason I think that the only ilogical person here is you
Of course you are going to say that you are not doing that at all but you dont want to clarify it either by just stating that Moldovan=Romanian and calling it a Moldovan/Romanian(cyrilic). You say you do that only because you want people to be left alone to decide but come on, who are you trying to fool? How are people supposed to know, unless you dont educate them? By not mentioning those things, you are actually implying that the languages are different. Honestly it doesnt matter who you have to call and who you have to contact to change the name, it should be done especially when it appears now as "Moldoveana" which is wrong even from a communist point of view since communists called it Moldoveneasca.
Secondly, the Romanian wikipedia already has on its main page links to the versions of the romanian language, including Moldovan etc. etc.. If you would know how to read Romanian, you would not ask a question like the one you did.
Finally, its sad to see that we are having such a huge problem over something so simple and that you ( NODE UE) seem to be so inflexible and always try to be so annoyingly stubborn and persistant even though you could just as easily try to work things out.
Domnu Goie
-
-
-
- To Goie: I have no control over the text on interwiki links. This is not something I can just change. I must request somebody else to do it, so please don't get the idea that I'm holding out on changing it, or that it's even in my ability, because it isn't.
-
-
-
-
-
- --node
-
-
Thank you Dimitriid. I thought about it as well and I also think that if молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ) or Moldovan/Romanian (Cyrillic) is used when reffering to the language instead, especially when the current label is "MOLDOVEANA" which is not even the proper name, then we can keep it the way it is. Other then that Ronline's proposal is very good, however the Moldovan Wikipedia, although independent, should work in close communication with the Romanian Wikipedia.
Secondly, I thought about it some more and I think that we should sepparate the two issues here. The way I see it: one issue is the wiki. The other issue is Node and him remaining as sysop.
I say first: Let's clarify what is going to happen with the wiki. The reason why I am saing this is because nobody here really wants the wiki deleated if certain changes are made. Even Duca is not totally against it.
Secondly: we have to clarify if Node will remain sysop or not. Here there are two opinions so far: replace him or elect a 2nd sysop and let Node be sysop "for a while". I think that the outcope of the vote which I don't think should take place before we decide what to do with the Wiki, will be closely related with the first issue. Most deffinately, I think we should have a second sysop so at least we won't have a Wiki administred only by an American, who does not speak the language and who claims to be Moldovan only because his parents know a little Romanian and were allegedly born there. At the same time, he had the ordacity to try exclude others from the vote, even though he himself is not even born in Moldova. I draw two conclusions out of his actions: 1) he is really not fit for being an administrator because he cannot possibly make this wiki expand at a faster rate. 2) he is pretty Romanophobic and a little biased when you look at the discussion page and his comments. Dimitriid, I think that your Romanian was great. It had no spelling mistakes and if you say that we have to keep Node only because there is nobody else, I think that anyone in this world can qualify as an administrator here since everyone in this world can go and use translators. Finally, you are certainly more qualified then he is so I would say that we certainly have someone better then him right now.
In any case I say that we should divide the consultation period in three sub-periods. One until June 27, which will decide the future of the wiki, a second "Election period" for a new sysop until July 10. And a "3rd Probation Period" which will start from June 27 and end on July 24, when a new vote will occur on the issue of keeping Node as sysop or not.
Domnu Goie
I don't know if June 27th is enough for us to make a decision but ok. Anyways it is too much giving in on our part and too little on Node's part. But in the spirit of neutrality, and all that good stuff I am gonna go along with you three just for now, however let's make this clarification: elections have to be held for a new sysop. Dimitriid, Domnu or Ronline, anyone is better then this Node ue.
Duca
- I agree that we should use Moldovan/Romanian Cyrillic on the main page of the mo.wiki, but that interwiki links should only say "Moldovenească (chirilică)". Firstly, because the other name is much too long, and secondly because it implies that the Romanian language is written in Cyrillic by a significant amount of people, which is untrue. Most (by far most) people who write in Cyrillic call the language "Moldovan" not "Romanian", and this is the Moldovan Wikipedia after all, it has a Moldovan subdomain. There is virtually no demand for "Romanian" written in Cyrillic because Romanian should not be written in Cyrillic and hasn't been written in Cyrillic for hundreds of years. Don't understand me wrong - I just don't want people to think that Romanian is written in Cyrillic. That's why I also said that ro.wiki should remain independent of mo.wiki. We need to suspend our disbelief for a second and treat the case as if Moldovan were a separate language. Mo.wiki will cater only for people who say they speak the Moldovan language. All Romanian speakers go to ro.wiki. Hence, there's no reason for any calling the Wikipedia as "Romanian" in any sense, aside from a statement on the main page saying Moldovan=Romanian. Ronline 08:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well you are right that Romanian is not written in Cyrilic but then if that is true Moldovan shouldn't either since Moldovan is Romanian. And secondly even to say that Moldovan will cater only for people who say they speak the Moldovan language is really wrong. First of all, they are very few (33% of Moldova) and many of them do not imply that by speaking Moldovan they don't speak Romanian. On top of that, "Moldovan" has been written in the latin script for 16 years now. The only period when it was written in the cyrilic script was for 45 years from 1944 to 1989, when the soviet Moldovan republic changed the script to latin. Before 1944 there was no Moldovan language and Romanian was written in the latin script. Aside from that, where are those people that want to see the "Moldovan Language in Cyrilic" wikipedia? Where are they? I don't see them. Please anyone tell me where are those cyrilic moldovans? Where is the demand? Where? Oh wait...I see some one... He is a very annoying person...he doesn't really have many friends...you might know him...Its Node!!!!!!! Yeey, we have ourselves a Molovan. But you know what the problem is? He is not really Moldovan! So how can he want to see a wiki in a language he doesn't even know? Seriously aside from Node's strange need to see the beautiful Romanian language distorted in the most barbaric way and made to look like its Russian, other then that nobody and I mean nobody wants it.
- So if it's based on demand then there is none so I vote to deleat it right now!
- Now if we only put "Moldovenească (chirilică" shouldn't we write молдовеняскэ(чириликэ) in the interwiki language bar? Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Serbian are all written in cyrilic. Why shouldn't Moldovan be written in cyrilic too, if the content is actually in cyrilic?
- And here comes my second question: How would other people( Americans, English, Germans, Chineese, Italians, etc. etc.) know what this means молдовеняскэ (чириликэ). They will probabaly think it's some weird langauge and would not even look at it. In that case whats wrong with adding молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ)? Do you honestly think that people will know how to read the "Ромынэ" part of it and say "Oh my God! Its romanian! Oh my God: Romanian is written like that in cyrilic? How appaling!!!" Of course not! The only ones who will probably be able to desipher it is Russians, Ukrainians, Serbians and Bulgarians and they might read it, they might recognize what the language means and they might learn something "Romanian = Moldovan", while the Moldovans will be like "OK sounds good". So Ronline, you see it doesn't matter if it will look like this, since almost nobody from the western wolrd, arab world, middle east, far east, africa, oceania or any other main body of land will ever understand what this actually means: молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ). But it is important that Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians do understand since many of them think that Moldovan is a different language and its not really their fault. That is how they were tought in school. They are very surprised when they learn that Moldovan=Romanian but they don't refute it; they just accept it as a new peice of information.
- I would also like to point out that in the future, when and if Moldovans do show up in big numbers, they might come on the wiki, see that Moldovan is made to look like a sepparte language, and let's face it: a vast majority of them refuse to say that their language is Moldovan. Another 33% say it but without clearly implying that Moldovan does not mean Romanian( so Node's argument that "what about them" is really not justifiable). Therefore there is at least a 67% chance that for every Moldovan that will come on the site, Node will have problems again, he will get complaints and we will be forced to do this painful arguing again and we will be forced to sit down and find another formula which we can work with, only because right now Node thinks he is Moldovan and that the wikipedia should look just like the Moldovan his parents tought him that "good commarade Stalin wrote for us".
