Utilizator:Ronline/Propunere

Де ла Википедия ын лимба молдовеняскэ

Arhivă

Propunere pentru vot

Aş vrea să vă aduc la cunoştinţă in limba pe care Node Ue, actualul administrator pretinde că o cunoaşte, că incă nu am rezolvat chestiunea votului pentru un nou sisop. Între timp a apărut încă un candidat, aş zice eu, cel mai bun candidat de până acum pentru că nu numai că ştie limba română dar şi se pare ca este moldovean, deci însfârşit avem posibilitatea de a avea un moldovean, administrator la o vichipedie moldovenească. Propun deci un vot nou in prima zi al lunii octombrie iar pe Jiorjikă drept noul administrator. Domnu Goie 00:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

mo-la: Aş vrea să vă aduc la cunoştinţă in limba pe care Node Ue, actualul administrator pretinde că o cunoaşte, că încă nu am rezolvat chestiunea votului pentru un nou sisop. Între timp a apărut încă un candidat, aş zice eu, cel mai bun candidat de pînă acum pentru că nu numai că ştie limba română dar şi se pare ca este moldovean, deci însfîrşit avem posibilitatea de a avea un moldovean, administrator la o vichipedie moldovenească. Propun deci un vot nou in prima zi al lunii octombrie iar pe Jeorjikă drept noul administrator.

mo-cy: Аш вря сэ вэ адук ла куноштинцэ ин лимба пе каре Node Ue, актуалул администратор претинде кэ о куноаште, кэ ынкэ ну ам резолват кестиуня вотулуй пентру ун ноу сисоп. Ынтре тимп а апэрут ынкэ ун кандидат, аш зиче еу, чел май бун кандидат де пынэ акум пентру кэ ну нумай кэ штие лимба ромынэ дар ши се паре ка есте молдовян, дечь ынсфыршит авем посибилитатя де а авя ун молдовян, администратор ла о википедия молдовеняскэ. Пропун дечь ун вот ноу ин прима зи ал луний октомбрие яр пе Жеоржикэ дрепт ноул администратор.

1) I don't pretend to know it any more than you do. If I did pretend, how is it I wrote original content?? 2) The only person with a question about a vote for a new sysop is you. The REAL community here is doing fine. 3) Jeorjika has only 3 edits total, all to the same page. None of Jeorjika's edits are to content pages. I think that means Jeorjika will make a horrible admin. Similarly, we won't make Vertaler an admin. 4) You have 42 edits total, only 6 of which were to content pages. I would say this means you are not a legitimate contributor, and therefore should not be allowed to vote or propose a vote. 5) Regardless of who ends up being allowed to vote, it will definitely not include any of the friends you tried to get to vote last time. If it's not even further limited, it will be limited to the same people the last vote was limited to, with the possible exception of Jeorjika. 6) I'm curious as to what I've done wrong as an administrator. Would you remind me ? --Node ue 03:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Node, sometimes you really make me laugh. I think you are missing the point of what I am trying to say so I am going to be nice enough to remind you again. Votes are called votes because they infer some kind of a democratic system. That means everyone with an opinion can vote. IF other wikipedias have this sort of rule with the 25 contribution thing, it is so because other wikipedias initially have VOTED for their sysops and they have a community that had a consensus beforehand that you must make 25 contributions to vote. Now going back to our little special situation, YOU are by no means democratically elected. As a result you have very little legitimacy to set the rules of the game alone. Secondly, just because YOU say that we must all have 25 contributions to vote, does not make it so since like I said before: nobody has voted for you hence your legitimacy is 0. If you are so convinced that you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear, right? According to you, you are such a good sysop that most likely you will keep your administrator rights ;) Domnu Goie 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, your little friends such as Anittas were not allowed to vote in the last election. Did they have opinions? Yes. Is this antidemocratic? No, because the rules were clearly defined beforehand and nobody objected.
Na.wiki established rules about votes and contributions without a popular vote, and the person who made the rules was not elected sysop by a popular vote.
Let me rephrase it this way: what gives you teh right to make decisions for this Wikipedia? Have you made any contributions to it whatsoever? Yes, your 6 lame little contributions to articles such as making links. Have you made any contributions in the last month? No. Have you made more than 10 contributions? NO.
What I am worried about isn't being judged by mo.wikipedians. It's about being judged by people you call in from outside -- all your little friends may come here and end up voting. Do I have friends I could call to vote? Yes. But I have integrity. I will only call my friends in if you first call your friends in, and even then it won't be fair. It is unreasonable to let everyone vote in an election.
Was I allowed to vote in the last Romanian election? No... HOW ANTIDEMOCRATIC!!!! But wait, I don't live in Romania, and I'm not a Romanian citizen. Limits must be established on who can and cannot vote, otherwise everyone in the world might vote even though they have no legitimate connection to it. --Node ue 12:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I also think we should have a sysop election. The same people should be allowed to vote as voted last time for the Ronline proposal. We cannot go on being led undemocratically. I'm not saying Node hasn't done a good job, but he needs to be confirmed democratically. I propse we have a candidature and then for each sysop people vote either in approval or disapproval. The following users should vote: Ronline, Gabix, Jeorjika, Dmitriid, Node ue, Romihaitza, Danutz, Duca, Mihaitza, Domnu Goie, D.evil. Domnu Goie, you can also propose a change to the current system since 45 days have passed since the implementation of my proposal. Ronline 13:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ronline, you forgot Anittas.Domnu Goie 18:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he "forgot" about your little friend Anittas.

We should also not forget Landroni and Oleg Alexandrov two Moldovans that have stated their opinions before and who, in my opinion should have a say as well since after all this wikipedia is supposed to be about a language that they allegedly speak. It would really be ridiculous if an american-jew gets to vote and run for sysop and if romanians from romania get to vote and if russians from moldova or russia get to vote and if the whole world gets to vote but the actual real moldovans don't.Domnu Goie 16:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Landroni and Oleg Alexandrov voting. Landroni, I'm not sure, but O.A. is already a member in good standing of an established Wikipedia (enwiki).
Now, I wonder where you get the idea to call me an "american-jew" (I remember on enwiki you said "homo")?? Or calling Dmitriid and Gabix Russians? You are obviously using the intellectual elitist definition of "moldovan" which is promoted by the Moldovan-speaking elite of Chisinau, which includes no people whose recent ancestors are from Russia or the Ukraine.
The criteria Ronline is using is not nationality (it would be rediculous to say "everybody but moldovans may vote"), but rather activity. Those users specified by Ronline have had at least minimal activity at this Wikipedia in the last two or three months. Gabix, Jeorjika, and Dmitriid, all Moldovans, were included in Ronline's list. Now, Mihaitza and yourself still claim Moldovan doesn't exist. Do you also make the ridiculous claim that "nobody uses Cyrillic"?? Or do you say "people who use Cyrillic should be ignored", like Mario? Also, see User:Ronline/Alegeri pentru administratori. --Node ue 07:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone in the right mind would claim that "Moldovan" doesn't exist. Even you said it yourself that you do not dispute the fact that Moldovan is Romanian. About me calling you a "homo", I don't think I have ever explicitly done that. And I don't understand why you took offence in me calling you an american-jew. You made that equal with "homo" as if it was meant as an insult. I simply stated that since you are jewish( I think you said that yourself somewhere, if I am not mistaken-if I am excuse me) and you are also american. That makes an american-jew. If you were jewish and living in moldova, you would have been a moldovan-jew. and so on and so fourth... To me Dimitriid speaks Romanian and he is a Moldovan but I do not know about Gabix. In general, Russians like Dimitriid are an exception in Moldova. Most Russians there hate the Romanians. I think Georjika mentioned it somewhere. It would be very interesting to ask him for more info. So Node, take a chill pill and stop being so paranoid. I am not trying to insult you at every turn. Having said that, I really hope that Jeorjika gets elected because we really do need a different sysop here that is not motivated by politics and a strange hate for Romanians.Domnu Goie 13:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

After what you said ("we really do need a different sysop here that is not motivated by politics and a strange hate for Romanians"), I'm again wondering exactly what abuse of sysop powers I may have done to so upset you. I didn't put text on the mainpage that says "ROMANIA SUCKS", or anything like that. As noted by others earlier (I think Romihaitza, Dmitriid, Oleg Popov, and Gabix said it), while you may not like what I have to say on talkpages, I have certainly not inserted POV into content pages. I don't hate Romania or Romanians, as I've noted before. It seems that you have a hatred for Russians, much more than I would ever have a "hatred for Romanians". I don't have a hatred for Romanians. I like people like Ronline who are nice, polite, and friendly, regardless of their nationality. However, I dislike people like you who are loud, rude, and mean, regardless of their nationality. I don't like Moldovans, Russians, Romanians, Americans, Canadians, Chinese, or anybody else who is loud and rude and mean, their nationality is irrelevant. And, remind me again of your contributions to this Wikipedia? Just last night, I did more work on the URSS article (which, by the way, is a copy of the Romanian article -- if I were really a Stalinist, don't you think I'd take out whatever bad things it says about the URSS? But I didn't, because that would be POV, and because they're an essential part of history that can't be excluded). I'm going to write an original article about cabbage, since I feel I need a break from transliterating other people's work. You like to criticise me... that's fine, but I don't think you have much of a right until you have done as much work for this Wikipedia as have I. --Node ue 21:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

View by Oleg Alexandrov (English version)

I am from Moldova, and my native language is Romanian (Moldavian if you wish). I am currently working at the University of California, Los Angeles, United States.

I tried to read through this page, but it is a very long one, so please forgive me and correct me if I missed something.

It seems that it was agreed to merge the Moldovan version with Latin letters with the Romanian version. About the cyrlilic version, I would really be interested: how many people actually know the Moldovan language with the cyrlillic script and are willing to contribute to this Wikipedia? I worried that this project will fail to grow.

I would support an election for administrators, with Node ue candidating again. However, it would be good if the candidates be indeed people who really want to push this project forward, and that the voting not be based on polytical views, rather on how likely a person is a good admin. (I would vote for Node ue to be elected, as it seems that this user indeed cares about the project.)

en:User:Oleg Alexandrov 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I don't know exactly how many people use Moldovan with Cyrillic, but so far we have gotten contributors who do, like Gabix and Vertaler. I would hope that in the future, if Transnistria becomes more free, Moldovans there would be able to contribute, but there is also the possibility that many of them would use Ro.wiki instead. I don't think the sustenance of this Wikipedia is so much of an issue... the bigger issue, I think, is the penchant of certain ro.wikipedians for coming over here and meddling, like trying to vote this Wikipedia to be deleted or something. --Node ue 22:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is wow! That was a pretty comprehensive election platform! I think we do need change, and greater community consultation, because we need to convince people that this Wikipedia is not unfairly favouring the Cyrillic script, but that the only reason we don't have Latin content is because it can be found over at ro.wiki. At the same time, Node has not been as bad as he has been portrayed. I think the sysop electionn should work under an approval system - all candidates must be approved by the majority of people to become sysops, and people can vote for more than one person. In that way, we can have two or three sysops, which I think is important in this highly-controversial environment. My current votes for sysop at the moment would be both Jeorjika and Node. Jeorjika because I think he would be great in bringing about change and heralding in a new era for mo.wiki, and Node because he has contributed quite a lot and I think has served his actual sysop duties, such as interface translation and cleanup, quite well. Ronline 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Părerea utilizatorului Oleg Alexandrov (versiunea romana)

Mai intai, scuze ca nu folosesc caciule pe literele a, i, s, si t. Eu scriu destul de rar in Româna, şi nu am tastatura potrivita.

Aşa, eu sunt din Moldova, limba materna îmi este Româna, deşi am nume Rusesc. Eu pe moment lucrez la Universitatea din California, Los Angeles, in Statele Unite.

Am încercat sa citesc discuţia de mai sus, dar este foarte lunga, deci iertaţi-mă şi corectaţi-mă daca am scăpat ceva.

Se pare ca s-a ajuns la concluzia ca versiunea enciclopediei acestea in caractere latine sa nu fie separata de versiunea romana. Despre versiunea in alfabetul chirilic. Chiar sunt curios, caţi oameni cunosc intradevar limba moldoveneasca cu caractere chirilice suficient de biine şi sunt doritori sa contribuie la acest proiect? Eu ma tem ca acest proiect nu va merge înainte prea mult.

Eu as fi pentru o alegere a administratorilor, cu Node ue candadand iarăşi. Dar ar fi biine ca un potenţial administrator sa fie intradevar interesant de progresul proiectului, şi ca votarea sa fie bazata pe criterii de cat de calificat o anume persoana este, şi nu bazat de păreri politice. (Eu l-as susţine pe Node ue intr-un vot, căci se pare ca acest utilizator intradevar este interesat de acest proiect.) en:User:Oleg Alexandrov 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


My Election-Platform

As many of you know very well, I have offered my candidacy for the sysop position here on the Moldovan Wikipedia.

