Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Support closing the Siberian wiki[edit]

  1. Support And I hope FSB will care of you soon, Slavik the trickster. Info-terrorism must be stopped! Олежа, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support DELETE THIS FAKE WIKI IMMEDIATELY. It has no right to exist at all. All arguments are useless and hypocritic as the matter itself. "Siberian" language doesn't exist as well as such a counrty called "Siberia". It is a part of Russian Federation and used to be a part of USSR and Russia itself always. The only matter of that project's is using it as a tribune for separatist and sectant propoganda. It breaks Russian and international laws, and also may be connected with international terrorist groups. Adminstration must close "Siberian" wiki as soon as possible. There is no sense in opposing this one-man-army of Zolotarev, supporting his own politic clownade. Wikipedia is not a place for such things! Just ban him permanently and delete sib-ru project. --Galova 13:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Whether or not Siberia is part of a particular state is of no relevance here. And there is nothing in the International Law, preventing you from setting up web sites in any language you want, artificial or natural. I would be highly surprised if Russian law (which recognises the multinational composition of the country) would prohibit putting texts on the Web in a conlang based on an obscure dialect. I do have my own reservations about ru-sib, but these Old-Soviet style accusations here are just ridiculous. --Johannes Rohr 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support. "Sibwiki" is a provocative self-advertising linguistic project. When the purpose of a wikipedia project is to advertise a new language, you know that something is very wrong. Two quick links to prove my point: [1] [2]. Here we see that Zolotaryov wrote another hate speech in a form of obscene and derogatory poem. He posted it in his livejournal first, to "prove that it is not an original research", good move. (Diff: [3]) Lantios 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. The content of this "wikipedia" seems to have much more to do with en:uncyclopedia. And mention that there's not a single Siberian supports ru-sibwiki. If there's the siberian language, most of its protectors should be from Russia-located accounts, but they're not. Authorisation:Garret Beaumain, Beaumain. Beaumain 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support The only existing of this "Wikipedia" makes people think that the whole project is not serious, that it is made only for fun. Sura 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support It is not serious, it must be closed. The author of sib-wiki is a rasist and liar. Latitude 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) --Johannes Rohr 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC). Please note that the decision to close this wiki has long been accepted and we are currently discussing its deletion.--Johannes Rohr 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. Oppose Oppose Some people here claimed they can understand all Slavic languages just because they are native speacers of only one of them. I'm a native speaker of two but sometimes I can't understand my countrymates (Ukrainians) who speak another dialect. And you should have seen Russians trying to understand at least meaning of what was said in standard Ukrainian. After all every language was a dialect of some other language once. The Church Slavonic (aka Old Russian, Old Bulgarian) died and gave birth to at lest half a dozen tongues and this process is permanent for every language with a large number of native spekers (German, Arabic etc). And every language should be preserved irrespective of its history. --Aledubr 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) auth [4] by --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose I do not see a reason why it really has to be closed. Wikipedia exists in a lot of languages, even distinct ones. (see authorization at my user talk page)--VictorAnyakin 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    1. As the page remains unavailable for editing, I've put my vote here --VictorAnyakin 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose Small nations must be protected and supported to develop their own culture: Siberians against Russian chauvinism, Montenegrins against Serbian chauvinism and Moldovans against Romanian chauvinism. Not to mention that there are a lot of articles (about 6500). Mauco 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - UP3 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose The language dose exist! Ant it is a political chauvinism behind efforts to close great wiki:((( Authorization - [5] TestPilot 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Oppose If you are going to close the Siberian, then close the Klingon wiki. Siberian might not be an official language recognised by the ISO, but it is obviously a dialect understood and written by actual PEOPLE like you and me in the world. The wiki will show, more then 6000 articles! That is more then most wikis with spoken languages. Although I think Siberian and Moldovan are just rediculous wikipedis and waste of time, any time wasted having fun and contributing is not wasted time at all. :) --Ice201 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    1. I have updated main page - TestPilot 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Quotes of Russian soldiers in Chechnya
"I remember a Chechen female sniper. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it." - russian soldier
Violence has severely affected Russian society with the increase of terrorist attacks since 1995. The school massacre in the Ossetian town of Beslan caused shock and awe in all of Russia and beyond. It culminated a series of terrorist attacks whose foundations were laid in the history of the two Chechen wars in which Russian troops brought havoc to Chechen society. Though terrorism is usually regarded as a iolation of basic Islamic principles, today Islam is effectively used in Russia by radical nationalist factions to justify their political strategies.
On 1 September 2004 the festive beginning of a new school year in Russia turned into a national tragedy. A group of about 30 armed men and two women wearing explosive belts seized a secondary school in the small town of Beslan near Vladikavkaz in Northern Ossetia. Teachers, pupils, and their relatives were taken hostages. Their number reached about 1300 and consisted mostly of children. The hostage- takers demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from neighbouring Chechnya. Russian commandos and local militia surrounded the school. In a bloody assault that ensued on 3 September most hostages were freed, but in the fighting the school was destroyed, leaving most terrorists together with 11 Russian soldiers and 344 civilians killed and many others injured. Some of the terrorists escaped. The impact of the Beslan massacre in Russia is comparable to that of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Russians felt and expressed solidarity with the Beslan victims. The State Bank opened an account for numerous donations to be transferred to them and a special Internet site on Beslan was created ( About 135,000 people took part in an anti-terrorist demonstration held near the Kremlin in Moscow on 7 September. The official Russian media blamed “international Islamic terrorists” for carrying out the Beslan assault and named al-Qaida as responsible for it. At the same time fears from “Caucasians” and Islam in general grew. A Levada-Center poll indicated that 33% of Russians were in favour of preventing Chechens from entering Russian towns. In Moscow, over 10,000 Muslim migrants were detained by the police, among them the Daghestani cosmonaut Magomed Tolboev who was taken for a Chechen. --Mauco 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Siberians are not a nation, and do not consider themselves as "Siberians". Go to any Siberian town and ask about it, you will be given a quite fair answer... <_<
And incidentally, how is the above quote related to the topic? -- Grafikm fr 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Siberians are nation, but you filled our towns with prisoners from Russia, who are not Siberians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
With no recognised borders and internationally not even known...laughable