PS: Ronline, am incercat sa'mi pun keyboard-ul romanesc si merge pe Word dar cand merg pe explorer nu pot sa scriu decat î si â. Pentru s scrie _ si pentru t scrie c. Ai vreo idee de ce?
Domnu Goie
Goie, I hope you realise that by now nobody is really listening to you. I'm going to reply to some of your main points though.
- That my russian is better than my Romanian. Where do you get this silly idea? I speak less Russian than Moldovan. I can only say a couple of basic phrases in Russian, and I certainly can't read it. I haven't written anything to you in Russian, and I haven't read anything written in Russian. So your idea that I _can_ do those things in the first place is laughable.
- Again you show why you are so illogical -- you say that writing Moldovan in Cyrillic is a horrible distortion of our beautiful language. As I noted before, АВЕКМНОРСТУХШ / авгекмнопрстухш all look pretty close to Latin letters (ABEKMHOPCTYXW / aBreKMNonpcTyxw), БДЖЗИЛФЦЧЬЯ / бждзлфцчья all look a bit like Latin letters or other symbols used in Latin text (6gx3N^PVUbR / 6xg3^pvubR). Let me tell you, many Taiwanese people cannot tell the difference between a text written in Latin and a text written in Cyrillic, they look very similar if neither is your native alphabet. Also, what about the fact that the first time anybody ever wrote Romanian, it was in Cyrillic? first written Romanian known today; Tatal Nostru in Cyrillic ca. 1850... I hope you realise that the original switch from Cyrillic to Latin was political rather than stylistic. (Similarly, Atatürk changed Turkish from Arabic to Latin not because he thought Latin was prettier, but because to him Latin was the alphabet of the future and of literacy, while Arabic was the alphabet of elitism and oppression)
- Interwiki links are not there to teach anybody anything. They are there for only a practical purpose. What Ukrainians, Belarusians, etc. think does not matter. I mean, we have interwiki links to "zh-min-nan", which surely upsets or confuses some Chinese people, and we have interwiki links to languages with names as "Furlan" ("is it a language for furry animals??" has actually been asked), and many of the names appear as question marks in some peoples' browsers so this is confusing to them. Ronline noted that this Wikipedia is only for people who call their language "Moldovan".
- You say that there is already a link to "Varieties of Romanian language" on ro.wiki mainpage. Since I can actually READ Romanian, I have been well-aware of "Versiuni de limbă română" for a very long time now (I mentioned it in some of my discussions with Ronline). But it does not say on ro.wiki mainpage, "Limba română este identică cu limba moldovenească", so why should it say it here???
- Quit bugging me about the fact that the interwiki links say "Moldoveana". I know that this is incorrect! I CANNOT CHANGE IT!!! I DO NOT HAVE THE POWER!!!! IT IS NOT A SYSOP PRIVELAGE!!!!!!! --Node ue 22:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well if I was you, I would scroll up and I would see that actually alot of people have listened to me. In fact, YOU are the one that has nobody to back him up, yet you still don't give it up, do you? You know what, if there is one thing I admire about you (in some strange way) it's your perseverence.
And as far as the ro.wiki mainpage, I totally agree with you(for the first time) that somewhere there it should say that moldovan=romanian as well. About the language for furry animals, well I am sorry but I donnot see how this relates to Moldovan. To have Moldovan as a sepparate language without even mentioning that it is in fact Romanian, is like having American, Canadian, Newfoundlandish, Australian languages and not mentioning that they are actually English.
PS: If you cannot change the "Moldoveana", then I guess it's really worthless arguing about it. Then we should contact whomever and change it to "молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ)". I do not know if you guys have noticed but Norwegian has to versions: bookmal and something else( I forgot the name). Maybe we can do the same thing here.
Domnu Goie
- So am I right to say that the only two issues pending are:
-
- Whether the language should be called Moldovan (Cyrillic) or Romanian/Moldovan (Cyrillic) in the interwiki
- Whether Node should be sysop or not
- If yes, then everyone agrees on everything else? Just like to know so we can focus on the two above issues more in depth. On the second issue, I'd just like to reassure Domnu Goie and the others to not be scared of Node or anything. Firstly, I have not come up with a fixed solution for the sysops - that is still under negotiations. I am awaiting for your proposals. I'd say that keeping Node as sysop would do nothing wrong, as long as we have one or two other sysops to keep things in check. We will be having a sysop election, I think. It's the fairest way. But anyway, what do you think? As to the language issue, my proposal was that it is changed to молдовеняскэ (чириликэ). Domnu Goie - it is not based on demand for reading, but demand for contributing. As long as people are demanding to contribute in Cyrillic, we need to facilitate that (the fact is that that demand is questionable at the moment, but anyway). Domnu Goie - I think the argument boils down to which one is more important: people thinking that Moldovan and Romanian are the same vs people thinking that Romanian can be written in Cyrillic. I would say that it's more important to not let people think that Romanian is written in Cyrillic. I just find it almost unacceptable to suggest that Romanian, using that name, is written in Cyrillic in mainstream use. Simply, it is not. That some Moldovans write it in Cyrillic is up to them, and it's their right to receive content in that script, but we shouldn't be mixing Romanian into this. And, if Moldovans will be disappointed that mo.wiki does not call the language Romanian (which it actually will, on the front page), then they will come to ro.wiki. No loss! Everyone who calls the language Romanian, which includes 66% of Moldovans, should contribute to ro.wiki. Mo.wiki is really only catered for that minority of people who call the language Moldovan, and who have a right to a Wikipedia in the language that they call Moldovan. Ronline 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Domnu, please keep adrift of recent developments. See the most recent change to the Main Page. Node ue 09:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cannot believe my eyes. Can this be true? Did Node change his mind or did he come to his senses? He finally accepts the term Moldovan/Romanian(only on the main page though). In any case its a very good step towards the right direction. For me the issue on the name is half-resolved.
Domnu Goie
Wow. Quite a discussion I missed :) As Ronline showed below, there's a crisis brewing once again. And that wouldn't be a good thing at all.
- The wiki should stay. Deleting it would mean offending those who have already contributed to it. Ronline even decided to learn how to write in Cyrillic in order to contribute. For this effort alone the wiki should stay. At least for a while.
- A second sysop would be most welcome. If for some crazy reason I get voted for, I will not turn down the offer. However, my knowldge of Romanian is currently light years away from being okay. I would vote for Ronline. However, I don't know whether he would agree, since he is already busy with ro.wiki.
- The main page for mo.wiki as it is now is unacceptable, I think. The left side should read "Dacă preferaţi să vizualizaţi Wikipedia Moldovenească în alfabetul latin, vizitati Wikipedia Romana." Or something like that. Anyway, that'me just starting a flame war :) Ignore this
- Interwiki links could be labeled simply молдовеняскэ (чириликэ) for the sake of brevity. However, a totally NPOV article should exist and be easily accessible that would explain the whole hoopla about mo.wiki (why moldovan, why Cyrillic, why not Romanian etc.) As it has already been mentioned, there are already links to different versions of Chinese and Norwegian. I wonder how many flame wars those sparked...