Some people have hinted (mostly Node ue hinted) that once I will be elected sysop, the first measure that I will take is close down the Moldovan Wikipedia immediately. I think, “kill it” are the actual words he used. Since he did not bother to ask me firsthand to find out if that is true or not, I would like to provide everyone with a plan which I will put into force as soon as I will be elected the new sysop. For the sake of everyone understanding (Node ue & co.) I will post this in English so if I will make mistakes along the way, please forgive me. What I am about to present you, are not just mere promises but a clear plan that I think puts the Moldovan Wikipedia and its community first and politically motivated matters aside:

  • 1) I certainly do not plan to “kill” the Moldovan Wikipedia, unless an overwhelming majority of the members that comprise the Moldovan Wikipedian “community” are for that course of action.
  • 2) The number of articles will have to be increased. It is really outrageous that after such a long time all that this Wikipedia has, is 221 stubs and only a few medium-sized articles. Most articles concern countries and they don’t run for more then a couple of lines. Others like the new URSS one is a clear copy of the Romanian version. What Node ue does is he copy-pastes the Romanian version and then he changes letter by letter the whole thing. I do not think it takes a genius to figure that one out. Regardless if this is so due to Node’s inability to speak the Official Language of Moldova, a Wikipedia once started off, must progress and under Node ue the Moldovan Wikipedia progressed at an extremely slow pace. One of the reasons is that instead of urging people to contribute, he angered parts of the Moldovan Wikipedia community which could have contributed to the Wiki, rather then end up repulsed by it. I strongly believe that everyone should be welcome to participate but I myself will take an initiative to increase the number of articles and write about Moldova’s cities, traditions, known Moldovans, writers, poets, musicians and politicians. Likewise, articles will have to be written that will deal with a variation of fields and subjects: cultural, artistic, scientific, etc. etc.
  • - Node ue or some of you will ask me, why haven’t I already contributed to the Wikipedia? After all, it does look good if you want to be sysop and you already contribute to it, doesn’t it? Well first of all, let me tell you that I am not here to LOOK good. I put forth my candidacy because I see that many people are not happy with the way things are going and I am one of those people. Secondly, until recently when I was just a spectator, not a candidate, I had personal reasons for not contributing for the Wikipedia in its present form. Unlike Node ue who failed to consider other opinions but his own, I am willing to put those personal reasons aside, and once sysop I will take the initiative to increase the quality of the Wikipedia in whatever form the Moldovan Wikipedia community will want me to. I believe that a sysop has more extensive responsibilities then a potential contributor and one of those responsibilities is to listen and do what the majority wants.


  • 3)People will finally be able to cast their opinions and I promise that I will not interfere with them like Node ue has done so far. Comments will be made without me having to immediately repudiate them or attack them. Instead of listening, Node ue has aggravated the situation and irritated the already annoyed users who merely tried to post their reservations and comments. On one hand he talks about internationalism, how we are all equal yet he divides this community into "ro.wikipedians" and the other “good wikipedians”, thus creating further friction. In my view, the job of a sysop is to manage a Wikipedia, increase its number of good-quality articles, not invite fighting and bickering. A sysop is supposed to create a pleasant environment with his/her community, not increase the hostility. Node ue did the total opposite and this is why we have come to this squabbling in the first place.
  • 4) Now some of you have expressed their problems with the existence of this Moldovan Wikipedia. I myself have problems with certain aspects of it. However, it would be totally undemocratic to take a measure that does not have the consent of the community.
  • This is why, I will organize a poll within two weeks of my election which will ask the consultation of the community on the future of the Wikipedia. I think many have a problem with its existence, others with its name, while others would want to see Latin letters instead of Cyrillic letters. Some of you may want it to stay the way it is. All of you have the right to believe the way you do and no sysop should tell any of you that your viewpoints are wrong. You will ALL get to voice your opinions and concerns and a decision will be taken NOT according to MY political views and motivations, but based on YOUR opinions and concerns.
  • 5) Most of all, after reading older comments, I noticed a great inability to be flexible on the part of the current sysop, Node ue. I will not be characterized by this inflexibility because it is my honest opinion that a community can only strive when everyone can feel that they are part of this community and can each contribute something to it. We will really get nowhere if some of us are alienated or pushed to the side because of our beliefs. In some respect that is a lot like a communist-authoritarian system and most of you, I think, will agree with me that we have to do away with that.

Domnu Goie and Ronline have proposed Oct 1st for election-day and if that day will stand and we will go through with this election, I really urge everyone to vote for a change. We have seen what Node ue can do. Not much in terms of good-quality articles, a lot in terms of irritating people and prolonging a fight. I think we can do better.


Thank you.Jeorjika 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


Node ue's Response

    • I'll write in English too since if I wrote in Moldovan Cyrillic, you'd probably not understand. 1) The creation of new articles is not one of the responsibilities of a sysop. See en:Wikipedia:Administrators. 2) Everybody knows that most of the articles here are converted from the Romanian Wikipedia. That was never a secret. I have, however, actually written two or three new articles. The rest are copies, or are written by other people. 3) You say "a Wikipedia once started off, must progress". You must be very inexperienced, if that's your opinion. Please take a look at all of the Wikipedias which don't grow at all, or grow very slowly, such as Sardinian, Friulian, Panjabi, Oriya, Kiganda, Fijian, Laotian, Khmer, Burmese... there are currently over 100 Wikipedias which are only a little bit active or are completely inactive, most of them with not more than a handful of articles. 4) "Instead of urging people to contribute, he angered parts of the Moldovan Wikipedia community which could have contributed to the Wiki" -- you claim you've been observing for a long time, I think you're lying because that's a very uninformed statement. None of the people who were angered wanted to contribute, nor would I consider them members of the community. Examples include Duca, Domnu Goie, Danutz, D.evil, Anittas. None of these people even know how to write Moldovan/Romanian in Cyrillic, and they have all expressed a sincere desire that this Wikipedia be deleted. If I thought there had ever been a chance of any of them contributing, I would've encouraged it. On the other hand, there is Ronline, who is from Romania. He didn't know Cyrillic before, but he took the effort to learn some just so that he could write here. That was a very good thing, and I encouraged it. 5) What articles are written has nothing to do with who is sysop. (again, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators). Any user can write articles. You are welcome to begin your massive campaign of article writing now, and you certainly don't need sysop privelages to do so. In fact, I would encourage it.
    • 1) Who are these people that aren't happy? Duca, Domnul Goie, Danutz, Anittas, D.evil...? Did you know that these people are all Romanians from Romania? That's not speculation, it's truth, because they all say it themselves. These people only come when there is an election, and after it's over, they leave again. Until a few days ago, the only people here were myself and Gabix. 2) You say that I failed to consider opinions other than my own. Obviously, you are ignorant of the history of this Wikipedia. I made a number of compromises, including: giving Latin script in system messages and the main page, before Cyrillic script; changing "Moldoveneasca" to "Moldoveneasca/Romana"; and having the main page as a portal with links to rowiki and the first page here. 3) You seem to be under the illusion that there is a "Moldovan Wikipedia community". Can you name some of the people that are part of this community? 4) A sysop is not the "leader" of a Wikipedia. The responsibilities of a sysop are to carry out tasks such as clearing of vandalism, deletion of pages, translating the interface. It's not like the position of a president or a prime minister. For more on power structure as involves sysops please see en:Wikipedia:Administrators.
    • 1) Any user may post his or her opinion. Even if I am not sysop, I will be able to "immediately repudiate them or attack them". This is completely separate from sysop responsibilities, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators. 2) Internationalism is important. The division between Ro.wikipedians and "Good Wikipedians" is not in opposition to the concept of internationalism. One can be both at the same time, an example of this is User:Ronline. Romanian Wikipedians are welcome here, and I have no problem with them until they try to bend the future of this Wikipedia while at the same time showing little concern for its well-being (users such as Goie and Duca are imports from Romania, none has made any contribution other than poking fun, shouting, making threats, and acting abusive in general). 3) The responsibilities of a sysop are not open to interpretation. They have already been clearly defined. Your views are incorrect -- sysops have no responsibility to create new content. That's not to say they shouldn't, of course. Again, see the Administrator pages on the Romanian and English Wikipedias, which explain the responsibilities of a sysop. 4) Again, you seem to be under the illusion that there is some sort of community here. Can you kindly list which users are members of this community, because up until now I didn't know such a community existed.
    • 1) There was already a vote held on that. 2) Latin vs Cyrillic has already been discussed as well. It was agreed that to have content in Latin letters would be a duplication of the content on ro.wikipedia. 3) It seems a bit obvious that you're politicking here with all of these remarks in boldface. Decisions are made democratically here, and it's always been that way. Opinions are listened to. People who are polite are answered politely. Apparently, you think all decisions here have been made by me. That's not true; they have been made democratically. The original purpose of this page was a vote on whether this Wikipedia should exist and a number of other things. The vote already concluded. The decision was completely democratic. Not once have I said "Well, I'm the sysop, and I'm in charge, and I'll just do whatever I want".
    • 1) There have been quite a few compromises on my part already, and anything that was voted by a majority, I did, even if I did not really like it. You think I have an inability to be flexible, you have not been watching this Wikipedia as carefully as you say. 2) If you expect people like Duca and Goie to ever contribute anything to this Wikipedia, you have another thing coming. From the beginning, their sole motive has been the destruction of this Wikipedia. Anyone is allowed to contribute already. I have not limited this. That is the point of Wikipedia. 3) In a communist-authoritarian system, dissenters are killed, deported, or otherwise oppressed. Here, they may express their opinions. A denouncing or harsh reply from me is not a form of oppression. As a sysop, next to the username of every user there is a button that says "block". If I push this button, that person will not be able to express their opinion, or edit any page at all. I HAVE NEVER USED THE BLOCK BUTTON, even against incredibly persistently annoying pests who don't intend to contribute such as Duca and Goie.
  • One thing that I've gotten from this is that a new user does not make a good candidate, because you don't seem to recognise what the responsibilities of a sysop are. It is not the responsibility of a sysop to create new articles. Whether or not you are sysop, you may create as many good-quality articles as you want. You don't need special privelages for this. --Node

Jeorjika's response to Node's response

Node please take no offence but it's so much easier for me to see your reply like this, rather then go back into what I wrote and read every single paragraph point by point. I hope you won't mind that I took all your responses and compiled them into one.

To sum it up, your response is mainly about my knowledge of sysop responsibilities.

  • I am very well aware that a sysop is not a leader of a wikipedia. In fact, if you take a better look at my platform, that is exactly what I am trying to say myself. The problem that I am trying to bring forth is that it is not me, but you that tries to seem like a leader here. I commend you on your restraint from banning people but even you, I think, know that is totally unacceptable and unprofessional.
  • As far as other matters are concerned you have taken quite a leader-like attitude and that is what I wanted to point out. Just read your own responses and comments and I hope you will see what I am trying to say. You talk about “you defending the Moldovan wikipedia”, “you agreeing to do this” and “you agreeing to do that”, “change Moldovan to Moldovan/Romanian” but that is what a leader does don’t you agree? And isn't it you that wanted to restrict the number of voters? To me that not only sounds leader-like but rather dictatorial. A sysop according to you (and me too for that matter) should not do that. A sysop is more or less like any other member of the community. He should not give the tone of the content of the wikipedia. You did that. That is quite leader-like as well. So you see, now you understand what I was trying to point out. It is not me that does not know what a sysop is supposed to do but it is you that have exceeded your responsibilities as sysop.
  • You say I am inexperienced when I say that a Wikipedia should progress. Again I think that it is exactly the opposite. It seems to me very strange that you believe that a Wikipedia should not progress. Well then? Where would we all be if this is how everyone would think? The whole Wikipedia project would have been a failure from day 1.

* I think this just shows that if you created this Wikipedia without the ultimate goal to make it progress, well then, this only shows some hidden political agenda on you part. I think it was a mistake for you to say that so bluntly. A lot of people that believed in the project will have second thoughts about it after hearing WHY you really insisted with it if not for progress. What is the goal of the Moldovan Wikipedia then?