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

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

  1. Oppose Oppose

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

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

[...]На Дону, московский, все русское, кроме Дона или Украины; московский офицер, не казачий, армейский; то же, что в Сиб. русский, не сибирский, из европейской Руси. [usage in other regions of Russia...]On the Don, muscowite, everything Russian, aside from Don and Ukraine; muscowite officer, not cossackian, military(adj.); the as in Sib.(place name, since written with cap. letter) russian, not siberian, from european Rus'. [6] You interpreted it the way it fits you most, but OK, OK, it's YOUR language after all! (see Elk Salmon's pro-deletion comment) Just keep the pseudoscientific claims of it being an actual spoken or authentically reconstructed language out of it. 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant edit/PA[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry elimination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Very strange idea - to change rules during the voting (in russian - "менять правила во время игры"). I'm not sure it's our competence at all in MetaWiki. In any case - strange. --A1 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    I know why opposers don't want to prevent sockpuppetery... :-) See ru-sib:Talk:Головна сторонка#Румыны (about inflicting puppets resources here) and ru-sib:Talk:Головна сторонка#Москали сочиняют новые правила для голосования практически на ходу - the request to sabotage this proposal. Edward Chernenko 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    You completely mistranslate the texts in ru-sib, and this is evident for everybody who understand russian language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Обсуждений на т.н. "сибирском" у вас там нет, что и неудивительно. По указанным мной ссылкам используется русский язык. en: there're no discussions in so-called "siberian language", I linked to discussion in Russian. Edward Chernenko 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    И что же ты в глаза прямо врешь и переводишь что попало, когда там ничего такого не написано? So why do you blatantly lie and mistranslate, when it is obvious that the conversation is very different from your "translation"? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    It's the only way to prevent sockpuppetry... -- Grafikm fr 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How this could be started?[edit]

