Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Siberian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussion finished, Result is DELETE. --MF-Warburg(de) 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • At Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia, it has been decided that the so-called Siberian Wikipedia be closed.
  • Subsequently, a bug request has been filed, asking the developers to lock the database, which has been implemented 20 September 2007.
  • Since the project has only been locked but not taken down, the non-encyclopaedic and partially offensive content, which caused the long controversy over this language edition, is still available on Wikimedia's servers and will be so until the project gets either deleted or moved to another server.
  • Comments by Yaroslav Zolotaryov, the creator both of the "Siberian language" and the Siberian Wikipedia, suggest that he is not interested in maintaining the project at a new place, cf. Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia#Zolotaryov reveals the truth and http://samir74.livejournal.com/1320793.html. Meanwhile, the project has found another home at sib.volgota.com, therefore there is no need to preserve the data on WMF servers. --Johannes Rohr 09:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the existing content does not meet Wikimedia's standards, it should be removed from Wikimedia's servers as soon as possible. If no-one is interested in continuing the project in another place, the only option left is its deletion. See above, Since it has found a new home, no data will be lost. --Johannes Rohr 09:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the ru-sib subdomain should be taken down and removed from the Site Matrix.

Note that Siberian language does not refer to Siberian Yupik, or any other indigenous language, it is an artificial language created in 2005.

I feel that this proposal should be discussed for no longer than one month. After that a decision should be taken and put into effect asap. --Johannes Rohr 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I propose to close the discussion within a week from now, i.e. by Tuesday, 16 October, unless there are objections.. --Johannes Rohr 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in favour[edit]

  1. Fully support. The german Wikipedia is already complaining about ru-sib still being avaliable, and this is not an inactive Wikipedia which can be reopened, but a case where there is clear consensus that this won't be opened again. -- Prince Kassad 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, why we need closed project? --Flrn 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, this obscene hoax needs to be obliterated; there is no reason of preserving the content. Zolotaryov had enough of this ru-sub game, now he is playing native Byelorussian speaker which should leave him very little time for being also a ru-sib native; and there don't seem to be any more people interested in playing ru-sib. If there are, they can easily recreate the game's content anywhere in the cyberspace.Elephas 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fully support. Wikipedia is not a waste bin. Nobody needs this finally closed project. --Obersachse 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - it takes away our integrity by having a closed project still visible to the public. If there was a chance that this was going to re-open, I may have stayed neutral, but that isn't the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - until now, it was never clear (at least of the discussion that I bothered to read) that this was an artificial language. Whole-heartedly delete, or perhaps offer to a commercial venture like, Wikia, for them to archive. -- Zanimum 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Lockal 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Logical consequence. --Aphaia 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Otherwise why we closed this... sorry... ugliness? --Aleksandrit 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strongest ever possible Support per Aphaia. Rombik 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Let me be eleventh. The purpose of this wiki is not creating encyclopedia. — Kalan ? 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Delete with fire Alexnye 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support In Russia there is a basic state language - Russian. Except for that there are state languages of independent regions and in them all basic documentation is conducted in two languages. I shall support any language project in languages of greater and small people of Russia, but only not ru-sib as it is not intended for dialogue but only for dissociation of people. It is necessary to remove.--Torin-ru 07:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per Aphaia (logical consequence)--Nick1915 - all you want 08:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support The ru-sib was really a piece of garbage. One additional reason why such locked projects have to be deleted - we already have problems with mo-wikipedia, which is locked, but still exists. The problem is that interwiki bots add interwiki to it, and since it is locked we cannot fix interwiki conflicts. It's a real problem which I have with articles about Russian cities because of lock of Moldovan wiki. MaxiMaxiMax 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support But of course it should be deleted, I always thought that was the whole point. What good is it to "close down" a project for producing blatantly inappropriate content, when that inappropriate content is then going to be kept and displayed forever, in a form where people couldn't even correct it if they wanted to? Frankly, I don't understand why this even requires an extra discussion. Fut.Perf. 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, we should dump it somewhere and close, since it's a nonsence. VasilievV 2 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support, --Kartmen 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support, per above. --Kaganer 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. As loathe as I am to destroy information (I'm a digital packrat), there's no real purpose being served by keeping it around. Its archival value is nil, due primarily the the plethora of problems surrounding it. Burn it all. EVula // talk // 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, it is not just a hoax, it is a propagation of hatred. Mikkalai 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support deletion of this stupid joke; the argument "let's keep for historical purposes" is not valid since Zolotaryov at last decided to keep a copy at sib.volgota.com, and archive.org has a copy as well ∴ Alex Smotrov 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support, there is no need in existance of a non-editable closed project; the people that had created and supported it have already copied all these treasures to another place. And also per Fut. Perf. --Mitrius 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. Utter nonsense. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support It's not a language. I live in Siberia and I never used it and never will :-) --Russkij 9 October 2007 The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.46.123.189 (talk • contribs) --Johannes Rohr 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC).. *** User:Elephas however, the IP address 195.46.123.189 is registered to the provider irtel.ru which is a subsidiary of of the Irkutsk branch of a Sibirian telecom corporation. Irkutsk - that's definitely Siberian indeed. However, to boost the validity of the vote the user should have signed up and logged in, indeed. Elephas 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support It's fictitious language.--Soularis 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: There's no need to repeat here the discussion about the merits of the project or of the "language". That's all been decided. It's just about what to do with the junk. Fut.Perf. 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's fictitious language - this seems like a valid argument along the line of the current discussion: the language is fictitious therefore, as it is less than 2 years old and has very limited fan base the count of which does not go into triple digits, nonwithstanding the consideration of its unlikely glorious future, in its current shape and scope such language can not possibly sport any content worth preserving in an encyclopedia format, even in a free public community driven pedia such as Wiki. The presented stream of logical conclusions stemming from the wording of the voter seem to render the vote valid as spelled, IMHO. Elephas 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Fut.Perf. has it quite right; in this situation (unlike, of course, in others we encounter), it would be rather nonsensical for us to close but not delete. Joe 21:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong support. No one wants to decide for every article whether or not it is NNPOV. --Thogo (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. support not a language, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Please for the love of all that is holy speedy delete this giant pile of fail under G11 and G10 - (), 05:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And per Elephas below. The sibwiki was never "about the texts"; it was a political statement, not an encyclopedia. - (), 05:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • What on earth is G11 and G10?? Jon Harald Søby 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • He's referring to en:WP:CSD criteria — G10 is "attack page", and G11 is "blatant advertising" -- Prince Kassad 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, per above. Multichill 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support No value in content and the site is now hosted somewhere else[1]. Siebrand 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Project closed, all articles in it is POV, why we need keep it?--Ctac 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support, ru-sib have an extremy POV with satyric "translation" of russian texts, not an articles. #!89.223.67.221 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (ru:Участник:George_Shuklin).
  35. Support --S[1] 10:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support because it was moved to sib.volgota.com. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support --Since the project closed last month and as a sysop on ru-sib,the project should be closed completely and deleted since I don't see any need in still keeping it...--Cometstyles 11:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Let's get the work done. This wiki shouln't be created in the first place, so we must correct the error. But i think, that we should keep main page of ru-sib hear, on meta, as a monument of our errors.--Dima io 23:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally don't think that this issue calls for "monumental" proportions; in my opinion, it's not nearly big enough to be taken that seriously. There are lots of petty scams of this kind going on here, or getting to go as we speak: once the basic rules for adopting languages are flawed, there will be always small but determined fan groups finding ways around without any intent to actually collect, preserve and spread knowledge but for sheer attention whoring and nothing else. Take a look at the www.wikipedia.org portal alone: looking at it, you get an impression that Volapuk is more popular of a language than Chinese. In reality, there is a tiny bunch of devoted Volapuk fans who keep coining hundreds of thousands of one-word articles just to get the defacto dead language into the list of the most used languages; what for - that's up to their shrinks to figure out... One sensible change in policies, such as, for example: To qualify for a WMF project, a language must be taught to children in hundreds of schools, an English-Language dictionary must be available on Amazon.com, there should be at least 2 radio stations broadcasting in this language, 1 TV station and at least one feature movie shot completely in this language in the last 100 years... - such change, for example, would eliminate any possibility of a nonsensical project getting to waste anybody's resources. But alas, with current policies in place nonsense will keep mushrooming in the wikispace, regardless of monuments erected and we'll just have to keep thinning them on case by case basis.Elephas 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Please note that all those controversial Wikis, including ru-sib, thl, tokipona and volopük, were created before both the adoption of the current Language proposal policy and the creation of the languages subcommittee. The current policy is quite strict, e.g. a language must have an iso code in order to be eligible. If you feel that the current policy isn't strict enough, can you name an example of a project being approved by langcom prematurely? --Johannes