Dmitriid 14:35, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Time to reflect
It seems that the recent influx of comments from D.evil and Mario have proved that maybe we have taken things too fast. I mean, in all honesty, we have reached the stage where the opposition to this project is so large that it seems that shutting down mo.wiki is actually looking like a viable proposal. Node - I really don't want to do this, and I wouldn't support such a move, but we do have to consider that there is a great deal of opposition to this stuff. And whereas before it was radical and irrational, now it's actually logical and well argued. D.evil said he would be applying to close it down. That's a big thought, but we do have to be fair and consider all of that. I've always believed that what this issue came down to is demand - the fact that Moldovan Cyrillic was entitled to a Wikipedia because there was demand, either for reading it or contributing to it. But that seems more questionable now. I mean, aside from me and Node, not many people have been contributing here, and, in my case, I can only contribute minimally because this is my first time I've written in Cyrillic. For me, writing in Cyrillic was a new experience, and a great opportunity to learn. I really enjoy it, and am looking forward to contribute more. Not for political reasons, not for any reasons but the fact that I can learn from it. So, the demand for contribution is low, and especially questionable when you compare it to the fact that Wikipedias like Scots and Voro have had to wait months for a Wikipedia and had to prove their worth, while Moldovan Cyrillic will get one in a click (already has one, in fact), when there is very little activity. It's things like these, plus Mario's comments at ro.wiki, that really make me question the foundation of both my proposal and this very subdomain. Again, don't take this as a change in mind - I'm still committed to solving this dispute and maintaining neutrality. And for me it would be sad to see mo.wiki go, just because there is some content, and deleting that outright means loss of information. What I'm really worried about, though, is that even if we agree on this proposal (which I think we will), the issue is no longer about that. It's about the fact that we will always get a steady (and perhaps frequent) stream of criticism and calls for shutdown. I don't think it's worth negotiating the deal now, when two months later, two or three other users will come and say they don't agree. We have sort of reached a crisis just when we were close to solving the thing. What do you think? Ronline 12:01, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Ronline,
- Again I ask: Are either of these people Moldovans? What new arguments do they have? They are both just saying things about Cyrillic being representative of cultural oppression... hardly an effective argument, given that there are people who use Cyrillic.
- The simple fact that there are few contributors is not justification enough for deleting a Wikipedia. We have Wikipedias with 0 contributors that are still around. As for readers, many people in Transnistria use Cyrillic as an everyday script because it is the law, in Moldova proper many older people are not good with Latin. The majority of Moldovans can read Latin well, but some people (especially older people) only have basic skills in the Latin alphabet, or their reading in Latin is much slower.
- Also, again I would like to emphasise that by its very nature this issue is likely to attract an uneven crowd composed disproportionately of unionists and other enemies of the "Moldovan language" and the Cyrillic alphabet. A person who feels strongly about such issues is much more likely to say "There is a separate Moldovan Wikipedia!!" and be outraged, than somebody whose political views are closer to the center who would say "Ah. So there's a Moldovan Wikipedia." and not really care. Similarly, people who respect Catalan but don't speak it can't be found much on ca.wiki, yet every once in a while they get a comment from somebody who says "Why do you have a Catalan wikipedia?!? This is unacceptable! It is ultranationalist waste of time, you should use the Spanish Wikipedia instead!!". I'm sure that with a little time the same will happen for Scots -- it will get a lot of traffic from people who say "OH MY!!! THERE IS A SEPARATE SCOTS WIKI!!! THIS IS BAD!!!! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!" when compared to people who say "Oh, a Scots Wikipedia. Whatever, I don't much care about it".
- For this reason I do not think we should consider everybody's opinions at face value, but rather evaluate them in context. Does this person claim on the census that they speak "Moldovan" rather than "Romanian"?? What is their nationality? Do they have an ulterior motive for their opinion? Have we seen them before, do we know them, or did they just pop up suddenly? Can we be fairly sure that they are not just sockpuppets?
- Obviously it is the opinion of many Romanians that Moldovan does not exist, or they do not like Cyrillic because it represents "Russian oppression". This has been known by everybody from the beginning, that there will obviously be a different balance of objectors and supporters in Romania than in Moldova.
- If thousands of Romanians sign a petition for the deletion of mo.wiki, what sway does that give?? So far, the Wikimedia Foundation has chosen not to shut down this Wikipedia, and given that it is a real alphabet used by real people, I have a hard time believing that they ever would even if the Romanian government issued an official condemnation of the existance of mo.wiki.
- --Node ue 06:23, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally somebody sees the light. I donnot know those guys( Dr. evil and Mario) but their words are golden. I am in total agreement with these people.
Afară cu mowiki şi cu staliniştii care vor s-o ţină( nu mă refer la Dimitriid, Domnu Goie şi la Ronline dar la alţii). Ши сэ вэ зик ши доуа ворбе пе малдавианиештие! Ну врем википедие пе фонтул эcта спуркат. Маи гини пе википедия румэниаскэ!
Duca 00:26, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Your Cyrillic spelling is very poor Duca. For starters, "rumăniască" is not a word. Node ue 06:23, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also, you accuse me again (though not so direct this time - you don't mention my name, but you make it obvious you mean me) of being a Stalinist. Can you quit that already? It's getting very tired. If I were a Stalinist, I would advocate using Russian, not Romanian-in-Cyrillic. Even Dmitriid agrees that this Wikipedia is NPOV... maybe it's your poor Cyrillic that makes you think it's filled with anti-Romanian propaganda, because it's really not. I'll post a Latin transliteration on the talkpage of every content page, and if you have any objections to a specific one, please, go ahead and make it known. I will not just sit here and take these accusations like some sort of dog. I would ban you, but it is a conflict of interest. If you continue with the personal attacks, I will seek a higher authority for advice. Personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia, this includes accusing people of being Stalinists if they are offended by the accusation. --Node ue 10:27, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. Flame wars starting up again. One the one extreme we have Node ue with words like "an uneven crowd composed disproportionately of unionists and other enemies of the "Moldovan language" and the Cyrillic alphabet." On the other extreme we have Duca with words like "Afară cu mowiki şi cu staliniştii care vor s-o ţină"
Ok. Time for another extreme :) Take me for example. I have not a single drop of Moldovan blood in my veins. I was born in Chisinau and lived most of my life there. In high school I attended classes with the "moldovan group" (so I studied literature, geography, history after Romanian manuals, the rest was in English).
And here comes the shocking part. I feel nothing towards either term, "Romanian" or "Moldovan". I like the language (based on its "audio" value alone I like it better than even Russian). I am a patriot of my country. But I cannot identify the language with either Romanian or Moldovan.
Being an educated man ( :), shameless show-off that I am), I agree with the fact that Moldovan is actully Romanian. However, this word, Romanian, has lost all its value during the 90s thanks to the active yet pointless rants by the Popular Front, student strikes, constitution changes.
Moldova is currently the only country without a state language. I think it was the Moldovan Ministry of Education ordered the language taught in the classroom to be called "The State Language". Not Moldovan. Not Romanian. The "State Language".
The reason for this is obvious when we look at Node ue and Duca.
For Node ue "Romanian" means a most likely forcible "unionism". It reminds of the early 90s when the ravenous Popular Front was chanting things like "pack your bags and move to Russia, all of you". And, since at that time PF was concerned with nothing else but changing the name of the language to Romanian and that of the country to Romania, PF has discredited both itself and the name (they should have been more concerned with social and economical situation in the country)
For Duca "Moldovan" means a relic of the past. Thanks to a lot of unhealthy propaganda (meaning journalist reports, overall poliical statements from different countries etc.) Soviet past has become to be identified with Stalin and Stalin alone. That is perfectly understandable and so I am not willing to start a flame war on that. So, to some people "Moldovan" is a symbol of that past and has to be destroyed so that there are no obstacles on the path towards future.
So here we are. Two extremes (Node ue and Duca) clearly opposed to each other and a third extreme (let's say, me) who are sort of opposed to each of them.
At this point in time Moldova has no identity. It has a flag, yes, adopted from Romania. It has a Latin script, borrowed from Romania. It is the only country in the ex-USSR that doesn't have its own distinct language. But small countries are usually the most proud ones. So, Moldova isn't ready to let go of its only heritage - the Moldovan language - just yet.
So I say - let the mo.wiki be. Time will tell if it is worth all the trouble. And, most importantly, it is always easier to destroy than to build. This wiki exists, so let it exist. And I think we all (well, most of us) agree that even though this wiki might not be wanted by some, we should give it a chance.