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

Technically, it is supposed to be a community consensus but the vote for creation was plagued with socks. And of course, the fact that most people don't bother to keep tabs on meta does not arrange things... -- Grafikm fr 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have cross-links on meta, en, and ru & ru-sib, where I have a lot of edits. Although you are not interested in truth, but only in absurd things, it seems to me--Ottorahn 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely not one-person project, see the RC of sibwiki [8]--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. It seems to be a two-person-project, parsing the Recent Changes list. But I cannot find anything about the user "Ottorahn". Sock puppet of Yaroslav? Very strange. :-/ -- 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ((de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)
Not at all - Nefis, Cyclodol, A1, Ilya, Coipish, and others. This is small wiki, for sure, but with real community. Inventing sockpuppets is against AGF, Ottorahn is well-known perwon in Russia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am ROBOT. And eat human children every day. When these absurd & preposterous accusations will stop? This voting is real amusement--Ottorahn 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's real fun, I always laugh all the evenings, reading what they say here)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, dude. We're charging our battery. And now we're full of energy. WE ARE THE ROBOTS! --Cyclodol 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am ROBOT too. And i too eat human children every day. Sorry for my english. Буду краток: СР! УВЛ!!! 00010000100011100001000001111
RokerHRO, I don't think Ottorahn is a sock, however judging from his LiveJournal, he is a definite neo-Nazist. I think a project having an admin like that should not be identified with Wikipedia just because of that (and there are a lot of other reasons). -- Grafikm fr 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you ready to prove that I am "neo-nazi"?! Or we have right to regard you, Grafikm fr, as liar and crock of sh*t? sorry for expression.
With such ranters as you, one can't evaluate earnestness of this so called "voting". So I don't care at all about results. You so funny creature.--Ottorahn 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oho, judging by the reaction, I might have touched something here. How curious... Yes, I'm ready to prove it. Let's start from your LJ:
  • A self-made banner saying "faithful judo-ghoul"
  • A link to a message of a so-called patriarch of an obscure orthodox sect ranting about Soviets and similar stuff, ending with an obscene picture comporting a swastika.
  • Calling "genius" a well-known neo-Nazi on livejournal and carefully quoting his post.
  • Having a translation into Siberian of the en:Fourteen Words, a well-known neo-nazi sentence.
  • Another link to the post of the same neo-Nazi, telling this text is "stunning" and talking about "mixed-blood elite" and other nazi words I just can't quote for decency's sake...
  • And finally, a podcast of some guy wearing a camouflage with the Totenkopf symbol...
Let's keep on rockin', let's check the profile, maybe we can find something there.
  • Website called "Космический лед" (Space ice), a well-known Nazi concept.
  • Lives in "Antarctic Reich, Antarctica" - no comment
  • Communities: a few things starting with "SS", "ru_zagovor" (a very "nice" community about the so-called Judeo-masonic conspiracy".) and a few other "nicies"
  • And finally, some well-known figures to those familiar with the Russian LJ Neo-Nazis as friends.
Wow, a very nice bunch... I think there is more than enough evidence. Come to think of it, it disgusts me... -- Grafikm fr 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything that was told (quotes, etc) is MY INTERESTS, as you mentioned may "interests" page. I am historian, so it isn't strange. It is not your business at all, especially my lj is not connected with wiki, and there is no links on ru-sib on my journal. And your behavior - rummaging about my PRIVATE INTERESTS - seems so fishy.--Ottorahn 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Private interests? Your LJ is public, you choose to display it. And while I might agree that your communities might be private interests, your posts are pretty much clear - and some of your LJ-friends too. -- Grafikm fr 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I DIDN'T cite any lj, but you do it. Is it necessary now to show own blog? Some new rules in voting? How about your lj and blogs by every supporters of closure?--Ottorahn 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolute indentical to Stalin KGB work: this Grafik would make a carier in 1937))) Зоркий выявитель фашыстов, друг чекиста))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Will you claim my evidence is forged? Anyone interested (and reading Russian) can take a look at this LJ. -- Grafikm fr 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually, Otto, all the "argumentation" against sibwiki is based on 3-4 quotes, totally lifted out of context of the wiki. And based on this "arguments" they want to close us)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
hahaha, it is even better go to place where Ottorahn lives and speak with old ladies which live in the street of Otto Rahn. According to this old ladies' tales maybe he is not only Nazist, but Schizomaniak and fucks cats and dogs every weekend. So you definitely should not only collect cites from Otto Rahn's diary, but go to his city and explore rubbish heaps near his flat - maybe there will be something even more interesting for an investigator like you)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
These men can not be taken seriously, Otto, they are too rotten to pay attention to them. Let us return to our science) For sure, if i was elected admin, I will fight for the wiki. But really, they are more clowns than serious enemies. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I may be rotten, but at least I'm not a Nazi... -- Grafikm fr 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So you recognize that you are rotten. Let us call you rotten Grafikm fr.--Ottorahn 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, what a honor... Should I get a medal for that? -- Grafikm fr 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Who cares about results, Otto? We will go to Wikia or Volgita, or in any place we want, but they will rest here in their own shit))) Just because it is funny and it's moral duty to reveal the truth I still answer to them) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you can go, but don't plague a free encyclopedia with your nationalism (bordering, as I can see, on Nazism). And I should talk about some of your own LJ communities, it would be a nice read to our fellows on Meta, too... :) -- Grafikm fr 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no nationalism in sibwiki, this is obvious)) hahaha, how great evening we have, Grafikm reveals his secret records))))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Recent bestseller "The Zolotaryov code".--Ottorahn 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether Ottorahn is really a nazi. However, he knows that i am a Jew, and he didn't make any comments about it. I don't have the time to read all of his LJ, but from what i've seen there i've seen absolutely nothing offensive. Come on everyone on both sides - stop with the silly jokes and personal attacks already. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably, you are "neo-Nazy" too?--Ottorahn 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Then pay closer attention to his LJ. If I see references to 14 words, "antarctic reich", "judo-ghouls" or something similar, the diagnosis is usually pretty clear. -- Grafikm fr 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[9] History of 14 словов article. Do you still claim that I am the author? And this isn't your the only mistake. Your "diagnosis" is mistake on the whole.--Ottorahn 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did I say you were the author of the ru-sib article? However, quoting any variation of the 14 words is not a good thing to say the least... in fact... when I see it, it makes me want to put my gloves on... -- Grafikm fr 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I am neither the author of 14 words nor the author of translation. 2. One more time: It's my own journal, I cite everything what I need. Nobody forces you to read it. 3. Quoting 14 words or even Mein Kampf isn't an argument for naming smbd "neo-Nazi" 4. According your arguments Russian Wikipedia (and every Wikipedia also) is a den for Nazi, because it contains a lot of articles about Third Reich, and even Nazi symbols [10], [11].--Ottorahn 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not interesting in politics, so I don't write about it. Because of that every your sentence about me as "Neo-Nazi" is not more than provocation and personal attack. By the way there is no policy forbidding participation in Wiki for nazi, because it is free for every person.--Ottorahn 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe explore ruwiki with the same suspiciousness? I think using your methods everybody can be accused in Nazism. Otto Rahn have written about 400 articles, one of them is about Nazism, so what? I have translated Horst Wessel to the siberian language, but I have translated L'Internacionale too - am I Nazist or Communist? Is anybody who writes something about Nazism nazist? Is Dalay Lama Nazist because he uses swastika in rituals? All this only illustrates spirit of bad faith which accusators have. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If Otto Rahn is a nazi, then he is very strange nazi, which has Moslem and Jewish friends... --Cyclodol 20:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as far as I know, Otto Rahn is russian. So existence of Otto Rahn between us refutes the lie that we are russophobes, and existence of Amir - the lie that we are nazists. But we really have international team in sibwiki, which lives in peace. So why so many vandals we see everyday, and why 102 persons collected to prohibit us? Even real famous russian fascist Krylov has come. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For the Muscovy imperialists all people who oppose their chauvinistic imperial ideas are "russofobes" and "нерусь". But we don't give a damn. --Cyclodol 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