Rohr 14:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, imho Byelarussian split was a mistake. The original be.wiki hasn't been doing well for one simple reason: you can be [beaten up] for speaking Belarussian in Belarus. Everybody speaks Russian in Belarrussian capital, including the president. To hear the "mova" you have to travel far to the countryside where some of those strong-willed and stubborn Belarussian villagers still do speak the language. But they would not know which side of a computer is up. So the language is practically dead, the articles on be.wiki go scarce and between, there is nothing encyclopedic in this effort, yet with all the regulations and rules this dying language nobody knows for sure has gotten a second wikipedia because nobody knows which belarussian is right; I don't expect it ever have more than 5 digits of solid articles. Every educated person in Belarus speaks, acts and thinks in Russian, something the board that approved the be.wiki split obviously did not know. Same story with many other languages, Kazakh for example. It's a long story, and a wrong place to discuss this. I think that it's time to stop considering new languages for the next hundred or so years. The languages that are represented already must cover 99.99999% or so of the humanity with an opportunity to preserve and share knowledge if not all 100% considering the fact that a native of some remote forgotten language must speak one of the mainstream languages to be able to use a computer skillfully enough to maintain a real encyclopedia. References: [scroll to the very bottom], [[2]] [[3]] Elephas 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you. Really, we should get rid of this trash. And quickly. Besides the copy of this remains on archive.org--Dima io 10:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Sib-wiki is not an encyclopedia. Ingwar JR 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support, per above. ~ putnik 10:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, according to Mikkalai and MaxiMaxiMax --Russianname 09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support --Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Discussion is already closed anyway. It's over, folks :-) Fut.Perf. 14:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, per above. --Alastor Moody (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, per MaxiMaxiMax. MadMadDog 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  1. Oppose I only support the deletion of the project, if an archived copy of the dataset or the like can go on another official Wiki-hosted project. I don't want to see this erased even if it betters the image of Wikimedia's integrity. This could very well be the the most picture perfect troll every devised on the internet, and despite being the target of it, with no lasting effects I don't see a valid reason to remove the lesson. This dead wiki should not serve to confuse the readers or the search engine robots, so essentially this amounts to me being in favor of archiving it up into a compressed form and hosting it on a select set of possibly non-mirrored servers just so other people can see what real trolls do. There is probably a hundred print pages of discourse on this, when is it ok to laugh? EvanCarroll 07:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    1. I initially suggested to move the project to wikia. However, since no-one would take care of it (Zolotaryov already indicated that he has lost interest in his language), this would effectively mean abusing wikia as a dumping ground.
    2. If anyone volunteers to maintain this project outside the Wikimedia servers, please leave a note!
    3. Having said that, I feel we should not wait for the above to happen. ru-sib should in either case be removed from Wikimedia, not least because else swarms of bots operating in the wikisphere will continue to add thousands of interwiki links to this bogus edition. Anyway, the contents will not be physically erased, but simply become invisible to the general public. If someone wants to re-use the contents, s/he will be free to do so, even after the project has been taken down.
      --Johannes Rohr 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose it should be kept. It was good and active. I think closing shouldn't be done, but they did it. Deletion goes much too far. SF-Language 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose 190.42.59.50 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Lookie again: an anonymous IP address that geographically maps to Lima (the capital of Perú, South America) is voting on behalf of the ru-sib bunch. That IP does not even map to any registered domain but it's one of the top players of this game. Oh them game players!.... Elephas 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I never heard that Peruvians were not allowed to have their say in this matter. However, "oppose" is certainly not a particularly striking argument. --Johannes Rohr 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you allow anonymous IP addresses vote, anyone with basic skills should be able to give you any desired amount of votes from kazillions of available anon IPs. A person with intermediate skills can write you an automatic script that would post votes from unique IP addresses, using proxy servers and/or onion net. Using tricks of this kind, that's how the ru-sib bunch got their little scam running in the first place, got into abusing the Foundation's resources to spread their misogynic, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian and just mischievous ravings. With some common sense in hand, if the votes go strange ways as the one above, someone has to protect this page for registered users only at least, at most run the authentication, same as on the closure vote... If a voting person is a real person, I don't care if he is Peruvian, Inuit or a Zulu; just as long as the person is real. Elephas 19:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your point, however, simple "oppose" or "support" votes should be ignored in any case. This is not a vote. There cannot be a meaningful vote, when no constituency has been determined and no reliable controls are in place. Therefore, I'm not at all worried about any number of IPs "voting".
    Just for curiosity: Can you provide any evidence for the accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny? --Johannes Rohr 22:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's all in subtleties but I see you wear a ru-2 badge so let me give it a shot.