Sysops. So far I haven't seen NPOV articles in the mo.wiki. It means that current contributors keep their opinions to themselves or to the flame wars. We may not like the law, but the law doesn't care :) So as to make everybody happy, we will need a second sysop. And this is what, I think, is an accepted idea.
So, what are we waiting for? Let's vote! :)
Dmitriid 10:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So wait, you are Russian but you speak Romanian? Well if that is the case, you must be the nicest, friendliest Moldovan-Russian(towards Romanians) I have ever seen. Having said that and as much as I would like you to be sysop here, I am rethinking if I am still for this wiki's existance.
Domnu Goie
- Yup, I am Russian :) Well, the "meanness" of the Russian population comes from mistakes on both parts - both Moldovan and Russian. The main reason, I think, is that even now Romanian language and literature are not taught as they should be in Russian schools. In 90% of the schools all you have to do to earn the highest grade is to learn 4-8 lines for "Luceafarul" or "Pasteluri". No grammar is taught, no values of the language, no in-depth literature. That's a huge mistake on the part of the Ministry of Education. And Russians themsleves are not really keen on learning Moldovan themselves. Many say that Russians are chauvinists and isn't entirely true. I have seen quite a lot of Russians who say things like "why bother learning Romanian". However, those who go through mixed schools (like me, through Moldovan-Turkish High School) are usully much more tolerant towards the language. Most of my Russian-speaking friends say they regret that they didn't have a chance to really learn the language. So, again, there are extremes and the truth, as usual, lies somewhere inbetween Dmitriid 06:49, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While Dmitriid would be my first choice, he has expressed reservations about becoming a sysop so that makes me hesitant. Ronline would be my second choice. And of course all Moldovan-Russians are mean except Dmitriid ;) --Node ue 20:07, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Dmitriid, thanks for that very enlightening piece of writing. Node - I think I disagree with you on this issue of disregarding all Romanian opposition. The fact is, I am the type of person who considers every opinion, and I think that's been the basis of my moderation here. I have sought to understand all views and not "shun" other people or just say that their views are not important. If we receive a petition from the 10,000 Romanians, we do have to consider that. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to take action on what they say, but we do have to consider it. Other than that, I say, let's go forward with my proposal and its voting time. So here goes. Please put your name under each heading if you agree. Ronline 06:26, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aш вреа са ва интреб чева. Дака пропун амендаментул луи Домну Гоие атунчи требуие ка неапарат ка са пропун ши че а зис ши Ронлине? Дар аста инсеамна ка Ронлине примешсте 4 вотури, амендаментул луи димитриид 3 ши Домну 1. Дечи Ронлине кзштигз аутомат?
Do Amendments count as extras or are they competing against Ronline’s raw proposal? I, for example, support Domnu Goie. But if I put my vote in Ronline’s proposal as well, won’t I be giving Ronline’s raw proposal a fourth vote and hence assure it’s 50% +1?
Duca
- That's very bad spelling Duca. Let me transliterate it back for you so you can see: "Aş vre'a sa va intreb ceva. Daca propun amendamentul lui Domnu Goie atunci trebuie ca ne'aparat ca sa propun şi ce a zis şi Ronline? Dar asta inse'amna ca Ronline primeşste 4 voturi, amendamentul lui dimitriid 3 şi Domnu 1. Deci Ronline kzştigz automat?"
- Please, don't use Cyrillic any more unless you can take the time to go to Алфабетул молдовеняск ... --Node ue 05:05, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The amendments count as extras to the Ronline proposal. If the Ronline proposal wins, then it will be decided if any amendments will also come into force based on the one with the largest votes. However, by supporting any amendment, you are also supporting the Ronline proposal (of course, with the addition of the given amendment). In your case, Duca, you have already voted for the "abolition" proposal, in which case I see it pointless to vote for the Domnu Goie amendment, which would basically cancel out your voting power (since you would be giving the Ronline proposal an extra vote). If you agree to the Ronline proposal, but changed with the Domnu Goie amendment, then you must vote for the Ronline proposal AND for the Domnu Goie amendment. Ronline 00:07, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but let's presume that 4 people vote for the Dimitriid amendment and 3 for Domnu's, then the Ronline proposal gets automatically 7 votes. Hence the Ronline proposal will obviously win without any ammendments? Or does that just mean that Ronline proposal goes through and with the Dimtriid amendment as well since that amendment got most votes?
And where are the rest? Let's vote people, lets vote! Come on we can do it! Let's erase this wiki!
Duca 05:54, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Duca, in the case you mentioned, the Ronline proposal with the Dmitriid amendment would win. So, the winning amendment will be that which gets a majority of votes by dividing the number of votes for that amendment with the total number of votes for the Ronline proposal (in your example, the Dmitriid amendment would get 4/7 votes, so a majority, so it would win). The Ronline proposal can only win without any amendments if no amendment reaches a majority (let's say Dmitriid amendment get 3 votes, Domnu Goie amendment gets 2 votes and the Ronline proposal gets 9 votes). In this case, the Dmitriid amendment would get 33% of the vote, Domnu Goie 22%. The remaining 56% of people voted for no amendment, hence the Ronline proposal wins unamended.
- I'm worried that other people are not voting - where is everyone else? Duca, maybe you can inform them there's a vote going on. I think it's unfair if other don't vote - the vote must be balanced. Ronline 10:20, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I was rather concerned with the Transnistrian article, thus making me unavailable here for a while. I must say, I am quite dissapointed at Duca's choice to put his vote behind the Closing Down proposal. I thought that Domnu's proposal was acceptable enough. However, after some calculations, I have arrived at the conclusion that there are only 4 anti-Moldovenists( sorry to use this word, I donnot mean to offend anyone) here: Danutz, Domnu Goie, Duca and myself. This means 4/7 or 57% of the eligible votes. If we split the votes then we have no chance to make our voice heard, even though all of us four have a common and very similar position on the issue.
It is therefore regrettable that I must join Duca and vote for the Closing Down and even more regrettable that I must urge the other 2 voters left, to vote likewise, since Dimitri's proposal is less acceptable then Domnu Goie's. Having said that, I have great respect for Dimitri, however one's conscience cannot accept the term "Moldovan language", without mentioning its Romanian roots. I would also like to propose the other people such as Dr. Evil and Mario to be able to vote as well since they have also been involved in the discussion.
Mihaitza 16:47, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Voting
Voting ends on July 10, 2005. Every person who wants their opinion considered must vote. If you do not agree with any of the models below, you can create an amendment at "Other amendments". For any proposal to pass, it must be voted by 50%+1 of total votes. Only the following people may vote: Ronline, Dmitriid, Danutz, Node ue, Domnu Goie, Duca, Mihaitza, Romihaitza, D.evil, Landroni (I may have missed a few people here... I don't think I have, but maybe I have. If you feel you have the right to vote - as in, you've contributed to the decision-making and negotation here - then say so, please.)
[edit] That the Ronline proposal (as described at the top of this page) should come into effect on July 24, 2005
The Ronline proposal does not include the point about sysops. Sysops, including Node ue's status, will be negotiated after the voting, and will also pass through a vote.
- Ronline 06:26, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Dmitriid 06:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Node ue 11:50, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Romihaitza July 03, 2005 22:30 (UTC) [You may not consider if you wish my vote but I think I deserve it because I was involved in this discution when it was at ro.Wikipedia|Ёу май нот цонсидер иф ёу виш мы воте бут И тхинк И десерве ит бецаусе И вас инволвед ин тхис дисцутион вхен ит вас ат ро.Википедиа]
- See this diff for confirmation from Mihai. --Node ue 12:44, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Another person with horrible Cyrillic spelling. And, maybe you're trying to make a point here, but nobody - literally nobody - writes English with Cyrillic. "betsause"... "tsonsider"... "mih"... "distsution"... "vhen"... --Node ue 23:09, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Stop criticising people's Cyrillic spelling, please, Node. This is a voting page. Romihaitza - vote accepted, but you have to make an account here, log in and vote with that. Or give me a message on ro.wikipedia saying you voted (sorry for this formality, it's just verification policy). Ronline 01:46, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ronline, I have every right to criticise peoples' Cyrillic spelling on this page or any other page. Especially if they're writing English with Cyrillic. --Node ue 06:51, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- No you don't, because it's not your business. Honestly, you need to show a bit more consideration and kindness. I mean, Mihai goes to the trouble of writing in Cyrillic, a thing he probably hasn't done before, and he gets criticism for that. If anything, he should be congratulated for his commitment. (sorry if I'm being harsh here, Node, the bluntness of your comment just annoyed me) Ronline 12:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- But Ronline, it was obviously a joke or to make a point because he wrote English in Cyrillic. His latest comment confirms that... "for you to understand".