  • You have pointed out that a sysop’s responsibilities are only housekeeping, clearing of vandalism, deletion of pages, translating the interface. Yes, that is true, but I never said it will be my duty to take an initiative in articles or that it is a sysop’s duty to do that; I simply said I will do it because it is my personal belief that a sysop should not limit himself to those basic requirements on en:Wikipedia:Administrators (again keeping with my first point, these requirements are not to be understood as something like a leader, rather a person that through his example motivates others to participate as well). Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe that’s what you did – just limit yourself to the basic requirements while acting as if the wikipedia is yours alone and look how we ended up.
  • This is why to tell you the truth, I think we need change here. Jeorjika 03:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) I don't recall trying to seem like a leader. You might be interested to know that at the beginning of this conflict, I was not a sysop. The only reason I requested it was for interface translation, and clean up after vandalism. Me "defending" this Wikipedia against trolls like Goie when they even said I was a KGB agent started before I was a sysop. This does not make me a leader, just because I defend the reasons for this Wikipedia's existence against criticism.
    • 2) You must really not have been here very long. The reason I had to agree to things isn't because I'm in a position of leadership, but rather because the actions that were being discussed included editing or moving of protected pages, a privelage which is limited to sysops.
    • 3) Ronline has also set up rules for votes. Does that make him a leader? And ultimately, when he disagreed with my ideas for limiting votes to people who had made a certain number of contributions (so as to exclude Goie and Duca, the Transylvanian Trolls), I didn't argue with him. Is that something a leader does?
    • 4) What do you mean "the tone of the content of the Wikipedia"?? Are you accusing me of injecting articles with POV?
    • 5) It seems contradictory to me that you say "but it is you that have exceeded your responsibilities as sysop", and then later you say "you... just limit yourself to the basic requirements". So which is it? Did I limit myself to the basic requirements, or did I exceed my responsibilities? You can't have it both ways.
    • 6) You have MISQUOTED me. I said that you were inexperienced in saying that "a Wikipedia, once created, must progress" (emphasis is mine). Not should, but must. I agree that it should progress. But I don't have all the time in the world. I donate much of my spare time to this Wikipedia. At the same time, I think it's a bit hypocritical that you're criticising my production speed when you yourself haven't written a single article here. Writing articles is not fast. Writing articles takes time. That we have over 200 articles with only 2 active contributors (at the moment) is impressive, and better than anyone could have ever expected. The Sicilian Wikipedia has about 10 times as many articles, but they have many more contributors and have been active for quite a while longer. The Breton Wikipedia is only barely bigger than the Moldovan Wikipedia, yet they have plenty of contributors. If you are concerned with the speed of growth, don't point your finger at me and tell everyone I've failed. Do something about it -- start writing articles. As I said before, you don't need to be a sysop to write an article. You could at least write one before the election, couldn't you? You know, to show people how good your writing is??
    • 7) I DID NOT CREATE this Wikipedia. It has existed for a very long time now. When I came here, it was practically empty and had already been existing for a few months. I turned it from nothing into something. Had I not done that, I think it's very likely that it would still be completely empty today.
    • 8) The goal of the Moldovan Wikipedia is to create a free, complete, neutral encyclopaedia which can be read by all Moldovans, including those educated in the oppressive Transnistrian separatist schools. In other words, the goal is to progress. (hopefully, this will eventually include a separate Wikipedias for Gagauz and Romany languages). However, you are trying to place a requirement of speed, and make it appear as if I have some sort of obligation to create a certain amount of articles in a certain amount of time. I create articles at my convenience. I have a life, I can't be writing here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you don't have a life, feel free to write until the cabbage rots, but of course you don't need to be a sysop to do that.
    • 9) You said "a Wikipedia once started off, must progress and under Node ue the Moldovan Wikipedia progressed at an extremely slow pace" (italics are mine). This seems to me to imply that I have failed at some responsibility.
    • 10) If I viewed my sysop duties so narrowly, I wouldn't write any articles at all here. Sure, I have only written 3 original articles so far. But it also takes a long time to transliterate really long articles like Холокауст or Иоан Паул ал 2-ля. Without me, there would be no progress at all here. Most progress to this point is mine, although credit is also due to people like Gabix, Dmitriid, Ronline, and Vertaler.
  • 11) You still didn't answer one of my questions. You said the community isn't satisfied by me. Who is this community you speak of? I don't see a community here. Which users are a part of this so-called "community"? --Node ue 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is wow! That was a pretty comprehensive election platform! I think we do need change, and greater community consultation, because we need to convince people that this Wikipedia is not unfairly favouring the Cyrillic script, but that the only reason we don't have Latin content is because it can be found over at ro.wiki. At the same time, Node has not been as bad as he has been portrayed. I think the sysop electionn should work under an approval system - all candidates must be approved by the majority of people to become sysops, and people can vote for more than one person. In that way, we can have two or three sysops, which I think is important in this highly-controversial environment. My current votes for sysop at the moment would be both Jeorjika and Node. Jeorjika because I think he would be great in bringing about change and heralding in a new era for mo.wiki, and Node because he has contributed quite a lot and I think has served his actual sysop duties, such as interface translation and cleanup, quite well. Ronline 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what to say about who can and can't vote. While on the one hand it seems unfair to a certain degree to restrict voters to people with a certain amount of contributions, on the other hand it also seems unfair to restrict voters to people on a certain whitelist (ie, the list you gave before of people who can vote). But at the same time, if everyone on Earth is allowed to vote, I have no doubt that Goie and Duca will bring in their friends to vote as they tried to do last time. So that is a dilemma. Of course, there was the same dilemma last time, but last time it seemed that the opinions were more varied, and there were more options to choose from (so far, only Duca, Goie, Oleg, you, I, and Jeorjika have shown up in the last week or so, not nearly as large a group as last time). Any restriction of votes could be seen as "dictatorial" and "undemocratic", yet at the same time it would be irresponsible to stand by and watch people stack votes. --Node ue 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ronline, I would like to expose some problems that may arise from your suggestion concerning the vote. If what you are proposing is that each user has two votes and that if one wishes, a user can cast both of his votes for a single candidate twice, then your proposition may work.
If not, I just do not see how this voting process will work. I mean, let’s face it. These two are totally different people. To tell you the truth I was dissapointed after the last vote and I only recently returned to the moldopedia page, after accidentally I was working on an article concerning “Antiromanianism” and Node popped up as usual. Then I thought to myself: “Oh there he is. I am wondering how he’s doing”
As usual? Since, of course, I edit all articles related to Romania and Moldova. --Node ue 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I would put my vote behind Jeorjika is because he is very articulate, has a clear systematic and chronological plan and unlike Node seems polite. Also after his last response to Node’s initial response, he proved that he is also very logical and basically used Node’s own weapons and arguments to prove Node wrong.
I would really like to see Node defend what he did for the past months. The point with the progress of the wikipedia is a very good one. Jeorjika brought in some very interesting questions in a fashion that was not brought before. Node could do a better job answering them.
What I see here is that we are dealing with two very different people. I would not say a pro-Romanian and a pro-Moldovan, rather one is very methodical, while the other seems a little authoritarian.
Node speaks about the job he has done so far but I think we all recognize that he has annoyed some people. Besides it's not that hard to do cleanup. Node is by no means a saint because he did cleanup. Jeorjika speaks of broader things and primarily of working together. Ronline, these two are very incompatible. Surely you can see that. If we put them both as sysops what will happen is that Jeorjika will not be able to carry out his program since that program has a lot of points which Node will never accept. As it is right now, I think a lot of people will be inclined to give Jeorjika a try but they will be very disappointed once Jeorjika will become sysop since his plan is at odds with Node ue who will at best modify it considerably. This will make Jeorjika seem incompetent although it will not really be his fault. The situation will turn from bad to worst; it will be chaotic and even worst then now. This wikipedia can only go one way or the other. The logical way to go about it is to keep only one sysop through a majority vote. Mihaitza 19:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mihai on this one. Also I think that Decius and Gutza should also vote this time. One more thing. I think that if we keep this discussion on the propunere page, which besides us here, nobody knows about, we will actually make it harder for potential moldovan users to find out about something relevant to their wikipedia. That is, unless this is exactly what Node ue wants since he knows very well that most Moldovans are against his project.

Also I would like to point out Node ue's impartial and anti-Romanian attitude on Anti-Romanianism, Moldovan and Romanian language pages which all deal with Romanians in one form or another. How can such a person with a biased POV against Romanians be a sysop of a wikipedia?

Domnu Goie 02:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • 1) I am not anti-Romanian. This has been discussed many times before, and each time I confront you about it, you never respond. To toss around accusations of anti-Romanianism is a serious thing, and it is certainly not something you should do if you're not willing to defend your accusations.
  • 2) "Impartial" means "neutral". Perhaps you meant "non-impartial"? And certainly, even you wouldn't want to say that en:Anti-Romanianism was originally (though not anymore, thanks to Bogdangiusca) a bad article with lots of unreferenced accusations?
  • 3) You have interpreted my edits as "anti-Romanian attitude". On the contrary, not once did I insert anything distinctly anti-Romanian. Can you give me an example of an edit that is without question anti-Romanian? Or is this another one of your baseless accusations?
  • 4) You are the same person who just a couple of days ago said about me "He is a Stalinisto-Communisto-ex-KGB Smirnovist agent trying to fuck up people's minds". Now, do I accuse people of rediculous things like that? That accusation is so rediculous, it made Bogdan laugh when I told him, even though we have been at odds over Moldova-related articles on the English Wikipedia for a few weeks now.
  • 5) This is not "my project". It is a Wikipedia, editable by all, and a good deal of the content is written by people like Ronline and Gabix. Also, as of yet you have offered no proof that most Moldovans are against it. So far, the vast majority of comments on this Wiki are from Romanians rather than Moldovans -- Duca, yourself, Danutz, Mihai, etc., etc. If you want to pay Gallup to conduct a national opinion poll in Moldova on this Wikipedia, you are welcome to, but it will cost a lot of money and chances are the majority will never have even known this Wikipedia exists. If "most Moldovans" are against it, why is it that the Moldovans who have visited here so far are split about 50-50? Oleg Alexandrov doesn't seem to be against it, Gabix, Vertaler, and Dmitriid weren't against it... Landroni was against it, but he only ever made 3 posts to this Wikipedia. I thought Jeorjika was against it, but now I'm not so sure.
  • 6) Your continued ad hominem attacks serve only to discredit your arguments. A bit of advice: when you argue, go for the other person's statement, rather than their character. When you do that, you are more likely to win, and you don't appear as a mosquito. --Node ue 03:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice a little more ;) As far as the rest is concerned, you are just tipically trying to diffuse the matter( as always) by getting around the subject at hand. Just stick to the discussion, stop trying to move around it. I see no reason why I should respond to you. I think facts are there for everyone to see and by now most of us know exactly who we are dealing with. People are always welcome to go on those pages and see for themselves your possition on the matter.Domnu Goie 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Ahh... so, make baseless accusations against me, and when confronted, rather than defending them you tell me I'm off-topic? I wouldn't expect any differently of you, Goie ;) --Node ue 16:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

New topics: Vote stacking and influencing by an old friend, and hopeful nervousness about Jeorjika

Hi everybody, first of all, I would like to raise the issue of unfair vote stacking and influencing which is already taking place, done by our good friend domnul Goie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Domnu_Goie You can see that his most recent contributions are telling people about the sysop election. That's a good thing -- people should know about it so they can vote.

HOWEVER, I feel that the content of the messages he posts are crossing the line, with infiammatory and vote-influencing language like "Interesul lui node nu este sa asculte si pe ceilalti ci sa imprastie propaganda stalinisto-smirnovista", "Încercăm sa organizăm un vot ... pentru al înlocui cu un moldovean care măcar ştie limba şi care nu este românofob ca Node ue", "După cum se ştie, unicul sysop acolo este Node ue, un românofob convins care în tot timpul când a fost administrator acolo, s-a comportat într-un mod neprofesional", "Node ue nu a fost nici o dată ales democratic de cineva", etc.

In fact, when Oleg Alexandrov expressed his intention to vote for me, Mr Goie responded with "I just think that you did not understand what is going on over there ... Comming to the election, I just don't understand why you would support Node, a person who does not speak the language, nor wants to contribute out of the goodness of his heart". If the other comments weren't blatant vote-influencing attempts, this certainly is.

Now, having said that, I would like to add a clarification which I hope is a smack in the face of Goie's inflated ego.

If Jeorjika really does act fairly and does successfully encourage the growth of the Wikipedia, I do not mind if he is sysop instead of me. But I truly don't believe it to be the case: his first post to the Wikipedia was an angry post saying it should not exist, and he has not written any articles. I am afraid that he will delete all articles, turn the mainpage into a redirect to rowiki, and lock it. I just hope that, should he become sysop and I lose my position, I am wrong about him.

So, if you vote for Jeorjika but not me, that is obviously your right. If Jeorjika wins, what will happen? He said some stuff about what will happen. I hope that it's the truth. But I don't know for sure. If Jeorjika becomes a sysop and I lose my position, I will still be happy so long as he makes good on all of his promises because the future of this Wikipedia is my only true concern.

I would like to end on a less grim note: Ronline has proposed the creation of a Romany Wikipedia (Wikipedia în limba rromanes), and I certainly hope it will be successful.

Multumesc! --Node ue 09:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dmitriid: Election Platform

I have been away (first chance to go home in two years) so I haven't been able to keep up with all the discussions here. Anyway...

I have decided to run for sysop. I would however like for this wiki to have two sysops, not just one.

My agenda:

Everyone is welcome. However, NPOV must be maintained in all articles regardless of their content. You can state your opinions on discussion pages. You comments will not be deleted unless they are clear propaganda, threats or derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, religion etc.

I will do all I can (whenever I have the resources and time on hand) to work on page templates, texts and other material, work on which requires sysop access in order to bring this wiki on par with other wikis.

And, well, that's it, I guess. Questions are welcome. Dmitriid 10:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion

Wow I see that it’s in fashion now to bold up letters so I’m gonna join the gang. I see both Jeorjika and Node do it ;)

I am sorry Dmitriid but I think we call recognize that we do not need 2 sysops or more. Two sysops cannot work here. Look at your agenda and Jeorjika’s agenda. He will organize a new poll in 2 weeks. You say nothing about that. You do talk about free opinions and other things but look at what is going on. If these words were Domnu Goie’s or Jeorjika’s, Node ue would have attacked them 1000 times by now. I understand node does not want to lose his administrator status but what he did in his reply is really low:

It was declared earlier that anybody may organise any vote whenever they want. You may organise a vote on whether or not to delete this Wikipedia, right now. Nobody is stoping you. This is not an important part of the election platform, since it is allowed anyways.

First he attacks Domnu Goie. Now, yes, Goie is a little too vocal but so what if he is talking to others. It is his right. Let’s take a look at your log, Node: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Node_ue

Read my messages before criticising me. I never said that it wasn't Goie's right to talk to people. But I think it's a bit wrong, the sorts of things he said -- did you read them? Do I think he shouldn't be allowed to say them? No, I think it's his right. Do I think he's a bad person because he says them? Yes.

There it is. If you look carefully 85% of node “user contributions” are concerning Romania in some form or another and they are all related to matters that are sensitive for Romanians. In all or almost all of these subjects he takes an anti-Romanian position. That seems very strange to me. Do we really want node as sysop again? Is node really that NPOV as he says he is? Should he be trusted with this project or do we need a Moldovan for a Moldovan wikipedia?