False confirmations[edit]

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

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

Maybe make subsections in "votes" section?[edit]

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

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

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

А где же итог? / Where is the result?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Почему я не могу проголосовать? Потому-что только-что здесь зарегистрировался?Gosh 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it?[edit]

Look at that, Zolotaryov wrote literally following: "Romanians suggest us new votes against moscovians for our votes against moldavian wikipedia". Then he gave the following link:

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

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

It was suggestion of Boneparte, but it had no effect - almost no Romanian vote here for us. By the way - [15] - direct agitation in ruwiki forum go and vote against siberian wiki. While number of Russians is much more than number of ukrainians, belorussians, romanians, siberians, etc, etc. Is this almost sockpuppetry? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, that agitating for voting and trading with votes are not the same things. --AndyTerry 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That was no trade, but attempted treat about mutual agitation. All the same, it does not work. But I have better link about Russian methods of vote-stacking: [16] This is ultra-right wikipedia of russian nationalists Wikitraditio, full with russian antisemites and neo-nazi. Some boy from ruwiki explains how to register in Meta and how to vote in this voting. He adds: "please do not say our usual sibirophobic and political statements, but say something like: I am professional linguist and this language is nonsense". Below there are call from leaders of this non-neutral political wiki "go and vote!". From this totally political wiki have come Krylov and other ultra-rights. There are many explorations of my LJ in this voting - please better explore LJ of your supporter Krylov, who is well-known Russian antisemite and leader of several ultra-right real political organizations of russian nationalists. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are even several advises how to trick the new user protect system in this ultra-right forum in the link above))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then, we should be on the lookout for sockpuppetry from the pro-closure side. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. Kazak 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sib-wiki is not guilty of deeds of our supporters, for sure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Zolotarev is biased person[edit]

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

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

I kan not wote[edit]

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

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

So, when this farce will be over?[edit]

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

The page is semi-protected to avoid editing by anonymous IPs and new accounts, like yours :-) In a few hours (I don't know exactly how many... 12, 24, 48, 72 ?), after your freshness expires, you'll be able to edit normally. - Best regards, Ev 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Oppose I vote oppose closing the Syberian language page 'cause I believe that every folk and every language has permission to exist nevertheless it is supposed to exist or not. If there are people who speak this language and they do believe that this is a language, not a dialect, why can't they?alexis_ch 0:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support As for me, I vote for immedeately closing the "siberian" wiki. Of course, every language has permission to exist if it is a real or proposal language of a group of people. But this is not such a case. Siberia is a very huge territory with a lot of people who love their land and who don't (and wouldn't) want to give the name "Siberian" to an artificial language which looks artificially corrupted and which texts are obscene and rusophobic. Vir iv 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Is anyone in charge here?[edit]

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

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

Your input wasn't required, as the question wasn't adressed to you. Kazak 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And you even want to prohibit me to say something in the talk page. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't prohibit you from doing anything, I'm merely saying that your comment was entirely off-topic. Kazak 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Your topic is idiocy so I talk about idiocy too)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Рекомендуется пану толком выучить английский, а то Ваши опусы просто глаза режут. Кстати, Вы это видели? Довольно-таки остроумно, особенно насчет Вашей манеры беседовать на разных уровнях грубости на разных же языках. Очевидно, Ваша слава расползлась достаточно быстро. С уважением. Kazak 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Успокаивайтесь как вам угодно, правда все равно за нами, и вы это чувствуете, раз так лаетесь. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Москальски выблядки[edit]

Товарищ Золотарёв, Вы же сами русский! Как Вам только приходит в голову такое писать? [18], это же абсурд! Зачем обобщать? Про это я хочу спросить то же самое:[19]. - Dmitry-spb 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Москали - это сторонники империи, а не "русские". Причем я несколько раз объясняю это на этой странице, прочитайте. То же самое употребление у беларусов и украинцев. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The fact you are restricted to drive a car without vehicle licence don't mean that with that licence you can do anything you want, Samir. Carn ru 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You are continously trolling when you delete messages of others in the voting; so I do not see any necessity to feed you. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And this is a personal attack. Yaroslav, no matter how just your cause is supposed to be, your behavior makes you unfit for the position of Administrator. 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC) FRITZ12:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
About personal attacks from Carn_ru check the voting page. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And I did not say that he is a troll, simply that he was trolling. He even deleted arguments of our supporters, it is mentioned in the page. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, "dirty moskal fashist" is very strong argument. Pity to you — you can't undelete it. Carn ru 14:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And, as you can see now - there is presentation of arguments and disscusion divided - like as i wanted... It is comfortable. Carn ru 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The history of the language[edit]

This whole "Siberian Language" project is just a purely political action of a single person (guess who) with certain support from some ukrainian nationalists (who will support everything that does harm to Russia) and some people that just can't understand what happens here.