    1. Antisemitism. Creating their "language", they picked the word "жид" for "jewish". They argued that this word does mean "jewish" neutrally in contemporary Czech (which is true) so it means the same in the language of the folks in Siberian, which is pure bull manure. I was born in Siberia, crirss-crossed it along and across from Novosibirsk to Magadan and from Irkutsk to Yakutsk, heard many strange talks but I have not met one person who did not understand that "жид" is in fact a derogatory term, it means utmost disrespect on the verge of hatred or, more likely, full time hatred of the Jewish people. Even down to the ground folks I met and talked to used the word "евреи" with variations like "явреи" when no hatred was to be projected and no disrespect meant, used "жид" with variations to exert hatred. The ru-sib bunch, as native Russian speakers sure know this, their choice for "jewish" was deliberate, to use a chance to insult and humiliate the Jews.
    2. Misogyny. Same situation. They chose "баба" for "woman" arguing that in many Slavic languages and dialects it is emotionally neutral. That's also true and in fact in the everyday practice of 19th century serfs in Central Russia around Moscow it was acually a term of endearment and lovebird talk. But, again, in today's Russian it is humiliating, it is disrespectful word for "woman", it is never-ever term of endearment, never emotionally neutral anymore. And, even the serfs in 19th century did know the today's neutral word - "женщина" with variations.
    They may have not meant projecting actual hatred: it probably was just immaturity, childish mischief like "hey, we got our own pedia with our own language, let's have some fun with it! We can make fun of Jews, let's make fun of Jews! We can make fun of Shakespeare, go for it!" If that's the case, then what they did not realize, in the context of an intended encyclopedia the fun with wordplays ends and earnestness grabs the helm and you get the same result playing with words as with pushing genuine hatred. You may consult other folks with a ru-3 badge or better, I am pretty sure the judgment will be similar if not the same. Elephas 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning "жид", I believe you have a point here, even though it is arguable neutral in several slavic languages, cf. Polish "żyd"", see http://www.jewishinstitute.org.pl It is, I believe, actually derived from "yid", which means "jew" in Yiddish, cf. German "Jude". However, I am aware, that in Russian, "жид" is a derogatory term. However, your second theory sounds more convincing to me - rather than manifest anti-Semitism and misogyny, lack of sincerity seems to be the root cause.
    I was curious because from my casual observations, Zolotaryov's latest project, called "Wikislavia" is a place where not only ru-sib followers, but also Russian right-wingers meet. It also took me just two clicks or so to get from Zolotaryov's blog to a Russian white supremacist site. And metapedia.org, which claims on its English main page that Wikislavia is an affiliate, is dominated by racists, holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis and the like, see [4] for an example. Therefore, it seems that Zolotaryov's brand of oblastnichestvo and the bad old tradition of anti-Semitic integral Russian nationalism are not that far apart, however paradoxical it may seem... --Johannes Rohr 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Out of your examples, as you know, the German word "Jude" does not have any additional load piggybacking on it... The SA thugs were chanting "Juden, Juden" going for a kill, the same word used by today's Central Jewish Council of Germany. The word "Juden" alone does not call for adverse association in the memory: to activate such association, you would have to augment it with additional historical reference... You say "Juden... die Strassen frei... Juden" and suddenly the apparition of the mustached corporal thickens in the air, followed by the documentary from Auschwitz... In Russian, the word "жид" alone brings up the memory of the Black hundreds, pogroms, Stalin's purges, you don't need to augment this word to make it resound the foul stench of hatred, it's augmented already by the customs of the land and a whole hundred years of history. Same with "баба", it instantly brings up the worst of the macho-macho Russian customs "...с матершиной мою маму бил папаша кулаком..." and the ru-sib bunch sure does know that. As of their hanging out together with the extremist, you know that many troubled trends in history had started from something that looked like a bad joke initially. Nobody took Lenin's group seriously in late 1890s in Russia, few people took seriously the mustached corporal in early 1920s Germany... People like that are always around, most of them never get out of the laughing stock but some do... That's why I see my noble obligation to make it harder for this kind to get out of the laughing stock... Elephas 14:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose. It must have to stay in History of Wikipedia. --Deutscher Friedensstifter 20:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