- No you don't, because it's not your business. Honestly, you need to show a bit more consideration and kindness. I mean, Mihai goes to the trouble of writing in Cyrillic, a thing he probably hasn't done before, and he gets criticism for that. If anything, he should be congratulated for his commitment. (sorry if I'm being harsh here, Node, the bluntness of your comment just annoyed me) Ronline 12:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ronline, I have every right to criticise peoples' Cyrillic spelling on this page or any other page. Especially if they're writing English with Cyrillic. --Node ue 06:51, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Stop criticising people's Cyrillic spelling, please, Node. This is a voting page. Romihaitza - vote accepted, but you have to make an account here, log in and vote with that. Or give me a message on ro.wikipedia saying you voted (sorry for this formality, it's just verification policy). Ronline 01:46, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Confirmation - Romihaitza 07:31, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) [Node ue, I've writed in Cyrilic for you to understand]
-
- Danutz (în ro.wiki | em pt.wiki) 10:53, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) (So far I know you're cyrillic is also bad, Node, see Vertaler's commentaries
- Hmm... when he made that comment I hadn't really done anything on mo.wikipedia yet... interesting. --Node ue 12:44, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, he corrected orthography in a couple of my edits. See this diff: [1]... obviously the corrections are minor and are relatively common mstakes -- "ia" can be written as "i-[ea]" or "i-a" or... etc. depending. However I did not make such glaring errors as using "i" instead of "`" all the time, or writing "ia" as "[ea]". --Node ue 12:50, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm... when he made that comment I hadn't really done anything on mo.wikipedia yet... interesting. --Node ue 12:44, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Domnu Goie Amendment
That we should use the interwiki descriptor молдовеняскэ/Ромынэ (чириликэ). If you vote for this, you are also supporting the Ronline proposal (and hence you must vote in that section too).
[edit] The Dmitriid Amendment
That the Main Page says instead of the status quo: "Dacă preferaţi să vizualizaţi Wikipedia Moldovenească în alfabetul latin, vizitati Wikipedia Romana." If you vote for this, you are also supporting the Ronline proposal (and hence you must vote in that section too).
- Ronline 06:26, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Dmitriid 06:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Node ue 11:50, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Danutz (în ro.wiki | em pt.wiki) 10:56, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) (Shoudn't it be "Wikipedia în română"? Wikipedia româna sounds like Wikipedia România, and there are not countries subdomains in Wikipedia, just language subdomains)
- Yes, it should. Although Wikipedia română is very correct. But these are all minor diffferences. I agree though that "Wikipedia în română" is best. Ronline 12:29, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
-
- I agree with this as well Dmitriid 4 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
- Romihaitza July 03, 2005 22:30 (UTC) [You may not consider if you wish my vote but I think I deserve it because I was involved in this discution when it was at ro.Wikipedia|Ёу май нот цонсидер иф ёу виш мы воте бут И тхинк И десерве ит бецаусе И вас инволвед ин тхис дисцутион вхен ит вас ат ро.Википедиа]
- Mihai, I think your vote is acceptable. However, to verify your identity (you voted as an anonymous IP address), please make a logged-in note on your ro.wikipedia talkpage that this is really your vote. --Node ue 23:12, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Romihaitza - vote accepted, but you have to make an account here, log in and vote with that. Or give me a message on ro.wikipedia saying you voted (sorry for this formality, it's just verification policy). Ronline 01:47, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Mihai, I think your vote is acceptable. However, to verify your identity (you voted as an anonymous IP address), please make a logged-in note on your ro.wikipedia talkpage that this is really your vote. --Node ue 23:12, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Confirmation - Romihaitza 07:31, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] That the Moldovan Wikipedia subdomain should be closed down
- Duca 15:55, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Mihaitza 16:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- D.Evil - it's an insult to moldovans to have mo.wikipedia.org in a cyrilic languge, as many of them speak the latin language.
- D.evil - vote tentatively accepted, but you have to make an account here, log in and vote with that. Or give me a message on ro.wikipedia saying you voted (sorry for this formality, it's just verification policy). You also haven't contributed significantly to the decision-making process on this page. Ronline 01:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I would assert that D.evil should not be allowed to vote because he 1) didn't have an account here when the vote started and 2) has made no contribution to this Wikipedia or the discussion other than saying on a talkpage somewhere that this Wikipedia should be closed down. It's unreasonable to just accept the vote of everybody who comes by. --Node ue 06:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I tend to agree. I agree he has only contributed in the last minute and even then in not a consultative way. At the same time, it can be interpreted wrongly if we keep on invalidating the votes of people who vote against this wiki. So I'd say to keep valid D.evil's vote. Ronline 12:19, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to say here. He only has what, one contribution here? And he didn't contribute to the discussion on ro.wiki... you're certainly right about invalidating too many votes, though. However, there's the added strike that he didn't even bother to create an account and log in when he voted. It shouldn't matter much though because at this point, it appears that your proposal is going to win by a large margin. --Node ue 12:53, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- D.evil meets the voting criteria. However, vote will not be accepted until he logs in and votes, or confirms his vote on the ro.wiki (like Romihaitza did) Ronline 4 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
- I would assert that D.evil should not be allowed to vote because he 1) didn't have an account here when the vote started and 2) has made no contribution to this Wikipedia or the discussion other than saying on a talkpage somewhere that this Wikipedia should be closed down. It's unreasonable to just accept the vote of everybody who comes by. --Node ue 06:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- D.evil - vote tentatively accepted, but you have to make an account here, log in and vote with that. Or give me a message on ro.wikipedia saying you voted (sorry for this formality, it's just verification policy). You also haven't contributed significantly to the decision-making process on this page. Ronline 01:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Decius 01:07, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) It is not a separate language in actuality, nor would most Moldovans want to have it separate from the Romanian Wiki. I will not create an account in a Wiki that shouldn't exist, even if it means my vote isn't counted.
- Vote invalid. Firstly, I can't find any evidence of your contributions on mo.wiki. Did you contribute to the discussion on ro.wiki? If yes, please point out where. Secondly, you haven't got an account. Sorry, but it is policy that we only accept people with accounts. This voting is not about protest but about decision-making. If you don't want to make an account as a sign of protest to the mo.wiki, then go ahead, but I'm afraid your vote can't be counted. Ronline 01:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Anonymous vote cannot be verified. If you already have an account, please log in and use it to vote. If you don't, please do not vote. Otherwise, it increases the possibility of sockpuppet voting. Objectors to this requirement will note that I or anybody else could just vote as many times we want claiming different users. --Node ue 23:09, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- First, please show evidence of contribution to decision-making processes. Secondly, please log in to vote. Don't vote anonymously. It's not accepted anywhere. Ronline 4 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
- Anittas It's a disgrace to see Soviet propaganda targeting Moldovans and Romanians alike. Close down this terrorist pithole!
- Vote invalid. I can't find any evidence of your contributions on mo.wiki. Did you contribute already to the discussion on ro.wiki? If yes, please point out where. --Node ue 06:48, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Who said I contributed to "your" Wiki? And who made you in charge here? Point out where it says that you're in authority.