Here's a link to what I think is the moment of the birth of the "siberian language" in his own livejournal. Just in the case he deletes it, here's a copy:

11:24pm: Общеизвестно, что современный украинский - это южнорусская грамматика плюс польские корни. Не думаю, что будет сложно сконструировать сибирский язык, залив в чалдонскую диалектную грамматику нужное количество татарских корней, вплоть до непонимания сибирского языка европейскими русскими. Собственно, для создания языка мне нужна лишь нормальная электронная книга с грамматикой и словарем обского говора, как это все в реале произносится, я в детстве много раз слышал, долить туда тюркизмов в общем-то тоже без проблем.

My translation:

11:24pm: It is well known, that contemporan Ukrainian is the south-Russian grammar plus Polish roots. I don't think it will be too hard to construct a siberian language, adding to chaldon's dialect grammar the required amount of tatar roots, up to making the siberian language non-understandable by european Russians. Properly speaking, to create this language I just need a good electronic book with grammar and vocabulary of the dialect of people living around the Obi river. How all this is really pronounced, I've heard many times in my childhood, adding turkisms there shouldn't be a problem too.

My question is: is Wikipedia a political tribune or not? If it is, that must be stated in its constitution so that everyone knows it and treats the information presented in it accordingly. If it is not, there are no reasons to keep this entirely political project.

Also from the above citate it's obvious there weren't any "native speakers" until 2005 anywhere, since it's an entirely artificial language who was created with just one purpose: to harm Russia by cultivating non-existent nationalism.

By the way, this guy is pretty eager to invent languages (his livejournal pages are full of lessons of non-existent languages), so expect soon some new wikipedias: in the Kazak languages (Kazak, sorry, nothing personal :-)), Nostratic, Mudak and Kabak languages and many, many others. --Anpaza 14:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That was livejournal joke, for sure. I have already explained everyting about the native speakers, it is ridiculous to ask me some questions again and again. About the non-existant nationalism (oblastnichestvo exists from 1863) you make me laugh a lot))) You simply do not understand, what are you speaking about, nothing personal. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Siberian language is NOT a political project. Political is just appeals for closure Sib Wikipedia. Nobody wants to "harm" Russia (and how it can be done? what the country can be "harmed" by a language?) We just want to speak our ancestors language (now called Siberian), not invented in 18 century. If you want speak invented language - please do it, nobody forbids it. If you believe that Russians had come into the world in 18 century - it is your right, please feel free. We just want to write and read Siberian wiki, not Russian. All of this and that page are full of personal attacks, profanity and abuse. I don't see any serious objections or oppositions agains existing of Ru-Sib. --Ottorahn 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm a well-established user with 1000+ edits on English Wikipedia, but I can't vote here?.. What gives? Óðinn 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When there were so many opposition against the closure, the voting page was immediately blocked. It seems, some people has not anything to do than to close our project --Ottorahn 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Óðinn, the content page is semi-protected to avoid disruption by anonymous IPs and new accounts, like yours is at this time :-) Just wait for a little while, 48 or 72 hours after the account creation at Meta (I don't know exactly how long), and you will be able to edit normally. - Best regards, Ev 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm newly registered user in Wikimedia and I duno how long do I have to wait after the registration before I can vote. Here's my talk page from Ukrainian wiki so that you knew I'm not a sock puppet.Обговорення_користувача:Сріблястий I oppose closure and I'm wondering if administrator could add my vote. Thanks --Sriblyastyi

4 months of voting are enough![edit]

The result is clear. Close it now! Voevoda 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for Board decision. In fact there's nothing more to be said here but it would take some time to make a final decision anyway. Also note that only the Board can close the project or decide to keep it (the only exception is full and clear consensus for keeping, something about 50:1; then there's no need to notify Board). Edward Chernenko 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to end discussion[edit]

I also ask the supporters of closure not to send anything to the Board for now. First of all every vote must be checked (and confirmation diffs must be verified). Closure opposers are also encouraged to check this themselves for both support and oppose votes in order to avoid unneeded questions about this in future ("oh! we haven't had enough time to check everything! wait please!" :-)). I need real numbers counted by the supporters and opposers and signatures of both this sides under their results, and also list of disputable points (e.g. whether to count users with only one edit in the local wiki or not). I ask both supporters and opposers to collect this information as soon as possible (of course I can check everything myself if you're in doubt). Edward Chernenko 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the right way. --Obersachse 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if the Board just reads over the arguments, it will be pretty apparent what's what. Kazak 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And it is done[edit]

My message was dated 26 February. Today is 6 March, and there's no results from closure opposers; so request for final solution was sent with our results only. Anyway, opposers should not worry because the Board of Trustees will certainly analyze the discussion and all arguments, not votes. Per New project policy we'll get response within the next 15 days. Edward Chernenko 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean, "our results only"? The results are represented in the vote. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean that I linked to the discussion only and asked the Board to analyze it. No votes information was send. Короче, Ярослав, я просто послал им линк на дискуссию и сказал: "решайте сами как знаете, нам пофиг". Edward Chernenko 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ок, приняли к сведению. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So... three weeks already - and still no answer? Futurix 10:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatic hiding of interwikies to ru-sib[edit]