  • I'd say keep the ru-sib:Main Page as a virtual monument of (generalized) wikipedia hoax. After all it's a page in the history of Wikimedia projects, shameful at that, but nevertheless worthy of being made a point of in the future. As it stands now, the whole shebang will get deleted, and in couple of years noone would remember such a thing existed in the first place. There are only 3 wikipedias that have an article on Siberian Wikipedia, 2 of which are stubs, and the ru-article doesn't strike me as particularly NPOV. And if the whole thing gets deleted from the face of the internet, this (in my oppinion, very notable) episode in the development of Wikipedias would be greatly obfuscated in the future. And as a wikipedian, I wouldn't want to see Wikimedia projects as ones forgeting their own pasts. So how about keeping the articles themselves (the names), but blanking their contents, except keeping the Main Page, with a "pedestal" that tells the visitors about the special role of that virtual monument? - Teak 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Which ru-article are you referring to? AFAIK, there was an "artificial Siberian language" article on ru.wikipedia.org but they have deleted it as a useless piece of garbage and it has not been restored since. There are similar articles in about half a dozen of different wikipedias but none in ru. I personally don't see any merit in erecting a monument to a bad judgment on the one side and pestilent trickery on the other. If the purpose is avoiding similar hoaxes in future, preserving the discussions about the closure should be sufficient. Elephas 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to ru:Сибирская Википедия, and the monument is to be to the page of history, not the trickery and bad judgment. The discussion about the closure is useless for making a point about the fact that the ru-sib Wikipedia existed and contained this many articles with this many contributors. Besides, it's ridden with sock-puppetry, provocative comments on both sides, and is simply unreadable. With time it'll get pushed into archives, and archives of the archives, losing its value as a handy example of the headache that an edition of Wikipedia can be. And honestly I don't care about preserving anything in the "Siberian language", but I know I'd fill good every time I visit the Main Page of w:ru-sib to find the Wikipedia closed (the bad judgment did get corrected!) and turned into a lasting example for those requesting the creation of an obscure project. Teak 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the information should be preserved on the record, but I'm not sure how a dead project works. I would object to the prorogation of the project to new mirrors of wikipedia, and think a centralized compressed copy would suffice for this purpose. EvanCarroll 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Normally, preserving whichever data is always a good thing to do, but in this case, let's take a look at another piece of their discussion from here, quote: "Неужели дампы забрать нельзя?" - "Можно, но я бы лично и пальцем не пошевелил ради этого. Смысл сибвики был не в этих файлах.". English translation: "We can't even get the dump?" - "I would not care to even move my finger for that, the goal of the ru-sib wiki wasn't about the texts." So one of the fellow ru-sibs asks the founder (in Russian) if they can get the dump of the wiki and the founder answers (in Russian) that the texts were not the point, he does not care about the texts. The goal obviously was just having their personal wiki, they imagined that having a personal wikipedia would give them somehow more credibility to pursue their political goals, but the texts are expendable and have no value whatsoever for anyone. I figure, they can't read the texts they typed half a year ago because it's not even a language, not even a young, unsettled artificial language, it's pure gibberish that's it. No more content there than, for example in this sentence: "alksdOPIUPOI qweioulkkjn zkljhakjsdhfk"... Elephas 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the strongest argument so far presented for the deletion of this wiki. It was never meant to be an encyclopedia to begin with. Adding this to my !vote. - (), 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To illustrate the level of contempt the ru-sib bunch, here's a link to their discussion of the ru-sib wiki closure. Quote: "Википидоры таки добились закрытия сибвики. Ну все, мрази, теперь вы и в гибели кучи текстов виноваты". English translation: "Now the wikipidori did succeed in closure of the sib-wiki. That's it, those scumbags now are guilty of killing a bunch of texts". (NB: To German, wikipidori, can be translated as "wiki-schwule", to English as "wikifags"). That's a talk of the people who managed to trick and abuse the generosity of the Foundation to play along their political agenda... Now, my dear fellow "wikipidori scumbags", are we to keep some parts of the debunked hoax of such hateful bunch for history or just scrap it all as a useless piece of garbage and forget it? Elephas 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You are opening a new can of provocation again. The question of deletion of ru-sib doesn't have anything to do with the moral character of those who created it. Yes, Zolotaryov & Co took Wikimedia for a ride, but there is no way of going back and preventing that now, the deletion of any and every mention or the Siberian Wikipedia won't correct that. And with your quotation you sound just like a revenger. Now enough wasting my time on this crap... Teak 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment: I've got informed that dumps (in both word senses) of ru-sib are being imported in new place, sib.volgota.com, a site hosted by Zolotaryov himself. So the deletion from WMF servers won't hurt anything even if it could when dropping database completely without a way back. — Kalan ? 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Right, one of the last posts says, "Спасли-таки", (English: "Eventually we did save it!"), guess that's about the dumps, in both senses. ;) Elephas 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're right. — Kalan ? 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why still not deleted?[edit]

  • The discussion has finished for a few days. Why still not deleted? -- Someone 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
devs are lazy ;-) The deletion is requested at bugzilla:11680 --MF-Warburg(de) 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)