That pages shows only my 50 most recent contributions. this page shows my 5000 most recent contributions. From this list, you will see that it's only really since June that I've edited any pages related to Moldova or Romania. In fact, until September, the edits I made to Romania- and Moldova-related articles were almost exclusively to Romanian language and Moldovan language, which relate more to my concern with linguistics and languages than a concern with Moldova and Romania, which is largely non-existant. I don't see the claim of the existance of a Moldovan language as "anti-Romanian". A true anti-Romanian addition would be something like "Romania stole Bessarabia from Russia, until the Russians took it back". But I am not an anti-Romanian, and I am strongly committed to NPOV. So I don't say things like that.
  • Dmitriid, how come he left you alone? Did you noticed that while he attacks Jeorjika and Goie, he does not attack you although you are his countercandidate too ( as of right now). He didn’t say anything bad about your agenda although it sounds very, very similar to Jeorjika’s. Forgive me, you may be an innocent bystander here that honestly tries to do some good but I think the only one here with an agenda is node.
The reason is that Jeorjika launched personal attacks against me. He did not say "I will do this." He said, "Unlike Node, who has done this, I will do this." Dmitriid, on the other hand, said "I will do this". Now, everything Jeorjika has on his platform I agree to. Quality of articles, democracy, freedom of expression. But it is the way in which he states these things to which I object -- his campaign is more of an "ad-hominem" (against the person) campaign, rather than one discussing the real issues.

Let me explain how this vote for 2 sysops is in node's favor.

a) Well if him and jeorjika get elected, he can very easily stop every change that jeorjika will try to do.

What sort of changes would Jeorjika make that I disagree to? Improving the quality of articles? Why would I disagree to that?

b) If you and him get elected, let’s face it you are here very rarely so nothing will happen; node will rule on.

Yes, but how do you know how often Jeorjika will be here? Jeorjika just arrived.

c) If you and jeorjika will get elected then maybe, maybe we can get somewhere but that is not the same thing, since jeorjika’s plan is incompatible with yours. Even if it is, jeorjika has some issues with the wikipedia. He has said so himself. Although you say you speak Romanian, you do not seem to be totally against this wikipedia in “moldavian” and you voted for it in the last vote so you must be perfectly happy with it the way it is.

So, it's not OK to have a sysop who likes this Wikipedia?

None of you are the same and I do not think we will get anywhere if there are 66% chances that whoever gets elected the 2’nd sysop, Node will still be here breathing on their neck.

On another note, I must say I am almost appalled at the way Node talks to Jeorjika. First he says how much he hopes that Jeorjika would do what he said, then he accuses Jeorjika and tries to scare everyone into voting for himself. Node, I thought you had a little more tact then that.

WTF are you talking about, Mihaitza? Jeorjika started with an ad hominem campaign, and I responded in line. I do hope Jeorjika will follow through. Do I believe it? I'm not sure. As I said before, if Jeorjika follows through with his promises, it is fine with me if he is elected.

I would however propose something. Instead of saying that we should vote for 2 sysops, we can all have 2 votes. We can use those two votes to vote for two different candidates or use them to vote for one candidate twice. If at the end we notice that two candidates are sufficiently close, we can agree to keep them both as sysops but at different times. For example say candidate A and candidate B came really close. We let the candidate who accumulated the most number of votes( let's just say candidate A) be sysop for 6 months, after which we asses his work informally on a yes/no basis. If most people agree that he did not satisfy the community's needs, the 2nd runner up( candidate B) becomes sysop. Mihaitza 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the primary reason why an approval vote is appropriate in this case is because the community is divided in its opinion. Similar to how parliamentary elections usually end with MPs from all major parties, it makes sense that this Wikipedia should have sysops from both camps. --Node ue 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I propose we implement an approval system of voting rather than an adversarial one is because otherwise no-one will reach a majority. If every person gets one vote, or even two, one candidate will most probably win out with a plurality, but there will be a majority in opposition to him. I think it's better that we implement a system where any candidate that is approved by over 50% of people becomes sysop. In the case of Node, if he's approved by more than 50%, then the majority want him, therefore he deserves to be sysop. If he doesn't get approved, then he won't become sysop. Same with Jeorjika. If Node and Jeorjika are total opposites, as you say Mihaitza, then no-one who will approve Node will approve Jeorjika, and vice versa, so one of the two will win out. I think that's a much fairer way and one that actually shows "Look, this candidate has been approved by more than 50% of people. Hence, he deserves to be sysop". With the adversarial system, we could also institute the need for majority, but that would be very hard in the context of a fragmented community where no candidate will probably reach the 50%+1 of votes. Ronline 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Now the problem is - how do we decide on who likes whom? Dmitriid 18:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
What it seems to me is that all candidates agree on most issues. Democracy, article quality, et cetera. The difference seems to me to be mostly in the views of the candidates as people. Duca, Mihaitza, and Goie clearly dislike me, thus they will vote for somebody else. I like you as a person, but I also see that there are no differences in opinion, so unless anything changes I will probably vote for you and myself, unless I am obviously losing, in which case I will vote for you and Jeorjika. --Node ue 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mihai. I mean look at all prez. elections in the world. Do they approve every single candidate? Of course not; that would be silly. I think there is no problem if we have a plurality. We can then have the two runner-ups go again one more time or like Mihai said in case both candidates get about the same ammount of votes then both get to be sysops but at different times.

1 - I propose that first we vote for whoever candidate we feel that is right. 2 - the vote should take 1-2 days but not like before when we had one or two weeks to vote and basically it was a waste of time. So yes october 1, maybe also the last day of september.

3 - If one candidate manages to get more then 50% from the first round, then automatically he gets to be sysop. If the second runner up is only 1 vote short from getting the same ammount of votes as the candidate that got the highest percentage of votes, then we can do what Mihaitza proposes and we stop there. If the result is inconclusive, then the top 2 candidates get to go again.

What do you guys thinK?

Duca 14:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Mihai. At present Jeorjika does seem as a better suited man for the job (well, based on the election platform). And, well, I haven't offere anything new when cmpared to him.
And, well, to be honest, I am starting to doubt this wikipedia quite a lot. (You do have to break away from your computer and get a full month's worth of clean air). The doubt arises from the continuous bickering and bitching of its members, unfortunately. And I am afraid that no election will be able to correct that.
The reason I proposed two sysops is to sort of hush those who will be opposed to sysops by introducing a sort of "checks-and-balances" system. As an extreme and rude example: in case of Node and Jeorjika winning, J. will make sure mo.wiki doesn't become too anti-Romanian whereas Node will make sure it doesn't become extremely pro-Romanian. Sort of. Neither will happen anyway, but having two sysops will calm some of the more restless opponents ;)
We could go with Ronline's proposal. However, it may be difficult to determine who's the more "likable" of the candidates. Because Jeorjika's cause looks strong.
One thing's for sure: something must be done... Dmitriid 18:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dmitriid, I think it's important that we consider the platform rather than the campaign strategry. If you go to User:Ronline/Alegeri pentru administratori, you will see that Jeorjika's, yours, and my actual platforms are similar. The main difference is in the way Jeorjika says things: "Node is bad, but I will be good", instead of "I will be good", as you and I say. --Node ue 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Node, that is low and you know it. He never said that exactly in those words. Every candidate is implying that when they run against other candidates. That is what elections are all about. You are very hypocritical to say that you only say “you are good”. Look at how you try to discredit Jeorjika. Even in this message, essentially you are trying to make him look too aggressive when in fact you are the one saying that he is BAD and you are GOOD.Mihaitza 16:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

(I removed the all-bold, like Oleg A. did, because it irritates the eyes, hope you don't mind) "He never said that in exactly those words" -- I never said he DID say it in exactly those words. I said "the way Jeorjika says things". We are talking specifically about the campaign platform here, NOT all discussion that followed. Look again at the campaign platforms. Dmitriid and I talk about only what we will do, and what we will support. Jeorjika, on the other hand, said things in his platform like "People will finally be able to ... and I promise that I will not ... them like Node ue has done so far." Dmitriid and I, on the other hand, said ONLY things like "I will do all I can ... to work on ... texts ... to bring this wiki on par with other wikis" in our election platforms. Obviously, I responded to Jeorjika's outrageous platform by defending myself against accusations and challenging Jeorjika's statements. I never said anywhere "Jeorjika will do [some bad thing], I will do [some good thing] instead" or anything even remotely similar, EVEN IN THE DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS. Now, you say I keep trying to discredit people. Well, as the English idiom goes, "that's like the pot calling the kettle black". Here you, Goie, and Jeorjika are, trying to discredit me (Goie even went around to people's talkpages telling them that I am an ex-KGB Smirnovist agent), and you're telling me that I try to discredit Jeorjika. I would say I don't try to discredit Jeorjika. But it's a weird accusation on YOUR part, since that's what you're doing yourself. --Node ue 20:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One sysop is not enough

One sysop is not enough. Please remember that the main purpose of being a sysop is to revert vandalism, protect articles, and block vandals. Arguing about politics is not the main job of a sysop. Having two people will make it more likely that this Wikipedia will be watched well. In the future, even a third sysop won't hurt. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 23:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg. In fact, I think the best solution would be if all 3 candidates win. Mihai, Georgica, and Goie seem to think that a sysop is a president, and that they have ultimate control. This is not true. A sysop is a janitor, NOT a president. A Wikipedia is safer from vandals with more sysops, not less. Now of course Mihaitza, you're probably going to say "oh you just want to keep your sysop position". Fine. Don't vote for me. I don't really care anymore. But please, quit accusing me. It's starting to get really annoying. Everybody knows the accusations you made already, it doesn't help to make them again and again, it's just being a "broken record". As I said before, I don't care who is sysop here, as long as they take good care of the Wikipedia. --Node ue 20:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One sysop is the only solution here

Please remember that although Oleg is right and that IS what the job of a sysop is supposed to be, this is not a normal or your usual wikipedia. This is a wikipedia where everything is politicized. Everything Node ue did was politically motivated from day 1. Having two sysops here would pull the wikipedia in two directions. One will want something, the other will want something else and we will end up with a bigger problem then before, instead of solving the problem at hand.

"Everything Node ue did was politically motivated from day 1" -- EXAMPLES PLEASE!! I have been accused of "running this Wikipedia undemocratically", "running this Wikipedia in an anti-Romanian way", "bringing politics into leadership". But it is NOT MY JOB to RUN this WIKIPEDIA. That is not the job of a sysop. What have I done, AS FAR AS SYSOP ACTIONS, that was "politically motivated"? Deleting vandalism?? Translating the interface? Puh-leez. You and Goie keep making accusations, over and over and over, yet you never substantiate any of them with examples. Not only is it offensive, but it's annoying and underhanded. Now, can you give us some examples of how I have used my SYSOP POWERS to push a political agenda??? Since a sysop's job is a JANITOR, not a PRESIDENT, I don't see what harm can come from having 3 sysops. If anyone ever does anything bad as a sysop, you can complain on metawiki. Nobody has done this for me yet -- why is that, if I've supposedly abused privelages??

Look, clearly, some of us want one sysop and some two. Why don't we use the two vote system? If at the end of the vote, one candidate accumulates the largest number of votes by far, obviously most people do not want a second sysop. If two candidates obtain an equal amount of votes then it means that people do want two sysops. If all candidates obtain roughly 33% of the votes then clearly we need 3 sysops.

I think that my proposal is the only one that is fair to everyone and the only one that will be acceptable for everyone regardless of how many sysops they prefer. What do you guys think? Mihaitza 16:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... isn't that the proposal that was already in place? --Node ue 20:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I am in a hurry and i do not have much time but let me tell you how you did act like a PREZIDENT. Like George has said, when you talked to Duca and Danutz and Goie, you acted like a negotiator on behalf of a wikipedia. In other words you assumed a title of "PRESIDENT"( like you call it) so in that respect I think that George is right to say that you are the one that thinks being a sysop is like a PRESIDENT.

Ronline also acted (and continues to act) with an air of authority. He's not a sysop here. And whatever "negotiating on behalf of this Wikipedia" I did, a great deal (although not all of it) was BEFORE I became a sysop. So I repeat, a sysop's job is a janitor, not a president. If anybody acts like a president, or doesn't, is completely independent of whether or not they are a sysop. So again, tell me WHEN I have used my SYSOP PRIVELAGES inappropriately. That's the only thing an election would change.

I haven't complained because I still think that we can sort things out in a civilized manner through a democractic election.

Actually, I think the reason you haven't complained is that you haven't been here for months AT ALL.

This brings me back to the elections. node, stop saing that Jeorjika is making you look bad. I understand that you are nervous; George did come up with a strong agenda but in an election the whole point for each candidate is to show how he/she is better then all the other ones. You do this yourself quite well so you should not be surprised that Jeorjika does the same to you.

Why should I stop saying it? I originally said it in response to Dmitriid. I didn't say "OMG!@!!! HE IS MAKING ME LOOK BAD! Make him stopp! Oh noes!!!11!". I just said "I think ... is really because ...". The only reason it continued is because you made a big issue of it like 'oh my gosh node, you attack him so much i can't believe you! you're so evil and you're a românofob! you're a bad person!!'. So it's ridiculous for you to tell me to stop saying something, when you're the ONLY reason I've said it more than once or twice (because of your constant badgering and seeming belief that I am the spawn of the devil).

About the voting system, I am not quite sure what proposal was already in place. I just noticed that since some want one sysop and some want 2 or 3, the best system is the one I mentioned above where people have 2 votes and where they can cast them both for one candidate or one for a candidate or just simply abstain( a lot like the German voting system). Before we go with the vote on the 1st of october I really propose that we all register for the vote in order to avoid the confusion of last time when people would vote and their vote was sometimes accepted and sometimes not. I think this time we should all register within the next 3 days so we avoid that. I honestly think that nobody has anything against it. Mihaitza 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

...--Node ue 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Node, I think that what he is trying to tell you is that the fact that you did act like a president means that you have not acted like a proper sysop, because you in a way are saying “ a sysop is a janitor, not a president” yet you act like a “president”.