Russian wikipedia now hides inerwikies to ru-sib automatically (by modifing the common.css file): [[20]]

Soon the Siberian one will hide Russian intwerwikies in advance. This is evident crime against wiki-ethics from Russian wikipedia and this testifies that desires of those who want to close us are very, very far from wikipedian principles. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure most Russian Wikipedians do not want interwikis to weird fantasy of several people desperately seeking personal publicity — Alex Smotrov 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote when I voted "Links to POV innate nonsense languages can seriously impede the encyclopaedic process, because on controversial issues people (both end users and editors of another interwiki) may be tempted to have a look at the version in languages they do not know." Why would people look at a version in a language they do not understand? Because there may be an argument on an exact date, on the precise number of victims (usually of a massacre). A case in point: [21]. You do not need to know much Esperanto to see that it at least mentions the German extreme right version. You do not need to know much Dutch to see that it does not mention the number claimed by those people. And you do not need to know Lithuanian to see that their article is not about the massacre, but possibly, just possibly, an attempt to use the controversy to lure people to a special page. That is why many people object to wiki links to non-verifiable pages. And others may object to wikilinks to your version of Hamlet and Pushkin. Do not turn this into an argument against Lithuanian wiki by the way, it was just an example, and I am sure your wikipedia has far more Hamlet and Pushkin problems than all the wikipedias bordering on Russia put together. --Paul Pieniezny 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And this is only your particular POV about this articles, but you want to prohibit all the interwikies to ru-sib basing on your POV. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these interwikis must not be used due to the lack of reliable sources proving correct translation (Zolotaryov's websites can't be trusted). For example, let's imagine that someone created article "George HomoFuckerBush" in such a wiki and sayed that this is correct translation of name George Bush, thus demanding to place interwiki-s to this article (example). Of course, interwiki should not be placed in such a case. And without a reliable sources we can't be sure whether interwiki link is correct or not - that is the reason why we're hiding them. Edward Chernenko 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally sophistic conclusion. Actually you can not check all the interwikies in all the ruwiki, are they correct or not, because you do not know 224 languages, and especially you can not learn and check academical sources for 224 wikipedic languages. So instead of evident sophistics just leave our interwikies alone. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You missed the point about reliable sources. Lantios 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yaroslav, you ask why only ru-sib interwikis were hidden and not interwiki-s to other 224 languages? Just because we know that there're such academical sources for all that languages, but not for ru-sib. Let's say so: when needed, interwikis to this languages can be checked. Interwiki-s to ru-sib - can not. If you know other so-called "language" among this 224 which has no reliable sources except websites of one or two of its supporters - report this, and interwikis to that language will also be hidden. That's a general point not related only to ru-sib links. Edward Chernenko 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And necessity of academical sources is not mentioned in the interwiki policy. Many other languages in the wikipedia are artificial or badly described, and there are problems between different dialects (ex. Zazaki problem, Moldavian problem). So instead of developing new meanings of the policies (just like you do in case of New project policy), better do not break their direct meaning: interwikies can be made, and you want to prohibit this for Siberian wikipedia, because of your political xenophobic position. That only reveal your hate and absence of spirit of tolerance and collaboration. Prohibition of opposition is not a civilized way to resolve any problem, for sure --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There is WP:Verifiability, of course. It is true, many of these 224 are also constructed languages. But they have scientifically reliable books written about them, often already explaining the difficulty of standardization. Standardization will be part of the job of the native speakers who construct the wiki. Ideally, they will look at the pros and cons of every alternative solution - using their own proficiency in that language. That is precisely why the combination of a) it being a constructed language b) the "lemmata" having a non-verifiable origin (which is another way of saying that YOU are the WP:OWNer of the language!) c) the POV attitude of the main contributors is so dangerous. And nobody wants to prohibit anything - if this project had been in a sandbox (without the interwikies, yes) and remained there until a number of administrators were satisfied that the three issues were being addressed, there would have been no problem. Unfortunately, I am starting to think that this is just a POV fork to Russian Wikipedia. --Paul Pieniezny 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So you repeat all your arguments about your opinion about the language - they are not proven at all. And your opinion is not a valid cause for prohibit something--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
А где гарантия, что на других википедиях правильно ставят? Академические источники может, и есть, но проверить то ты не можешь, потому что не в состоянии освоить 224 языка. Так что по такому аргументу (не могу проверить по академическим источникам) можно стирать любую интервику, это чистой воды софистика. Кроме того, у тебя также нет академических источников, подтверждающих, что наши ивики неправильные, все это чистой воды демагогия.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
On the last argument: you mean to say we do not have any academic sources proving that the Hamlet passage is inappropriate? Sorry, you know very well that some negative things simply cannot be proven. We cannot prove that your translation of Hamlet is inappropriate but we have reasons to believe so, however. So, the burden of proof is on you - because you put it there. That is how encyclopaedias work.--Paul Pieniezny 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
For sure - because you do not understand Siberian, you can not judge about this Hamlet's passage at all. If you understand it, you can propose your own translation. But deleting of all the interwikies is simple repressions. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaroslav Zolotaryov (talk • contribs) .