--Anittas 3 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Anittas, you can only vote here if you have a history of negotiating for this proposal or your side of the argument. Everyone else who has voted here has done that. You've just rocked up and voted, I have no idea who you are and therefore I'm led to believe you're a sockpuppet. If not a sockpuppet, then someone who has been called in deliberately to vote without contributing to the negotiation and decision-making phase at all. Ronline 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
-
-
- Domnu Goie 3 July 2005 19:46 (UTC) This is really unfair. So basically people who voted for Ronline and Dimitriid are considered vaild but those that didn't are not? ha ha ha! Nice going Ronline and Node ue. This kind of vote reminds me of the votes in the good old communist days - VERY DEMOCRATIC( NOT).
- Goie, it has nothing to do with their votes and you know it. These people did not participate in the discussion in any way, and showed up just for the vote. Duca's vote and Mihaitza's votes were kept because they were involved. Anittas never said a word here until now, same with Decius. If I call in a bunch of my friends to vote for Ronline's proposal, they will all be considered invalid as well because they were never involved. Also, there's no way to verify that these people aren't sockpuppets. Notice, please, that Romihaitza's vote was tentatively considered invalid pending verification.
- It's absolutely rediculous that you call up all of your friends and say "Hey, come vote!". It's obviously unfair. And then, you have the audacity (or as you spell it "ordacity") to complain about their votes not being considered valid? Duca says that I showed my "true Stalinist colors"... well, I think you guys showed your, too. Calling up your friends to try to stack a vote is not only unfair, but underhanded as well. You guys have shown by this act that you're not willing to accept the democratic outcome. You're trying unfairly to manipulate it your way. You called up your friends. Ronline and I didn't call up ours. Obviously, as a sysop I have powers to ban and block people... if I really wanted to suppress opposing votes, wouldn't I just ban everybody I thought would disagree with me? Honestly, I could've conveniently banned Duca, Goie, and Danutz right after the vote started. But I, unlike you, believe in democracy and fair voting. Stacking votes is something that is done in totalitarian dictatorships. Declaring votes invalid for plausible reasons applied to ALL voters is something done in real democratic countries. Some don't allow non-citizens to vote, some have an age limit, some require that you live in the country for a certain amount of time, and others even prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol on the day of and before the election to make sure that people don't make such an important decision while intoxicated. So, the restrictions here were named well before the voting started, and you didn't object. I believe that Ronline would make sure if anybody similarly uninvolved or unverifiable voted for his proposal, their votes would be declared invalid. But the thing is -- THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY SUCH VOTING ANOMALIES ON OUR SIDE. I don't think this is a coincidence. It shows how far you are willing to go to further your goals... cheating on an election, now that's a new low for even you two. --Node ue 3 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
- I agree with Node ue on this Dmitriid 4 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)
--- In that case, I want you to count my useless vote as an opinion. My opinion should be valid, regardless of my lack of contributions to this "Moldova" site.
- We will, Anittas. --Node ue 5 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
- Landroni 11:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC) - I know that my vote comes in late and it is invalid. I apologize for this. I will still state my opinion that Moldovan Wikipedia is to be shut down. It has little right to existence.
[edit] Other amendments
If you would like to make other amendments to the Ronline proposal, please do so below:
[edit] Considerations
(please do not edit this section, this is just things to me to consider that people have proposed or that are controversial)
- That we should use the name "Moldovan/Romanian" instead of "Moldovan" in all references in the mo.wikipedia.org (proposed by Domnu Goie)
(I think we should use Moldovan/Romanian on the actual Wikipedia but not externally - interwiki links should be labelled just Moldovan Cyrillic) Ronline 08:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That the mo.wiki works in collaboration with ro.wiki - I agree to this. Ronline 08:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
THIS is a bunch of bullshit. SO, Node Ue shows his true Stalinist colours since he makes all the votes against him invalid, however in his true communist spirit, all the votes that keep this Stalinist sick vikipedia on, can pass? WELL THEN guess what, nobody is going to take this Communist crap for a real vote, NODE! I call for the immediate termination of the vote. Node UE should be provisionally demoted of his role as sysop here since he is acting as if he is second in command only to the "ruler of the universe". What we really need is a group of administrators that are trully neutrals. It is obvious that this situation cannot be handled by Ronline and Nude Ue alone. Someone much higher then "commarde sysop" node should step up here to make some order, because no matter what, this vote is going to go in favor of Node. Why did we even bother to vote then? We should have just said from the beggining: "Let's let Node continue to puke his communist crap all over us, like he did until now!"
Duca 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
- It is amazing the hypocrisy and lack of fairness on the part of some people here. Duca, insofar there have been three people whose votes have been invalidated. They are:
- D.evil - he is qualified to vote, but has not logged in. Duca, no other vote on Wikimedia allows anonymous users to vote. If he logs in, his vote will be accepted.
- Decius - again, he has not logged in! We have to respect policy. And, he doesn't yet qualify for voting because he hasn't contributed to decision making. The reason why we only allow people who have contributed to forming the proposal is because I could then respond to their needs. It angers me very much when people come in the last minute and say, "I didn't have the decency to tell you what's wrong with your proposal before voting and how we should fix it, but now I'm voting against it anyway." I have no record of any Decius contributions either at mo.wiki on negotiation or on the ro.wiki negotiation page.
- Anittas - come on, if we can consider Anittas valid, then I can just form 20 user names and use them to vote for my proposal. I haven't even heard of Anittas before! I'm not going to say he's a sockpuppet, but unknown people who haven't been involved at all can't just turn up to vote.
Finally, think about it closely and fairly, and you'll realise that all people I've invalidated have been because they clearly breach neutral Wikimedia voting policy. If you don't trust me, ask on the Wikimedia mailing list for an independent user to investigate the validity of this vote. If you honestly had any concerns about what's happening to mo.wiki, you should have done so during the proposal negotiation period, not during the voting period. It seems there is a great deal of opposition to my proposal. Then it's perfectly fine to have another negotiation period. But only in the case that people act decently and fairly and stop cheating the voting system. Ronline 4 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
Ron said: Anittas - come on, if we can consider Anittas valid, then I can just form 20 user names and use them to vote for my proposal. I haven't even heard of Anittas before! I'm not going to say he's a sockpuppet, but unknown people who haven't been involved at all can't just turn up to vote.
I'm not a sockpuppet. Here's my profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anittas
You can also find me on this forum: http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm10
I came here after reading in Decius' talkpage about this madness. Since everything to Moldova concerns me, I wanted to have my say.
- Ronline said: "If not a sockpuppet, then someone who has been called in deliberately to vote without contributing to the negotiation and decision-making phase at all." This is quite true. All Wikipedias require that you be logged-in to vote. Many Wikipedias require that you have a certain number of contributions. Some require that you've been registered for a certain amount of time. Certainly, the opinion of an unregistered member who has not been involved does count for something, but they are not allowed to vote. --Node ue 5 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
-
- Anittas - sorry for saying you're a sockpuppet. I hope you understand now why your vote can't be counted. However, your opinion remains very valid and we will consider it. If there is opposition to this project, I said I would assure it gets heard. If the Ronline proposal for mo.wiki does not get passed, then surely we will have another round of negotiations in which you can take part, and at the end vote. Thanks again for voicing your opinion, Ronline 5 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
[edit] A Sour Independent Comment
I'm Gutza, and don't worry, I won't vote. But I find this whole voting thing ridiculous, for lack of a better word. As I understand it, only people who happened to stumble upon this page among all pages on the Internet are allowed to vote. Is it because that makes them smarter than all the other people? No, they just stumbled upon this page at the right time, and had an opinion to share (or shout, I won't go into that). Is it because that makes them a representative sample of people's opinions on this topic? Nope, they just came here by pure chance at the right time to contribute to the dispute. Then why? Well, because they themselves decided so.