Ronline also acted (and continues to act) with an air of authority. He's not a sysop here. I haven't acted any differently before and after I became a sysop (I only became a sysop in June; the so-called "negotiating" began in May). "you have not acted like a proper sysop" -- in case you haven't noticed, Gabix, Ronline, and I have really been the only people here for a really long time now.

About the vote, I really do not mind how we will do it. It’s only important that everyone though understands the system correctly. Remember we are trying to be united here and make the community work together. Its very hard to do that if we are all taking hastily decisions on the “Propunere” page which very few people can see. Jeorjika 04:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this "community" stuff. What community are you talking about? Did you look at the statistics page for this Wikipedia? Prior to the 13th of this September (14 days ago), the ONLY active contributors were me, Gabix, Russ, Perconte, Robbot, Petrusbarbygere, and a few anonymous users. Prior to August 30, there hadn't been any contributions at all really for a few months. You must be quite naïve if you think Mihaitza and Goie will stay after the election ends. This "community" you talk about is rubbish. Mihaitza and Goie will leave right after the election ends, just like they always have and just like they always will.
Having said that, I think everybody would appreciate if you "paid it forward" a little by showing us your amazing article-writing talent by writing even one article here. If you can't do it now, why would you be able to do it in the future? --Node ue 10:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Parerea lui landroni

Deci, sunt din Moldova si aceasta imi permite sa inteleg cat de absurd suna conceptul de a avea o Wikipedie intr-o limba care de facto nu exista. Un an sau doi in urma, cand a aparut Dictionarul Moldovenesc-Romanesc, l-am cumparat imediat. O astfel de piesa de anticariat in viitor se va vinde la un pret rezonabil. Iar cine nu a avut posibilitatea sa citeasca perlele acestui dictionar - editat, apropo, cu aportul nepretuit al Dlui Voronin -, cumparati-l, rasfoiti-l. Sa vedeti cat de repede vi se ridica dispozitia. In plus, mentionez: chiar si acest dictionar - care trambita sus si tare ca limba moldoveneasca a evoluat separat de limba romaneasca si chiar in introducere afirma, printr-o poezie de o valoare artistica inestimabila, ca limba romaneasca provine de la limba moldoveneasca - a fost editat in alfabetul latin, neavand nici o mentiune despre alfabetul chirilic. Incercati acum sa introduceti in Moldova alfabetul chirilic: chiar si moldovenii inraiti vor iesi in strada pentru a protesta.

Acum, iata ceea ce eu consider ca e necesar de facut:

  • In primul rand - si aici ideile mele si ale lui Jeorjika corespund in mod exact -, trebuie supusa votarii pe data de 15 octombrie existenta insasi a Wikipediei moldovenesti.
  • In cazul deciziei de a suprima Wikipedia moldoveneasca, propun editarea unui articol amplu pe Wikipedia româna, unde va fi explicat clar contextul in care limba româna era scrisa in alfabetul chirilic in diferite perioade istorice. Acesta va fi unicul articol din Wikipedia româna ce va contine exemple de scriere a limbii române in alfabetul chirilic.
  • Wikipedia moldoveneasca are pentru moment nevoie de un singur administrator. Daca vor fi alesi doi administratori, aplicarea oricarei decizii va fi practic imposibila.

landroni 12:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

O parere foarte buna. Asa e frate. Eu unul, sunt cu tine. Dar din pacate node ue nu a inteles. He he he. Lasa'l sa'si sparga capul cu traducatorul automat.

Landroni and Mihaitza make perfect sense. Having said that I would like to wish good luck to all three candidates Node ue, Dimitriid and of course Jeorjika.

One more thing can someone explain to me clearly the way the voting system will occur? What do u mean we all have 2 votes?Duca 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cei cu voi oameni buni? Un administrator (sysop) nu ia nici un fel de decisii. Toate decisile se iau colectiv. Nu are importanta cati administratori sunt, caci ei nu sunt mai presus decat oricine altineva. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Two votes?

Hey people, what on earth is going on in here? First, the rule that there must be only one admin, and now the rule that each person has two votes, which can go to the same canditate, or two two different candidates? Is this what?

All these rules are contrary to Wikipedia policies. No Wikipedia policy says that there must be just one admin, and one person is one vote, how can one person have two votes?

OK, listen, I am from Moldova. I doubt much that this this encyclopedia makes any sence or whether it has a future. But let us not try to make any games in here. There are two options: either this project is cancelled, or otherwise, if this project is moved forward, let us behave honestly. An admin is not a president, don't bring politics in here. An admin is a person who blocks vandals, that's all. Why all those silly ideas? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Versiunea Romana (pe scurt). Ca sa fie ales numai un singur administrator, si ca fiecare persona sa aiba doua voturi, sunt reguli in contradictie cu principiile Wikipedia. Ori acest Mo proiect este anulat, sau jucam dupa reguli. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The main reason is politics. I don't know about other people here, but Goie and Mihaitza seem to be playing politics with this whole Wikipedia. They seem to think that ultimately, if Jeorjika wins this Wikipedia will be deleted, and if he doesn't, that it won't, which is absolute incorrect. Besides the notion that it is unlikely that a Wikipedia with over 200 articles would ever just be "deleted", there is also the fact that everyone is, and has always been, allowed to start a vote for the future of this Wikipedia. That's the point of collectivism. Mihaitza and Goie have both made sweeping accusations against me, yet neither of them has substantiated them. Georgica at least provides evidence to support his accusations, and his motivations and intentions seem less clear than those of Goie amd Mihaitza. -- (Node ue) 24.251.68.75 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Node ue, please, try to understand that I never said that if Jorjica gets elected it would mean that this wikipedia would get deleted. I do not see eye to eye with you, I do not agree with you but that does not mean that we are not normal human beings trying to sort something out. My proposal concerning the votes was simply so that we can all at least agree on something. Nothing that I did was politically motivated and I think it is unfair to me to be categorized as such.Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doua voturi/two votes

Oleg, ti-am mutat mesajul mai sus ca sa lasam registrarea la sfarsit pentru cei care inca nu s-au registrat inca. Sper ca nu te vei deranja. De asemenea ma scuz la toata lumea ca nu folosesc adevaratele litere romanesti.

Cu privire la sysopi sunt de acord cu tine. Un sysop nu este rege ci doar maturator cum zice node. In orice caz motivul pentru care ar fi bine sa avem numai unu este ca platformele celor doi sunt total diferite. Cum iti imaginezi tu ca o sa functioneze node ue cu Giorgica care daca unu o sa vrea sa schimbe o pagina, alalalt o s-o schimbe la loc dupa aia unu din ei o s-o blocheze, alalalt o s-o deblocheze, s.a.m.d.

O sa fie haos total si nu este nevoie de un geniu care sa-si dea seama de lucru asta. De altfel eu nu sunt primul care zice ca un sysop este mai bine decat doi.

Totusi Mihaita zice asa(daca inteleg corect): sunt aia care vor numai un sysop pentru ca vad in asta stabilitate. Chiar daca node ue ar fi reales mai bine unu decat 2. Mai sunt si aia care vor 2 sysopi sau 3. Totusi nu putem sa ne intelegem. Votul este pe 1 octombrie si trebuie facut ceva. El zice asa ( corectati-ma daca gresesc):

  • Fiecare utilizator registrat are 2 voturi si le foloseste cum vrea el. La sfarsit adunam voturile acumulate de fiecare candidat. Daca un candidat a castigat clar alegerea, vom avea 1. Duca a sugerat ca: daca 1 candidat a acumulat aceleasi voturi sau +/- 1 vot fata de al doilea, vom avea 2, daca toti castiga cam la fel deci cam 1/3 din voturi fiecare atunci mazel tov - vom avea 3.
  • Aceasta nu este impotriva regulilor wikipediei. Sistemul de votare nu cred ca este scris in piatra. Mai mult, as vrea sa atrag atentia tuturora ca acest fel de sistem este folosit in mai multe tari de exemplu Elvetia, Africa de Sud, Germania si chiar si in Rusia. In Germania un vot se acorda membrilor propiu zis iar alt vot partidului( dar cu membru in paranteza). Nu stiu terminologia cred ca unul se numeste Erststimme si alalalt... am uitat. Dar va rog sa va interesati pentru ca este un sistem interesant. Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Domnu you got the "system" pretty much covered up. But please stop making fun of Node. I don't think he took it very well. See bellow.Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Atunci sa facem un poll despre idea cu doua voturi. Mie mi se pare foarte nestandard, si as fi categoric impotriva lui. Ar face un proces si asa politizat un unul si mai complicat. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 21:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oleg procesul ar fi şi mai lung dacă am face un vot despre ce vot să avem. Nu are nici un sens. Iar votul este pe 1 oct., deci de acum în nici o săptămână. Toată lumea este de acord cu sistemul pe care îl avem. Nu este deloc nestandard. Se foloseşte tot timpul. Nici mie nu î-mi place sistemul FPTP dar totuşi ăsta e. Eu, personal( ca şi multă altă lume de altfel) î-mi arăt supărarea prin abţinere sau neprezentare la vot. Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mihaitza, data de 1 octombrie este foarte arbitrara. Cine este toata lumea care este de acord? Nu are nici un sens de sustinut alegeri daca nu sunt stabilite clar criteriile. Opiniile in jurul aceste enciclopedii sunt foarte incinse. De aia trebuie de pasit incet, ca sa nu apara probleme mai tarziu ca alegerile nu au fost corecte. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

==English version

I agree that sysops should be just janitors like node said. Anyways, the reason why I think we should have only one sysop (at least for starters) is b/c they both have totally opposite platforms. Imagine that one will want to modify a page, the other one will want to revert it and so on and so forth. At one point one will lock it, the other one will unlock it so in the end it will be chaos.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out and I am not the first one to say it. Even if Node ue gets elected alone at least its better then having two sysops elected since there will be more stability( OMG I can't believe I just said that).

As I understand Mihaitza's proposal and please correct me if I am wrong is that we all get 2 votes and we can use them in any way we see fit. At the end we count the votes. If one candidate clearly wins then we get one sysop. Duca says and I think we should incorporate this - that if two candidates are almost close ( like 1 vote) then we will get 2, if all get 1/3 of the votes - MAZEL TOV we get 3.

This system was devised so that both the 1-sysop party and 2/3 sysop party are happy and so that an outcome that can lead to both results is possible. About wikipedia rules, there is no rule in wikipedia that sets the voting system. Even countries do not have their voting system in a constitution. It's up to a government to make it up before the election. Countries like Switzerland, Germany, S. Africa and Russia all use similar systems. Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again I am sorry to have moved your text but I just thought it would be better if we can keep the registration at the bottom. I hope you won't mind.Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Domnu, this is the first time I am going to say this, and I know it's not going to help my image. But, "you're just being a jerk". To constantly attack me is one thing. It's not nice, it's not polite, it's not good. But I put up with it in the name of free speech. But I will not put up with this constant battering. I am perfectly capable of reading Romanian. I was reading what was said in Romanian, and I understood it. But when I saw this section I became enraged. To provide an English version is fine. But to add "especially for Node since he doesn't know Romanian", is not only unnessecary but is actually harassment. You have accused me of being a KGB agent, a Smirnovist agent, a Stalinist, a Communist, and many other things. I have been irritated by it, and I have asked for evidence (which you have never given), but I have continually put up with it. Really, such constant berating as you perpetrate against me is against universal Wikipedia rules, and if you continue, I will seek arbitration from a higher authority. I'm not trying to silence you -- you're welcome to continue to state your strange ideas about me being a KGB agent. I just will not stand for this harassment. -- (Node ue) 24.251.68.75 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Domnu Goe and Node ue must treat each other in a civilized manner. This cannot go on. There are serious issues we need to solve, and attacking each other does not help. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Domnu, aici trebuie să recunosc că nu ai fost aşa subtil. Avem aceleaşi păreri şi probabil că susţinem pe acelaşi candidat pentru că avem aceleaşi valori. Totuşi, îngăduieşte-mi să te sfătuiesc ca să ştergi "especially...etc.etc."

I agree or at least try to ignore each other if whenever you disagree on something, you end up "harassing" each other. Having said that, I am glad that so many people have registered but not all so please everyone try to register as soon as possible.Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the user Christopher Sundita has never even been to the Moldovan wikipedia and according to Node ue and Ronline who made the list of people who can register for voting, he does not appear on their list. This is why Christopher Sundita's registration is invalid. He could however be an observer to what is going on here. I am sure nobody will have any reservations since I think we all agree that if all the pro-Romanian users as node calls them, would start calling their friends( who are not on the list) over then a vote will be only a matter of formality.

Everyone else registered here is on the list and has stated their opinions somewhere in this wikipedia and contributed somewhat to the formation of a Moldovan Wikipedian community. Christopher Sundita has not. And if it was up to Node ue he would have most certainly not been able to vote. Unlike Gabix, Vertaxler,Romihaitza, Danutz and Oleg, Christopher Sundita does not appear in Ronline's list and therefore is unfortunately unable to register.

The people on the list are:

  • Ronline, Gabix, Jeorjika, Dmitriid, Node ue, Romihaitza, Danutz, Duca, Mihaitza, Domnu Goie, D.evil. Domnu Goie, Anittas, Oleg Alexandrov, Landroni.