Yaroslav, please link to a rule which says that interwikis to all languages must be placed. The only what we have now is help page on interwiki linking, which just says that interwikis can be used - the possibility but not a strict requirement. While we don't have such a requirement I'll just give a link to ruwiki community consensus on hiding this links, please see ru:Wikipedia:Votings/Hiding ru-sib-wikipedia interwikis by default; the result is signed by three bureaucrats. Edward Chernenko 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And this clearly shows ruwiki goals in this voting too - you just want to stop freedom of speech. This is completely unique situation when some Wikipedia prohibits iwiki to other Wikipedia by default. Even if this is allowable - when I do not think so - this clearly shows your attitude to the sibwiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Siberian language vs. real Siberian dialects[edit]

This article quotes the dean of the philological faculty of Tomsk State University, where, as I understand, extensive research on Siberian Russian dialects has been undertaken. She delivers quite a devastating verdict on Yaroslav's work. While she confirms that some of the words used in the Siberian language are on record as genuinely Siberian, much of the rest, she says, looks like inventions or like being taken from other sources. She further says, one of the sources might have been Vladimir Dahl, who had a reputation for having invented of words himself. (Лексика… Вот урын — это откуда взялось? Берешить, первый джус — ну что это? Джус — это уже тюркизм. Елань — это не трава, а место. Амитан — это тоже не наше, не сибирское. Наших слов мало. Вот чесной, дошлый — это наши. Что-то он сам придумал, наверное, что-то из Даля, но и Даль сам слова иногда придумывал.) This is not an in-depth analysis, anyway, it IMHO casts some serious doubts on this project. --Johannes Rohr 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's only an article in the press, and actually the text analysied by the dean is from older variant of the language, not used in the sibwiki now. Words like amitan were borrowed from Mongolian, but now we use zveryuga instead etc. This is not real scientific analysis of the work, only some interview with a journalist from Moscow. Dahl was an old researcher who use in his dictionary many old words which now in real dialect researched by Demeshkina are replaced by Russian standard words. Anyway, this is only article from Russian press, made by project's opposers--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks goodness somebody drew attention to this article here. The article doesn't seem to be written with any bias or prejudice, and it's great that the journalist went as far as to interview the staff of the Tomsk University where Zolotaryov claims to have received his diploma from, and the researches of which he sometimes makes references to. The quotation above is the most scientific analysis of Zolotaryov langauge existing so far, and I'll dare to say the level it's done at is as high as the "language" deserves.
I agree that this article sheds a very good light to what the actual nature of Zolotaryov's project is.
And here we go again. First Zolotaryov makes claims that his invention is a language of the native Siberians. Now he's talking about an "older variant of the language" vs. what is used in his Wikipedia currently. Do the native Siberians really change their language this often? His claims that contradict to each other also add on to the "language" image. --BeautifulFlying 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is only article in non-scientific media and some experimental text from 2005 year was used - the words mentioned the "analysis" are not used in current version of Siberian at all. Journalist who have taken this interview, informed the dean that this is artificial language invented by some oblastniks. So this is fake, but not real neutral experiment. Low opinion about the Dahl work testifies that the dean was not serious - Dahl is very important source about dialects of 19 century. As to you, you are not linguist at all, but try to make global conclusions here. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not a linguist. But, having a University degree, I claim the ability to read texts, scientific or popular, and make analysis and logical conclusions reslting from the content of such texts. And, being a Siberian myself, I claim to have certain knowledge on the subject. --BeautifulFlying 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have, admittedly, only very superficial knowledge of Russian dialects, including the Northern ones, which were rather a side issue where I studied. Second, as I wrote, the article or more exactly the statement by the Filfak representative is not an in-depth analysis. However, what it does make quite clear, or at least plausible, is that your Sibirskoi govor is best described as a constructed language. One of its sources are existing or historical Northern Russian dialects. But much of the rest appears to be collected from a variety of other sources, with the aim of generating as much linguistic distance to standard Russian as possible. It would appear, that you have got the phonetics right, as Mrs. Demiashkina of TSU confirms. But the vocabulary appears to be less authentic than you would like us to believe. Or do you have sources for, let's say, the word "Maidan" (probably a Turkism?) being used in slavic Siberian villages? Some of your inventions may be charming. Expressions like "домознайсво" for "ecology" or "мудрьонознайсво" for "philosophy" are quite logical, as they are literal translations of the respective Greek terms. Nonetheless they are inventions. Or did you ever her of a Siberian "мудрьонознайка"? You may even argue that many national languages have had their purist movements, purging latinisms and other foreign words, Croatian being one of the most notable examples, where e.g. the "Universitet" had to make way for the "sveučistlište". But the difference is, that even before this movement swept through the linguistic landscape, there was already a quite distinct language and literary tradition, dating back many centuries. therefore, differentiation and "purification" were separate processes. The situation with your language is, that, frankly, that it is just infinitely improbably, that anyone except for you and Otto Rahn will ever write of "роботны веды", or "мудрьонознайсво". The situation would be quite different, if there really was a large number of dialect speakers with a distinct regional Siberian identity today, but, alas, this simply isn't the case... --Johannes Rohr 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Maidan is widely used in Siberia (and in Ukraine too), and was taken just from Demeskina vocabulary. Greek and Latin terms were combined from Slavic roots, the same was in Checz and partially in Ukrainian, I hope this is not invention. And the Northern language definitely existed separately from Russian from 10 century, no word from this Northern language was used in so-called Standard Russian, which was really constructed language based on Old Church Slavonic, Greek and Latin roots with Moscovite pronunciation and Ukrainian grammar--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Which of the dictionaries by Demeshkina are you referring to?