Who do you think you are, a bunch of people meeting by accident and banning everybody else from having a valid vote in deciding the fate of an entire Wikipedia, by the mere fact that everybody else wasn't involved in one particular quarrel? Oh, wait, not only that, but everybody else must also accept the consequences of your votes. Do you envisage yourselves as some sort of "wise men council" or something? By what account? Whose power do you represent?
I'm stumped by this lack of vision on the part of many of you: don't you realize that your voting outcome will never stand up to any reasonable challenge? Regardless of the "side" which loses the argument, they can (and most probably will) challenge the outcome to "higher powers", bringing the argument of the ludicrousness of the voting procedure and limitations. You're wasting your time with this thing.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the mo.wiki "issue" settled once and for all, but I'm quite certain this "insider voting" procedure won't accomplish that by any stretch of imagination, and it's also offensive to other contributors.
One last word, don't imagine that I expect -- or even desire -- to be "accepted" for voting following my comment. I didn't write this comment out of vanity, I will say it loud and clear: I will not cast a vote in these conditions, I hope that settles that. I wrote this comment for your sake, because you're wasting your time on this thing. (And, to be perfectly honest, also because I was outraged by your incredibly arrogant and hypocritical attitude -- you talk about democracy but only allow yourselves to vote.) Go back to the drawing board, make the voting process public, place proper announcements in outstanding places, as usual when important decisions are made (and this is one of the most important possible decisions, it can concievably lead to wiping out an entire Wikipedia), give people time to vote, and then you'll have a proper voting procedure. And maybe -- just maybe --, then you could keep your fingers crossed and hope this will have been settled. --Gutza 6 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
- So, Gutza, if there is a vote to shut ro.wiki down (for some odd reason), who can vote? Only ro.wikipedians? Or any person who shows up, and may even be a sockpuppet? --Node ue
Oh, no, here's how it would go: some random user would create a sub-page of their user page, suggestively entitled "Propunere" and carefully un-advertised. Then, we would check for a while who edited that page. At some random point in time, after a representative sample of under 10 users is achieved, we would hold a vote on that sub-page, allowing only those people to vote. That's how it would go -- because that's democraticy in action, you see? --Gutza 7 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
- Wow, that's worse than hypocritical! You tell us we're doing it wrong... yet you wouldn't even allow people who edit regularly on ro.wikipedia?? We allowed all people who have edited a few times here, even if they never found the "Propunere" page on ro.wiki. In fact, I don't even think the people that found it there, should be allowed to vote. --Node ue 7 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
Ummm, apparently you missed the fact that I was being sarcastic and described your voting procedure: "Only the following people may vote: Ronline, Dmitriid, Danutz, Node ue, Domnu Goie, Duca, Mihaitza, Romihaitza, D.evil, Landroni (I may have missed a few people here... I don't think I have, but maybe I have. If you feel you have the right to vote - as in, you've contributed to the decision-making and negotation here - then say so, please.)" --Gutza 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
- Gutza, that's Ronline's exact text and not mine. However, there are no people at mo.wiki who are mo.wikipedians but were _not_ involved in the earlier decision process, so by definition Ronline's rules include all mo.wikipedians, just as all ro.wikipedians would be allowed to vote in an election concerning the immediate future of ro.wikipedia. --Node ue 8 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
The fact that it's Ronline's text and not yours is irrelevant, I haven't named any names -- I wasn't being bitter towards you personally, but rather to this whole joke of a decision process. 10 people who happened to be around here shouldn't decide the fate of a Wikipedia. But you do have a point, I didn't know there were no other active mo.wikipedians besides the very few who voted here (how many are they? 4 or 5? The rest seem to be ro.wikipedians...) At any rate, if indeed you allowed all the active mo.wikipedians to participate in this process, then there is nothing you could have done better (I'm not sarcastic). It's just unfortunate that only a handful of people get to decide the medium term future of a Wikipedia... again, not that you could've done anything about it, I just find it unfortunate. Maybe you could post a note on the main page or somewhere very visible pointing to this decision process, and explaining that when a critical mass of contributors will form, a new referendum will give them the opportunity to decide where they want their Wikipedia to go. Good luck building a community as soon as possible, to decide your own fate!
On a personal note, I appreciate your calm throughout this exchange, that's what makes a good sysop! :-) --Gutza 8 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
[edit] Results and conclusion
The vote has ended. The winner is the Ronline proposal with the Dmitriid amendment. Here is a review of the voting:
- Ronline proposal: Ronline, Dmitriid, Node ue, Romihaitza, Danutz
- mo.wiki to be closed down: Duca, Mihaitza, Domnu Goie, D.evil (did not confirm)
Hence, the Ronline proposal won 5-4, if D.evil's vote is considered. With 56% of the votes, the Ronline proposal will enter into force on July 24, 2005. All who voted for the Ronline proposal also voted for the Dmitriid amendment, which will consequently also come into force at that date.
Of course, a new vote may be called at any time, provided that there are 45 days in between votes. Gutza said that the few people who are voting here shouldn't decide the fate of a Wikipedia. That's true. However, at this moment in time, the majority of the mo.wiki community favours the Ronline proposal. In 45 days' time, anyone is welcome to suggest a new proposal and put it up for voting. Campaigning, of course, is allowed. So, for those who are not happy with the result here, they can feel free to continue lobbying for the closure of mo.wiki and put it up for vote in 45 days' time (24 August, at the earliest). 44% of the votes called for such a closure, which is a big message regarding the future of the mo.wiki.
Now, there is one more issue - the sysop election. What do people think about that? Ronline 09:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ready, but it really looks like all the sudden activity here is dead now. In the last few days, the only edits have been by me and a few by Gutza. --Node ue 14:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've been "monitoring" the voting process somewhat. I've had loads of work these past weeks. And I might be left without reliable access to Internet next month or so :( Dmitriid 12:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, those that voted for the dimitriid proposal are only one person more then those that voted for closure. Nevertheless, we should all respect the result, because those that opted for closure would have expected the same thing from the current winning party, had things turned out differently. About the dead activity, at least on my part, I did not want to get into the pointless fights. I wanted to wait and see what happens. Considering that more people have shown up, I will reserve the right to call for another vote on August 24'th which will include this time, all the people that have been rejected this past vote. Also I think right now it is a good time to elect a new second sysop. I propose Ronline for the job.
Mihaitza 19:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that Dmitriid would be better for the job. --Node ue 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I would also propose Ronline for the job. If I get voted, I will not turn the proposal down. However, I don't think I am well suited for this kind of job. Dmitriid 12:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to ask something: Is there any activity here? If so, which persons do this activity? See this. Here states so: Node ue, Vertaler , Ronline are the only 3 contributors here. But nobody has more than 30 contributions. As I understand now is Node ue sysop ... let him continue his job and if is not good, he can be desysoped. Also, there can be more sysops. Is anybody bureaucrat? I have so many questions because I really don't know many infos about this wiki project. Let's have some weeks and see who contributes? Who know so good Cyrilic and is able and have time to spare for this... Waiting can be a good process. - Romihaitza 13:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC) (I finish for now)
-
-
- The answer to this is: There is no bureaucrat. Dmitriid is fluent in Romanian and can write Cyrillic, though his native language is Russian. Ronline is a native speaker of Romanian but he is a beginner in Cyrillic (to be fair, he is good at it sofar). I can speak Romanian, but not well, since it is not my everyday language and I don't use it much anymore. I think my Cyrillic is pretty good, though not perfect. I think that if Dmitriid has enough time, he will be a good admin. Ronline will be a good admin too, but I don't think he is as good at Cyrillic as Dmitriid (after all, Dmitriid learnt to write Romanian in Cyrillic at school). I have a lot -- a lot -- of time, but my Moldovan is not so good. So it's not a straight decision... --Node ue
- I think we could opt for a decision, worthy of King Solomon. We could have three sysops :) Dmitriid 11:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- The answer to this is: There is no bureaucrat. Dmitriid is fluent in Romanian and can write Cyrillic, though his native language is Russian. Ronline is a native speaker of Romanian but he is a beginner in Cyrillic (to be fair, he is good at it sofar). I can speak Romanian, but not well, since it is not my everyday language and I don't use it much anymore. I think my Cyrillic is pretty good, though not perfect. I think that if Dmitriid has enough time, he will be a good admin. Ronline will be a good admin too, but I don't think he is as good at Cyrillic as Dmitriid (after all, Dmitriid learnt to write Romanian in Cyrillic at school). I have a lot -- a lot -- of time, but my Moldovan is not so good. So it's not a straight decision... --Node ue
-
Well we were supposed to have a vote, right? I think Domnu Goie will be a good sysop since we need a little ballance here. So if he accepts then we will have three people running for the job. It is more democratic that way and on top of that, it will give a lot of varriation as to the choice for the second sysop. We should also have a vote if we want to kick Node Ue out or not. I noticed a lot of people want him to stay but considering the situation, I think a vote( of confidence if you will) is needed.