8/15 eligible users have registered to vote as of day 1/3 for the time allocated to registration. Within the next 2 days, it would be great to see more people register.

Mihaitza 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doua voturi/two votes

Oleg, ti-am mutat mesajul mai sus ca sa lasam registrarea la sfarsit pentru cei care inca nu s-au registrat inca. Sper ca nu te vei deranja. De asemenea ma scuz la toata lumea ca nu folosesc adevaratele litere romanesti.

Cu privire la sysopi sunt de acord cu tine. Un sysop nu este rege ci doar maturator cum zice node. In orice caz motivul pentru care ar fi bine sa avem numai unu este ca platformele celor doi sunt total diferite. Cum iti imaginezi tu ca o sa functioneze node ue cu Giorgica care daca unu o sa vrea sa schimbe o pagina, alalalt o s-o schimbe la loc dupa aia unu din ei o s-o blocheze, alalalt o s-o deblocheze, s.a.m.d.

O sa fie haos total si nu este nevoie de un geniu care sa-si dea seama de lucru asta. De altfel eu nu sunt primul care zice ca un sysop este mai bine decat doi.

Totusi Mihaita zice asa(daca inteleg corect): sunt aia care vor numai un sysop pentru ca vad in asta stabilitate. Chiar daca node ue ar fi reales mai bine unu decat 2. Mai sunt si aia care vor 2 sysopi sau 3. Totusi nu putem sa ne intelegem. Votul este pe 1 octombrie si trebuie facut ceva. El zice asa ( corectati-ma daca gresesc):

  • Fiecare utilizator registrat are 2 voturi si le foloseste cum vrea el. La sfarsit adunam voturile acumulate de fiecare candidat. Daca un candidat a castigat clar alegerea, vom avea 1. Duca a sugerat ca: daca 1 candidat a acumulat aceleasi voturi sau +/- 1 vot fata de al doilea, vom avea 2, daca toti castiga cam la fel deci cam 1/3 din voturi fiecare atunci mazel tov - vom avea 3.
  • Aceasta nu este impotriva regulilor wikipediei. Sistemul de votare nu cred ca este scris in piatra. Mai mult, as vrea sa atrag atentia tuturora ca acest fel de sistem este folosit in mai multe tari de exemplu Elvetia, Africa de Sud, Germania si chiar si in Rusia. In Germania un vot se acorda membrilor propiu zis iar alt vot partidului( dar cu membru in paranteza). Nu stiu terminologia cred ca unul se numeste Erststimme si alalalt... am uitat. Dar va rog sa va interesati pentru ca este un sistem interesant. Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Domnu you got the "system" pretty much covered up. But please stop making fun of Node. I don't think he took it very well. See bellow.Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Atunci sa facem un poll despre idea cu doua voturi. Mie mi se pare foarte nestandard, si as fi categoric impotriva lui. Ar face un proces si asa politizat un unul si mai complicat. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 21:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oleg procesul ar fi şi mai lung dacă am face un vot despre ce vot să avem. Nu are nici un sens. Iar votul este pe 1 oct., deci de acum în nici o săptămână. Toată lumea este de acord cu sistemul pe care îl avem. Nu este deloc nestandard. Se foloseşte tot timpul. Nici mie nu î-mi place sistemul FPTP dar totuşi ăsta e. Eu, personal( ca şi multă altă lume de altfel) î-mi arăt supărarea prin abţinere sau neprezentare la vot. Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mihaitza, data de 1 octombrie este foarte arbitrara. Cine este toata lumea care este de acord? Nu are nici un sens de sustinut alegeri daca nu sunt stabilite clar criteriile. Opiniile in jurul aceste enciclopedii sunt foarte incinse. De aia trebuie de pasit incet, ca sa nu apara probleme mai tarziu ca alegerile nu au fost corecte. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

English version

I agree that sysops should be just janitors like node said. Anyways, the reason why I think we should have only one sysop (at least for starters) is b/c they both have totally opposite platforms. Imagine that one will want to modify a page, the other one will want to revert it and so on and so forth. At one point one will lock it, the other one will unlock it so in the end it will be chaos.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out and I am not the first one to say it. Even if Node ue gets elected alone at least its better then having two sysops elected since there will be more stability( OMG I can't believe I just said that).

As I understand Mihaitza's proposal and please correct me if I am wrong is that we all get 2 votes and we can use them in any way we see fit. At the end we count the votes. If one candidate clearly wins then we get one sysop. Duca says and I think we should incorporate this - that if two candidates are almost close ( like 1 vote) then we will get 2, if all get 1/3 of the votes - MAZEL TOV we get 3.

This system was devised so that both the 1-sysop party and 2/3 sysop party are happy and so that an outcome that can lead to both results is possible. About wikipedia rules, there is no rule in wikipedia that sets the voting system. Even countries do not have their voting system in a constitution. It's up to a government to make it up before the election. Countries like Switzerland, Germany, S. Africa and Russia all use similar systems. Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again I am sorry to have moved your text but I just thought it would be better if we can keep the registration at the bottom. I hope you won't mind.Domnu Goie 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Domnu, this is the first time I am going to say this, and I know it's not going to help my image. But, "you're just being a jerk". To constantly attack me is one thing. It's not nice, it's not polite, it's not good. But I put up with it in the name of free speech. But I will not put up with this constant battering. I am perfectly capable of reading Romanian. I was reading what was said in Romanian, and I understood it. But when I saw this section I became enraged. To provide an English version is fine. But to add "especially for Node since he doesn't know Romanian", is not only unnessecary but is actually harassment. You have accused me of being a KGB agent, a Smirnovist agent, a Stalinist, a Communist, and many other things. I have been irritated by it, and I have asked for evidence (which you have never given), but I have continually put up with it. Really, such constant berating as you perpetrate against me is against universal Wikipedia rules, and if you continue, I will seek arbitration from a higher authority. I'm not trying to silence you -- you're welcome to continue to state your strange ideas about me being a KGB agent. I just will not stand for this harassment. -- (Node ue) 24.251.68.75 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Domnu Goe and Node ue must treat each other in a civilized manner. This cannot go on. There are serious issues we need to solve, and attacking each other does not help. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Domnu, aici trebuie să recunosc că nu ai fost aşa subtil. Avem aceleaşi păreri şi probabil că susţinem pe acelaşi candidat pentru că avem aceleaşi valori. Totuşi, îngăduieşte-mi să te sfătuiesc ca să ştergi "especially...etc.etc."

I agree or at least try to ignore each other if whenever you disagree on something, you end up "harassing" each other. Having said that, I am glad that so many people have registered but not all so please everyone try to register as soon as possible.Mihaitza 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the user Christopher Sundita has never even been to the Moldovan wikipedia and according to Node ue and Ronline who made the list of people who can register for voting, he does not appear on their list. This is why Christopher Sundita's registration is invalid. He could however be an observer to what is going on here. I am sure nobody will have any reservations since I think we all agree that if all the pro-Romanian users as node calls them, would start calling their friends( who are not on the list) over then a vote will be only a matter of formality.

Everyone else registered here is on the list and has stated their opinions somewhere in this wikipedia and contributed somewhat to the formation of a Moldovan Wikipedian community. Christopher Sundita has not. And if it was up to Node ue he would have most certainly not been able to vote. Unlike Gabix, Vertaxler,Romihaitza, Danutz and Oleg, Christopher Sundita does not appear in Ronline's list and therefore is unfortunately unable to register.

The people on the list are:

  • Ronline, Gabix, Jeorjika, Dmitriid, Node ue, Romihaitza, Danutz, Duca, Mihaitza, Domnu Goie, D.evil. Domnu Goie, Anittas, Oleg Alexandrov, Landroni.

8/15 eligible users have registered to vote as of day 1/3 for the time allocated to registration. Within the next 2 days, it would be great to see more people register.

Mihaitza 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Anittas and Vertaler were not included in that list! Goie said "you forgot Anittas", but Ronline never added. The whole point of adding a "voter registration" was so that nobody who wanted to vote got left out. It seems downright antidemocratic to me to tell people outright that they may not vote. What are the criteria here? Who may vote, and who may not? It seems clear to me that a binding election such as for a sysop must have clear and absolutely democratic rules, either allowing everybody to vote, or only allowing certain people to vote based on a bar of number of contributions to the main namespace (such as on na.wiki, where it is 10). A vote which semiarbitrarily gives a specific list of the people that may vote, is easily challenged on metawiki and may result in confusion and inaction by the stewards. In short, I think that if Anittas may vote, others such as Chris Sundita should too. --Node ue 11:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Mihai has a point Node ue. Yeah, Ronline himself never added Oleg either but you had no problems with Anittas, Oleg or Landroni. All these three have been here before and have exposed their opinions. Chris has not. If we let Chris, then that means anyone will be able to bring in their friends( I can bring in at least 8 people and that is only me). I don't think it is in your interest to do that. The way I understood it was that only the people whom we agreed before can vote, are allowed to register.Duca 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagreed about Anittas. In fact, when Goie said "you forgot Anittas", I commented on it. Landroni made an extensive commentary about this Wikipedia before, Oleg is involved other significant ways, but Anittas' only contribution is trying to vote in the other vote, when Goie decided to invite everyone he knew to vote. --Node ue 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Oleg, Landroni and Anittas should be allowed to vote, while Christopher Sundita shouldn't. We have never met this user, he hasn't written here at all. If he does, before the deadline, he can of course vote. Anittas has at least given his opinion before. Ronline 01:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Duca and Ronline. So far we have 10/15 eligable users that have reigsterd.

If sundrita says something and then registers then its ok. There is still some time left. We said 3 days to register on the 26 sep, 2005 at 3:32, 26.

"...we should all register within the next 3 days so we avoid that. I honestly think that nobody has anything against it. Mihaitza 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)..."

We still have: about 0:47,30 hours remaining. I really urge as many people to register so we can get as close to the 15 number as possible.

So far 10/15 eligible users have registered.Mihaitza 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Voting criteria

It does not make any sence to me to make elections if the criteria for election are not clear. Please let us not rush things and first clarify that. No harm will be done if the elections are postponed beyond October 1, if the reward is a clean and agreeable procedure. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 03:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The criteria is very clear. A list was made weeks if not even a month before now. We all know who can vote and who cannot. Some people had some problems with other people but in the end Ronline compiled a list and Node finally agreed. The vote is for October 1st. It is pointless to postpone it. All candidates have put forth their agendas and plans and people have started to register for the vote. All candidates have not disagreed with the voting system, nor with the date of the vote. Domnu Goie 03:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I came late, I might have missed something. I would like to see a page where the procedures are listed, and that people agreed with them. In particular, the following are not clear to me:

1. How many sysops will be elected?

2. What is the two vote thing, who proposed it, when it was agreed upon?

There is some text at the very bottom of User:Ronline/Alegeri pentru administratori, but again, I don't see anywhere a discussion, or what it was agreed on. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 04:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

At first node basically said that he does not want almost anyone. Then Ronline made a list

".... The following users should vote: Ronline, Gabix, Jeorjika, Dmitriid, Node ue, Romihaitza, Danutz, Duca, Mihaitza, Domnu Goie, D.evil. Domnu Goie, you can also propose a change to the current system since 45 days have passed since the implementation of my proposal. Ronline 13:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC) "

To this list you, Landroni and Anittas were added. In the end, Node had no objections.

The number of sysops has been an issue that has divided us, which is why Mihaitza proposed a system which would ensure that if people desire it, we can have 1 up to 3 sysops, depending on the results. Nobody has refused the system because it reconciles all sides. You are the only one that has major problems with it, it seems. Everyone else has not posted any complaints about it and people have started to register already - see bellow. I think even node has given his approval. At one point he says "I thought this was the system in place" when reffering to this system. Domnu Goie 04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should all look at Duca's idea as well. Please see his point of view. Ronline thinks it is not a bad idea. I have to say I agree.Jeorjika 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? Thanx Jeorjika. You know you got my vote, no matter what system we will use.Duca 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Domnu Goie, and others, thank you. Now things are very clear to me. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, am I that bad at explaining? j/k .

October 1 is just around the corner. Guys, I would like to remind everyone that the vote is scheduled to start at 20:00, 0/ Eastern Time on Friday, or 16;00,0 West Coast time on Friday, according to our discussion watch. If we want to count the Moldovan time zone, then I guess that makes it 0:00, 0 Moldovan Time which is 17:00, 0 or 5 pm Eastern Time or 13;00, 0 or 1 pm West Coast time, Friday and ends at the same time next day on Saturday.

We should maybe put in a different title called Voting or something? I think we should not have a new page because there are already 3 pages or 4 ( if we count the main Moldovan discussion page). I think we should just put it here as a title bellow Registration, but that is just me.

Mihaitza 02:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies

I did not know that Node ue would take this so seriously. I meant the thing in the brackets as a joke, rather then to outright insult him. I apologize if you felt personally harassed. Having said that, I still disagree with Node's values and ideas. Also I think this Moldovan WIkipedia is an abomination and anyone supporting it or those who made it are spitting and insulting Romanians and Moldovans alike. Domnu Goie 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion, keep, etc. future of this Wikipedia is separate

As I have said before, and as Ronline said too, all users have the power to start an election. However, since Georgica has made it a part of his platform that he will hold a vote if he is elected, as if it's a privelage of only sysops, I have begun a page for discussion and election so that it is undeniably separate from sysop elections. Please go to User:Node_ue/Viitor_de_aceasta_Wikipedie to discuss and vote. --Node ue 14:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Node I salute your intetions to go forward with this poll but I think that you are only trying to do this in order to discredit Jeorjika. If I am wrong, then I am sorry but I am quite confident that I am right. Again you bashed Jeorjika, again you are trying to portrey him as someone who does not know what a sysop is. And you are also trying to make yourself seem like a true democrat and even PRO-ROMANIAN in the eyes of those undecided. Nevertheless I am glad we are getting one more chance to get rid of this outragous Moldovan Wikipedia.Mihaitza 20:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, everything I do is somehow wrong. No, the reason I did this was to remove a vote as a component of Jeorjika's campaign. Goie was going around and telling people that Jeorjika had promised to open a vote to delete this Wikipedia, and that's why they should vote for him. That struck me as intrinsically wrong since, as has been noted before, anybody may start a poll. But I also figured that it would be much easier to actually start a discussion for a poll right away, rather than go around telling people that anyone can open a poll. You know, show by actions rather than words. You say I'm trying to make myself look like a real democrat. I don't see how I've been anything else in the past. I respected the results of the previous poll, and nobody held another one since. --Node ue 21:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Node on this one - he is trying to depoliticise the sysop vote, which is a good thing. I'm not saying it wasn't necessarily a self-interested move, but I think we needed such a move at this moment. So, well done! Just a small thing - "Viitor de aceasta Wikipedia" should be "Viitorul acestei Wikipedii" in correct Romanian. Ronline 01:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the poll about the future of this Wikipedia has nothing to do with the administrator election. Confusing these things has been a major source of problems in here. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I run against Node ue, I honestly think it would be better not to accuse him at every step he makes. I know he has done this to me before and wrongly accused me of confusing what a sysop really does. That is all election campaign. I understand that but I think maturity is better suited here in order to work something out.Jeorjika 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Moldovenism

Jeorjika has said on Oleg's talkpage on en: "Nu ştiu despre tine dacă eşti susţinător al teoriei Moldovenismului sau nu" (referring to me). The simple answer is, nu sunt susţinător al teoriei Moldovenismului. The sole purpose I see for this Wikipedia, is to have content in Cyrillic. I think that a true Moldovenist, like Vasile Stati, would want to have Latin content as well, due to the belief that "Moldovan" and ROmanian are somehow very different, which they are not (in proper forms, excluding slang). --Node ue 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Node ue I am trully happy to see that comming from you. I really do feel sorry for all the things I said. If I had known that you really felt this way before I would not have said some of the things I said. Listen I really think there's ways for you to write stuff in Cyrillic. The reason I called you a moldovenist and a Stalinist is because it seemed a lot like "primitive Moldovenism". If we get rid of this Moldovenist Wikipedia, it does not mean that you cannot contribute to stuff in Cyrillic. We can make articles that still explain the Cyrillic used in Moldova up to 1989. Domnu Goie 02:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Here we are, converging somewhere. And I stand somewhere in between. I am not sure if this encyclopedia is that useful, but I belive that Node ue was motivated by the best intentions, rather than by a political agenda. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's very good to see this tension die off. Already a more quiet and tranquil atmosphere has settled in. I think that serious dialogue has to follow before we can make a decision. I emphasize dialogue, not the bickering that occurred up until recently. Still, I think it’s wrong to mix the sysop elections with the poll on the future of the wikipedia. It’s only a recommendation, but maybe it will be better if we leave the mowiki discussion until after October 1st. Jeorjika 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

October 1 is just around the corner. Guys, I would like to remind everyone that the vote is scheduled to start at 20:00, 0/ Eastern Time on Friday, or 16;00,0 West Coast time on Friday, according to our discussion watch. If we want to count the Moldovan time zone, then I guess that makes it 0:00, 0 Moldovan Time which is 17:00, 0 or 5 pm Eastern Time or 13;00, 0 or 1 pm West Coast time, Friday and ends at the same time next day on Saturday.

We should maybe put in a different title called Voting or something? I think we should not have a new page because there are already 3 pages or 4 ( if we count the main Moldovan discussion page). I think we should just put it here as a title bellow Registration, but that is just me.Mihaitza 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but OldakQuill's registration is invalid for two main reasons. The first main reason is that we ended the registration a day and a half ago. It is impossible for somebody to register on the day of the vote, which if we count Moldovan time. Should start at 17;00 eastern time, or 14:00 west coast time or 22:00 UK time, all today on Friday. The other reason is that OldakQuill does not appear in Roneline’s and Node ue’s list so it is impossible for him to register even in the first place. Everyone on that list has been part of the discussions or has made their opinions heard in some form or another. We haven’t even heard of OldakQuill before now.

You may not have heard of OldakQuill, but he came to this Wikipedia before even you. http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OldakQuill . I have added back his registration.
A, and, if the registration ended, you should've added a notice to say "registration is over", but you did not.

Also I would like to remind everyone, today we start the vote. The times are 00;00 Moldovan and Romanian/Ukrainian Time, 1;00.00 Moscow time(Saturday), 23;00 Paris/Berlin/Rome time(Friday), 22:00 London time, 17;00 or 5;00 pm Eastern Time and 14;00 West Coast or 2;00 pm west coast time.

It seems that nobody has argued that the system we are going to use will be the two ballot vote. We vote at : User:Ronline/Alegeri pentru administratori

Good luck to every one.Mihaitza 15:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bai Mihai bai! Ci vorghesti tu matali colo brie? hehe. glumesc. Dar serios acum? EU credeam ca vom putea vota si in ziua precedenta adica si Oct 1 dar si cu o zi inainte (din moment ce pe 1 octombrie se inchide votul, nu?).Duca 19:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack

Jeorjika just said many times that his aim is to be courteous, and that we will do better by being mature. I agree with that. But what he forgot to say is the message he left on somebody's talkpage:

"vreau să-ţi atrag atenţia că node ue nu ţi-a vorbit in română ... Asta ptr. ca Node ue nu ştie româna. Cred ca este ... important ca să cunoşti limba wikipediei a cărei sysop vrei să fi ... el în schimb susţine o teorie Stalinistă ... este clar care dintre candidaţi nu este român ... cred că ştim amândoi unde vrea să meargă Node cu mo.wiki ... nu cred ca este interesat în progresul acestei wikipedii cât este interesat în a întării noţiunea “Moldovenismului Primitiv” ... Măcar aici pe wikipedia să spunem oamenilor adevărul despre noi şi limba pe care o vorbim ... aş iniţia un poll in primele doua săptămâni de la alegere ca să vedem care este opinia tuturora cu privire la existenţa acestei wikipedii."

Now, in addition to personally attacking me a number of times (in formal debates, this is called ad hominem, attacking the man instead of his argument), he has also made it seem again as if organising a vote for the future is somehow tied to this election, despite his insistence elsewhere that he doesn't do that.

Before, Mihaitza said that I do not want people to have free speech. This is not true. If Jeorjika wants to say these things, that's fine. But I think it's better he says them to my face and in front of everybody else, than hidden away on a talkpage on the English Wikipedia. --Node ue 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit to add: Since I apparently can't speak Romanian all of a sudden, HOW IS IT that I was able to redact those parts of the message which I felt were irrelevant? You can find the full message at Anittas' talkpage on enwiki. And how is it I knew it was a personal attack? I admit, I am not 100% in writing Romanian, but I can understand it very well, and in speaking I am medium. Thus I have said things like "viitor de aceasta wikipedia" (instead of the correct "viitorul acestei wikipedia"), and the articles I wrote are a bit awkward (although I went through carefully and fixed errors of case, Bogdangiusca helped fix some minor errors in the Curechi article). If for this reason you choose not to vote for me, that's fine -- I feel it's more important to tell the truth and be unpopular for it, than to lie and be popular. A, and the nature of my errors (mostly case and gender) indicates that it's highly unlikely that Russian is my first language, since the cases and gender system of Russian is notoriously difficult. How many KGB agents don't speak Russian?? ;-p --Node ue 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but you have attacked Jeorjika on a number of times as well. It is not fair to point out only what he said and or what he did. There is a very thin line between what one may think is a personal attack and an attack at someone's ideas.

About OldakQuill, I did not check his contributions but if you say he did contribute, let him stand there.Mihaitza 04:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I quote myself: "If Jeorjika wants to say these things, that's fine. But I think it's better he says them to my face and in front of everybody else, than hidden away on a talkpage on the English Wikipedia." It strikes me as an underhanded trick to make comments about someone in a place you don't anticipate they'll find it. --Node ue 07:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

REGISTRATION FOR THE ELECTION

  • Mihaitza 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Jeorjika 04:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Anittas --Anittas 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Dmitriid 05:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Node ue 10:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • landroni 12:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Duca 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Domnu Goie 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ronline 08:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OldakQuill 08:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Gabix 09:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) I was offline for a couple of weeks, but, please, register me for this vote!

VOTE is UNDERWAY- DEADLINE FOR REGISTRATION HAS ENDED

Mihaitza 14:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wider discussion needed

I wrote about this encyclopedia issue at the Vilage Pump, the place on the English Wikipedia where issues are discussed. See en:Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Moldovan_Wikipedia. Let us talk there. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


I attempted to remain quiet for a couple of days in order to see what will happen. First of all I would like to thank every one for voting. As well I would like to thank the people with a common sense here for their assistance and support.

Having said that, I am quite disgusted at some reactions here and at some really disgraceful attitudes and claims. Romanians and Moldovan-Romanians have been portrayed as brutes and mean, while others, although in a minority and in the wrong, have portrayed themselves as victims.

It is very sad that Romanians although in a majority have not managed to muster enough resilience and have not organized themselves in an organized fashion. It is also sad that some Moldovan-Romanians have been turned against the Romanians; thus in the end this thing has become more of a “you romanians”, and “you moldovans” kinna thing. Let’s try to remember that we are the same, one people, one language.

Maybe the reasons why some people have acted more emotionally is because for some this is a very sensitive topic. Instead of accusing them and making them feel bad, maybe those who think so highly of themselves, should pause and understand that.

I look forward to being a sysop here and I will not let you down( those who voted for me as well as those who didn’t). Having said that, I cannot accept a compromise. Node ue (and some other people who support him) want him to stay sysop and invent all kinds of innovative reasons to make it so. I understand why, but we cannot go on like this. It looks a little bit hypocritical and even revolting. I will accept the post of sysop, on one condition: if we adhere to the rules we set up before we voted.

As far as the deletion of the wikipedia is concerned, it is a good idea to put the question there. In its present form I am inclined to say that it should be deleted. Only 30% of the people in the RM say they "speak Moldovan". Out of these most of them do not understand Moldovan to be different then Romanian, but rather a "grai" of Romanian (which in English would be translated as something less then a dialect). For a small minority, maybe like 10% Moldovan is Moldovan(as in a sepparate language) but even then they write in in Latin like Romanian. There can be no question of the language being written in Cyrillic.

Jeorjika 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, as has already been said before, the question is NOT about the name of the language. People may call it whatever they want -- I don't care. Romana, Moldoveneasca, even Voivodineana or Banateana or whatever they want. The primary issue, to me, is the writing system. People at the English Village Pump, agreed that, since it is official by Transnistria and at least some thousands of people prefer it, that it is OK to have a Wiki in Cyrillic. Your reasoning against this has been dubious, at best -- your camp has called it a slap in the face... not a valid reason to prevent a Wikipedia that can be read by real people. Or that Latin is the only official alphabet in Republica Moldova... well, this is Wikipedia, not Republica Moldova. Wikipedia servers are in America, but that doesn't mean we only have articles in English. Likewise, in Russia the official script is Cyrillic, but the Tatar WP uses Latin. Or that nobody uses Cyrillic... you have no sources for this, and goes contrary to the fact that thousands of schoolchildren learn to write their mother language in Cyrillic.
Basically, the Anti-MoWP camp's main argument seems to be: we should not have a Wikipedia in Cyrillic because it's bad/evil/stalinist/insulting/offensive/upsetting/I-don't-like-it/it-ruins-our-beautiful-language. None of these are valid reasons. We have a Wikipedia in Gothic, which is nobody's native language. Same with Lojban. Surely, a Wikipedia in Cyrillic is more useful than these, since there are people who really use it?? Then, there is your argument that we shouldn't have it because the people who use Cyrillic, are forced to, and did not make a choice. What about the Moldovans outside of Transnistria who prefer Cyrillic? They're not the majority, but they do exist. Are they forced to use Cyrillic? Of course not -- Latin script is the only official script in Moldova, so they're not forced. Well, are Transnistrians forced? Surely, many are, and would rather write in Latin. But after generations of indoctrination, an idea will often be so firmly ingrained that it will remain forever. Serbians originally used the Cyrillic alphabet; under Yugoslav administration it was discouraged. Now, it is official again in Serbia, but the majority still prefers Latin script for writing because they are more used to it. Mongolians were forced by an oppressive Communist regime to change from their beautiful flowing traditional alphabet to Cyrillic. This was in the 1930s. Now, almost everybody in Mongolia still uses Cyrillic because of the indoctrination. So, unless Transnistria is annihilated in the near future, I think people will continue using Cyrillic, by choice or otherwise, for a long time. --Node ue 12:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Node ue you are really oversimplifying things. First, you are dividing this discussion between “Our camp” and “your camp” which I think is very counterproductive.

Then you make it look like some people do not like the Wikipedia and that is the only reason why they are against it. It is not so. Simply this language does not exist(especially in its current form in Cyrillic). There is nobody that reads this in Cyrillic. And yes the name does matter because you cannot call the “English” language wikipedia “German”, for example, and then say well it’s ok, the name does not matter.

Let me tell you something that you probably do not know. We Moldovan-Romanians from Bessarabia, call the ones in Transnistria or rather used to call them Santisti, because of the way they talk, which is a little different then ours.