Duca 06:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sysop election proposals
There are currently two ways we can go about deciding sysops:
- Hold an election for a second sysop, where anyone can candidate. Node will have to pass through a vote of confidence, where if he receives more than 50%+1 of the total number of votes of eligible voters, he remains a sysop.
- Hold a general sysop election, where Node is also a candidate, and we open two sysop places. Under this model, if Node doesn't come in the top 2, he doesn't remain a sysop. This I think is fairer because Node became sysop without being elected, and Wikipedia policy states that, after some time has passed, that "interim" sysop must pass through a vote. From a neutral point of view, I think it's unfair that Node must go through a different regime than the rest of us, with a vote of confidence. Rather, he should become a candidate in the new elections.
I don't think there should be any skills test to become a sysop candidate. We all know each other pretty well, so those that aren't particularly good at either Moldovan or Cyrillic will probably get voted less and the most qualified candidate will more votes. Therefore, it's not worth sorting people before the election. What do others think? Ronline 09:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think we need to be careful. If Goie or Duca becomes a sysop, I do not think they can be trusted to manage this Wikipedia. Will they delete all pages and ban all users?? Or something else equally bad, without community consensus? It's noted on the English Wikipedia that "Wikipedia is not necessarily democratic". What this usually means is, if someone is elected to sysop by a majority, if the bureaucrat thinks for a good reason that they shouldn't be (for example bad temper, record of vandalism, or something like that), then they won't become sysop even though the majority voted for them. Here of course we have no bureaucrat. And I do not think it would be right to have an un-democratic election. But, I do think we need something to safeguard against having someone become sysop who may just delete the whole thing, against the results of the previous vote. So I say, wait a bit longer before the sysop election, until things have cooled down a bit more and by then hopefully this will have changed a little from a "crisis community" to an "encyclopedia-community". --24.251.198.251
-
- Well, it's an important point to consider. It's like the analogy to election of governments. Some people believe that any party (including fascist Nazi parties for example) should be able to stand for office, because if they can't be trusted then they won't be voted, and no regulation needs to be placed on that matter. If indeed they are voted, then they deserve to be in office because it's the will of the majority. However, others say that democracy is only really majority rule, or mob rule, and that it needs to be regulated for the common good rather than the good for the majority. So, you're right in saying that theoretically there needs to be a safeguard. However, people will only vote with people they will trust, so if one can't be trusted, he's unlikely to be voted. I also think that both Domnu Goie and Duca can be trusted. The fact that they voted against the proposal doesn't mean they aren't members of this community, and the point here is that if they don't agree with this Wikipedia, they're unlikely to become candidates anyway. I think it looks bad to exclude them from having the ability to vote when many points raised by them have been valid (yes, at the start everyone was fairly radical and irrational, but both Duca and Domnu Goie have become increasingly logical and rational in their arguments). How about we hold sysop elections towards the end of August? Ronline 08:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed. Ronline, you will _definitely_ get my vote :) (if the election campaign hasn't started yet, feel free to edit this post :) ) Dmitriid 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
-
I definitely think that this is the way to go about it. However, Node ue should be a candidate as well, and I certainly think that just like Ronline has mentioned before, the first two automatically should become sysops. It’s very important that this rule does not only hold true in Node’s case but in the case of anyone who manages to come in second. Like Ronline has mentioned, this is, after all, a democratic procedure which does not include favoritism on anyone’s part. On top of that, as I understand the situation, Node has no more legal right to be sysop then anybody here, because he was not elected democratically. Node, I do not mean this personally, but one has to be considerate and fair when approaching these new elections. Also, I think it’s really out of the question of anybody erasing all the pages at this point. We have just decided that a new vote will be held 45 days away from the last one. I have already called for this right to be exercised precisely on August 24th. Anyways, without a 50 + 1 vote, any attempt to erase the Moldovan Wikipedia will be not only undemocratic but unacceptable.
We should also make a timetable in an organized fashion, concerning the starting date of the campaign and the due date of all candidacies to be submitted, as well as due dates for registring the valid voters. There should be about 1 week in between all these events as well as about 3 days-1 week in between the final day of voting and August 24th, when all results should be announced and the new sysops confirmed. Mihaitza 00:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Firstly - Mihaitza, a vote will not be held every 45 days unless called. Otherwise it's superflous. However, you have the right to call a vote (such as a vote of confidence in the Ronline proposal or a vote in a new proposal for mo.wiki) for the earliest August 25. I really don't recommend, however, that you do something like that because we need to elect a sysop, and forcing "proposal" elections every 45 days will not result in that particularly well. A sysop election can and will be held on August 24. My proposed timetable for sysop elections is:
-
- 24 July-4 August: candidacy registration for sysops
- 4 August-14 August: voting registration
- 14 August-24 August: voting
- 24 August: results announced
- As to Node, I agree that Node doesn't have a special right in comparison to anyone else - hence, he has the right to candidate for the election and must be treated like any other candidate.
- I also propose that along with the sysop election, we conduct a vote on the implementation of a "safeguard clause" (this word pops up often in Romania and Bulgaria, doesn't it ;) ) which will not permit sysops to delete the Moldovan Wikipedia unless it is agreed upon by a majority of the community (through a vote). They also don't have the right to change any of the current "elements" of the Moldovan Wikipedia, as outlined in the Ronline proposal, unless a vote is called.
- Just a side note to any Romanians here: the article about Căile Ferate Române, our national railway carrier, on the English Wikipedia will be featured article on the Main Page (!) on July 22. This is the first Romania-related article to make it as featured on the Main Page and is a significant achievement for the Romanian Wikimedia community. Ronline 06:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The time-table sounds good. At the same time, I would like to accept Duca's initiative and I would like to register my candidacy. About the issue of a new vote within 45 days, I think that if anybody here wants to call for a vote on August 24, then by all means that person is entitled to that right, regardless of the opinion of the others. Although, just like Ronline, I also do not exactly see how it will be easy to concentrate on both sysop elections and the vote. In any case though, that option should be there for each one of us to choose or not to choose.
Domnu Goie 03:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have one idea more. There is no importance if a user is or is not sysop. The important fact is that the project (in this case, Mo Wikipedia) to grow up and to be a good example for others in such same situation. What is the difference between users? This kind of projects are intended to be a comunity in which every one to be equal even if he/she has more rights than the other. I don't think that will be needed many deletions and many page protection and so on... no... important is to have articles, and not any kind of articles but good articles. I don't say to you to have Ro's example. My opinion is that Ro is not a good example. It's true that Ro is in good position now (17th Wikipedia) by articles but please remember that ro has many many stubs which aren't the best solution for a enciclopedia. It's not important to me to find out that Dog is an animal, maybe a mamoo. No, I need many more infos, I know this. So, my opinion for you is: Do a good job, not just a job. Ok, I'll stop. See ya - Romihaitza 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)