This wikipedia since you are saying is made for them, should at best be called Santistan Wikipedia. At best. Nobody in Moldova on the right side of the Dnester ever uses Cyrillic.

Where is this request for adminiship? Can somebody give me site? Jeorjika 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT THE NAME!!! You may call it whatever you want! It's not important! The main page no longer says "moldoveneasca" OR "romana". So this can be the Romanian-Cyrillic WP, or the Moldovan WP, or the Santistan WP or the Martian WP, or whatever name you want to use, it doesn't matter. And how would you know that nobody to the west (not the "right") of the Nistru uses Cyrillic?? You don't live in Moldova. Plenty of recent sources sharply disagree with you, and you should know that your unionist views differ from those of most Moldovans. See for example en:User talk:Serhiodudnic, where domnul Dudnic, a Moldovan, explains that he is not Romanian, but Moldovan, but that the language he speaks is Romanian. We in the majority express these views over and over again, but the tiny minority of Romanofils likes to go around advocating union, as if it will solve all of Moldova's problems, talking about the big bad Russian immigrants (even though currently the majority of Slavs in MD are Ukrainians who were similarly oppressed by USSR policy), evil Soviet Union. Well, with the current situation of Moldova, it seems better to focus on the FUTURE rather than the PAST. Both neighbours aren't choice -- Romania is a bit nationalistic attitude towards Moldova, Ukraine is just frustrating and seems sometimes a puppet of the Kremlin. Some minority can't cope with the reality of modern Moldova so they hold dreams of reuniting with their long-lost Romanian 'brothers'. But the majority just deal with it, with the many realities that are found today in Moldova, the cultures grinding against each other, the quiet conflicts that occur every day for simple reasons. Wanting to reunite with a country that we were only joined to for a few decades will solve no problems. --Node

Node, first of all I am from there so I think I know more about the situation then you do.

Yeah, or at least that's what you say 'mcs. You can't prove it, anymore than I can. For all we can tell, you're from Bucuresti, or Iasi, or even Moscow. All you can tell on the Internet is somebody's current location. You can't tell where they're from originally.

Dudnic has his own personal agenda. If you do not believe me I urge you to visit his changes to the Communist Party of Moldova.

Uhh... how are the edits to that page ([1]) promoting his own agenda? Seriously, if you think those are promoting a personal agenda, your view of things must be very warped. Perhaps you took the proposed things as things that are actually happening. Obviously that is not true. It is just a list of the empty promises they make. That is why the word "propose" is in italics there. Other than that, I don't see what possible problems you could have with his edits to that page.

The second thing is, you are making this about union and independence. This is not about UNION AND INDEPENDENCE. I know that people outside Moldova have a very simplified idea of what goes on in there and I don't blame you for this idea. But just because a Moldovan says "I speak Romanian" does not mean he means he is for the union. Most people in both countries are not for union right now. Romanians have the EU to worry about and most Moldovans, even the ones that say that they speak Romanian just simply do not want to unite with Romania( at least not now).

I don't make it about union and independence. I do not have these warped ideas you talk about. Dudnic strikes me as a mostly reasonable (though a bit nationalistic) boy. He is certainly not a unionist, yet he says he speaks Romanian. So I never associated unionism with "speaking romanian". What I associate with unionism, is sentiments like yours of "remember that we are ... one people". Although there is certainly a great deal of truth in this, you are dragging it to the extreme with your calls to your brethren for help against an enemy of the Romanian people, real or perceived. Your ultimate goal is still obviously the deletion of this Wikipedia, an issue which needs to be resolved on a global level. Once that issue is resolved, if it is not resolved in your favour, I highly doubt that you will have any desire to participate in this Wikipedia.

This is very much about the name. It is also about facts. In Moldova we don't use the Cyrillic script. Period. Jeorjika 05:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

We... who is this "we"? This is coming from a non-Moldovan. So maybe YOU don't use Cyrillic, period, but some real Moldovans, who actually live and breathe in Moldova, do. This is corroborated by many sources. Especially in rural areas by people educated under Stalin, and in Transnistria.
If it's about the name, then what is the problem? This site doesn't say "Wikipedia Moldoveneasca" anymore!!! There is no longer a name issue, because every place that uses the name has been reworded from "moldovan language" to "this language", or "moldovan wikipedia" to "this wikipedia" or just "wikipedia". Main Page used to say "daca preferati sa vizualizati wikipedia moldoveneasca in alfabetul latin, clic aici"... Then it was changed (after a democratic vote) to say "daca preferati sa vizualizati wikipedia moldoveneasca / romana in alfabetul latin, vizitati wikipedia in romana". Then more recently I decided to take out name altogether so now it says "daca preferati sa vizualizati Wikipedia in alfabetul latin, vizitati wikipedia in romana". There is no mention of a language. I even added a site notice to warn people that if they want to read WP in Latin, to go to ro.wp! But that's not enough -- you still have a problem with the language name, even though it is no longer mentioned! That's absolutely rediculos. --Node ue 08:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree mostly. It is justified that there was backlash over the validity of the vote, but since the new Requests for adminship page has been set up, I think other people should stop complaining. Those who want to become a sysop alongside Jeorjika can now do so very easily, simply by nominating themselves for administrator. Remember - Node, Dmitriid and Gabix are already candidates so please vote as soon as possible whether you approve them or not. I also believe Jeorjika should be made sysop as soon as possible - where is such a request made? On the Wikipedia-l mailing list? Ronline 07:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is this page.

If you're to become a sysop, you should know how to use the Special Pages properly as any experienced Wikipedian. You should easily be able to find it using these. But I'll point it out for you: click on "schimbari recente". You can then select "Wikipedia" as the namespace. It should be readily apparent. --Node ue 08:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Compromise solution?

Hi, I dropped in on this page by one of my "random walks" on Wikipedia. Though I do not know much about the subject, and have not fine-read the above discussion, I would like to propose a compromise solution. I propose calling this Wikipedia Romanian (Cyrillic), or similar in Romanian. The abbreviation should be changed to ro-cy (or the appropriate Romanian name) instead of mo. While this is blatantly wrong, and probably a violation of the "no original research" that is at least consensus on English wikipedia, it should be a good solution because

  • many Romanians appear to be offended by someone calling the language spoken in Moldova "Moldovan". They should be able to accept this solution
  • I assume that some people may have migrated from Russia to Moldova in the Soviet era and learned "Moldovan" in Cyrillic. In addition, it appears to be the case that this is the way the language was taught in schools in the Soviet era; thus, some people may be more comfortabe writing or reading Cyrillic. Even if this is only a small group, and the script/language combination may not be around in seventy years or so, should we deny them their own Wikipedia?

I see the solution as something akin to the name of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"; though a silly name, it appears to be an acceptable solution to both the Greek, who think Macedonia is in Greece, and the Macedonians, who want to call their country.. Macedonia. Okay, maybe a bad example, but you get the point? If I seem to ignore replies to this post, contact me here. en:User:Jørgen

Hi Jørgen. I don't think any of this should be nessecary, except maybe the thing about subdomain. The reason is that currently, the main pages don't use any language name at all, so hopefully the language-name issue is now moot. --Node ue 09:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Appealing to bureaucrats

I posted a summary of this issue at en:Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#The issue of existance of a language version of Wikipedia. Bureaucrats who read that page might advice something (bureaucrats are people who are more powerful than administrators). en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, as Secretlondon noted, it is the improper venue again. It's more appropriate to discuss it on Wikipedia-l, where there have already been a few (short) discussions on it in the past. --Node ue 06:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Information about Wikipedia-l is available here. I guess each of us who is intersted in this discussion needs to make an account there first. Would it be a good idea to wait several days until people get comfortable with that list and then do the post? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 08:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be wise to wait at least 2-3 days before starting the debate on the Wikipedia-I mailing list. --Landroni 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Let us aim say for Sunday, October 23, to start the debate on Wikipedia-l. Any other day would work just as fine (I think there is no rush to do it earlier, better make sure most people know about it, as previous discussions at Wikipedia-l did not end up solving anything, maybe because there was not enough discussion). If I do the first post, I would plan to use the text at en:Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#The issue of existance of a language version of Wikipedia, but suggestions are welcome. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 10:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I did the post, see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-October/042241.html All of us are welcome, actually encouraged, to express opinions on this matter. Again, one would need to create an account on the mailing list (see link above) to participate. Hopefully something meaningful will come out. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 13:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I liked this message on Wikipedia-l. It is something I also thought about before. The mo project can't prosper as there are too few contributors (Node ue is the only permanent presence, and he does not know the language well enough to make many original contributions). Translating things from the ro wikipedia, even with the help of a program, can't bring you too far.
The readership of this project would be very small too I would argue. The absolute majority of people living in Moldova and outside Transnistria would know the Latin script much better than Cyrillic (it has been more than 15 years since it was adopted). People in Transnistria are too poor and too busy with other things to read this encyclopedia, and they would prefer the Russian version anyway.
Now is the real moment to ask if anybody wants to become an administrator. Anybody willing to check pages for vandalism, help in translating the interface, protect pages, etc? Node ue might need some help. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 05:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Node on Wiki

1. Node reverts the article on Moldovan language whenever I post the source on Grigore Ureche; 2. Node claims that he speaks Romanian; 3. Node says that Moldovan and Romanian are two different languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language#My_source_on_Grigore_Ureche_is_being_refused

--Anittas 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, this is not the right place for your statement. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Mo.Wikipedia.org = Waste of resources

I am looking at the stats page and there's 50 visits per day. Even the Tibetan Wikipedia should have more visitors, though the population is smaller and internet connection there is really scarce (at least they had more one year ago, though their Wikipedia started almost one year later). There are only 6 contributors for this section. Nobody is caring about it. I would say leave it this way if it wasn't for the wasted 10$/year for storage, backup and subdomain maintenance. When there are 6 contributors, there aren't enough eyeballs to spot the POV's.-- Luci Sandor.

Look more carefully -- the stats about visits per day are from 2004. At that time, this Wikipedia was empty/almost empty. So you don't know if anyone cares...

Pietras1988 from pl wiki about MO wiki

Mo.Wikipedia.org - must live (Monument Prostiei!)

I was really surprised, when noticed, that Moldavian Wikipedia is closed. I don't want to argue about Moldavian and Romanian is one language or not. First of all, Moldavian language is official state language of Republic of Moldova. (Article 13 of The Constitution of The Republic Of Moldova).)
As it was mentioned in discussion, Moldavian Wikipedia is set of articles in cyrillic script. And I would like to pay attention, that Moldavian language in Cyrillic script is official in Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria) and Moldavian Wikipedia is the only place to store Moldavian articles in Cyrillic. Those who prefer Latin script or don’t like Cyrillic are free to use Romanian Wikipedia.
Then, why there are Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and even Serbo-Croatian languages in Wikipedia, when there are still questions about, for example, Bosnian language independence. In Wikipedia Serbo-Croatian language is the same Serbian, but in Latin script, when Serbian articles are in Cyrillic.
And by the way the same situation as with Moldavian and Romanian languages may appear with Macedonian and Bulgarian, for example.


Comentariu de Lanu (Chişinău, Republica Moldova):
La ce te-ai legat de limba de stat a Republicii Moldova dacă chiar în acel articol 13 e scris clar că alfabetul folosit e cel LATIN! Cum ai menţionat, alfabetul chirilic e folosit DOAR în regiunea moldovenească separatistă Transnistria. Adică susţii ca mo.wikipedia.org să reprezinte o regiune separatistă şi doar pe ea???
Şi mai pe câmpii umbli când pomeneşti de limbile sârba, croata, bosniacă, macedoneană etc. Astea-s limbi ale unor state INDEPENDENTE şi RECUNOSCUTE internaţional! O fi cumva Transnistria un stat independent şi recunoscut ca atare??? Hai să nu aiurim.
Dacă Wikipedia Moldovenească nu e lichidată, atunci ea trebuie să reprezinte Republica Moldova, unica ţară din lume în care limba de stat e limba moldovenească! Respectiv alfabetul folosit în această versiune Wikipedia TREBUIE să fie alfabetul folosit oficial în Republica Moldova, adică alfabetul latin. Asta de fapt ar înseamna să existe 2 versiuni Wikipedia IDENTICE, în română şi în moldovenească, dar ce mai contează aşa un fleac atunci când ambiţiile "maldafenilor" sunt atât de mari...
Wikipedia represents no-one. The Romanian Wikipedia does not "represent" Romanians or Moldovans or anyone else. It represents knowledge. Language is simply the medium used for transmission of knowledge. It doesn't matter if it's "only" used in a separatist region. It is still used, by somebody. And thus, it is valid as a medium for transmitting knowledge to people. Knowledge, is power. And if separatism is so bad, maybe these people will be able to find information on a Wikipedia, to set them straight.
It is shameful that some people try to erradicate the Cyrillic Romanian or Moldavian on the Internet!!! Romanians, you have been writing in Cyrillic before the political decision of adopting Latin alphabet, which is not Romanian, not Orthodox in essence. I don't like Latin script used in Serbian, my language, and I don't like it in Romanian. This is the only connection you have with your nationa past, and it will be left to the Trnasnistrian Romanians only. You lose. The Wikipedia in Moldavian must live. It should not serve anybody's propaganda or insult anyone's attitudes. Romanians and Moldavians are one nation, just like Serbs and Montenegrins, or Germans, Austrians and Luxemburgeois. but preserving an alphabet of your ancestrors in crucial for your future as an European nation. Zhika, Serbia