  2. Existence of the word Maidan in a dictionary doesn't entail that it is "widely used" in Siberia.
  3. Northern dialect (not language) truly exists, and shares many words with what eventually became the literary Russian language. Жито.
  4. The language you invented is not the Northern dialect. --BeautifulFlying 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Of the whole group, such as Полный словарь сибирского говора, Томск, 1995 and others like Словарь народно-разговорной речи г.Томска XVII - начала XVIII века, Томск 2002, etc, etc. There are many dictionaries of Northern dialects of Pomorian and Novgorodian variants.
  2. Widely used in Siberian dialects, but not in the language which you had invented in 18 century, for sure.
  3. The difference between dialect and language is political. We believe that this is language different from the so-called "Russian" Lomonosov's conlang.
  4. We do not invent any language, but we write in our old Northern Language according to the information that we have about it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Demeshkina doesn't seem to be on the authors list for either of the dictionaries you named: (a) Полный словарь сибирского говора: В 4 т. / Л.А. Араева, В.Г. Арьянова, Т.Б. Банкова, О.И. Блинова, З.М. Богословская и др.; Под ред. О.И. Блиновой (главный ред.), З.М. Богословской, Л.Г. Гынгазовой и др. – Томск: Изд-во ун-та, 1992. (b) Словарь народно-разговорной речи г. Томска XVII - начала XVIII века / Под ред. В. В. Палагиной, Л. А. Захаровой. - Томск: Изд-во Томского университета, 2002. So, again, what are your actual sources?
  2. Again, your sources for "widely used" please?
  3. Blinova (the editor in chief of the Полный словарь сибирского говора) refers to the Siberian dialects as dialects [22], as do all other researchers. Your opinion seems to be contradicted by the prevailing academic view, and therefore requires exceptional sources, please see en:WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.
  4. Again, see (3). The prevailing academic view is that the Northern dialect is a dialect. --BeautifulFlying 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Just this sources together with Dahl and Pomor dictionary, and others. Demeshkina participated in the research. If you, not being a linguist, understand nothing in Russian dialectology, and in Tomsk researches as well, you should not participate in this discussion. 2) The word Maidan can be found in Полный словарь сибирского говора: В 4 т. / Л.А. Араева, В.Г. Арьянова, Т.Б. Банкова, О.И. Блинова, З.М. Богословская и др.; Под ред. О.И. Блиновой (главный ред.), З.М. Богословской, Л.Г. Гынгазовой и др. – Томск: Изд-во ун-та, 1992., v. 2, p. 132 3) yes, but Siberian oblastniks believe that this is language, but not dialect - difference between language and dialect is political 4) we do not pay any attention to your politically based prevailing academic view. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I qualify to speak about the subject matter as much as you are. Please stop commenting about my qualifications.
Also, stop juggling with names of scientists whose research you claim you used. The claims you made at different times contradict each other. The siberian separatists may have any opinion they want, but since their opinion falls under the definition of exceptional claim and contradicts the prevailing academic view (including the view of the real Siberian scientists Blinova, Demeshkina etc. whose research you claim to have used), then by Wikipedia policies you must present exceptional sources. So far, without such sources, your claims about the language are only a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Should we all interpret your statement above as you don't pay any attention to Wikipedia policies? --BeautifulFlying 17:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So, the scientists are exploring our language, but the political context violates them to say about it "dialect". Because the political context exists for 4 centuries, this VP prevail, so what? The dictionary was published not in Wikipedia, so this is not WP:SYN. Besides that, real users of this wiki not often write according to the dictionary, but they use their feeling of how a Northern dialect should look like. And this is prevailing academic view that Northern Russian dialect is very different from the Standard Russian developed by Lomonosov. So ru-sib just uses this different Northern dialect, and all of us believe that this is a separate language. Which is persecuted by Russian nationalists, who prevail in ruwiki (because of general Putin's support of Russian nationalism). According to your mentality you believe that using word "language" about this is separatism. That's why this mob and proposal to close. I think I had described all the situation right. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The scientists never made researches on your language. All studies have been conducted on the real Siberian and Northern dialects of the Russian language. The dictionaries you are referring to are not WP:SYN indeed, but the conclusions you make on the materials in those dictionaries are WP:SYN. Once again, your claims need to be supplied with exceptional sources. If you are so firm in the belief that your opinion is strong and defensible, you should be able to present these exceptional sources, but you never presented them.
Now, for crying out loud, what Putin has to do with either ru-wiki, or ru-sib-wiki, or to the conflict we're having here?? I'm not a Putin's supporter, but, according to [my] mentality, I believe you make too many attacks against my people and my ethnicity (just a reminder – I'm from Siberia, and I'm half-Russian half-Tatar). I do _not_ support Russian imperialism or schauvinism, but I equally do _not_ support the imperialism and schauvinism of your movement. --BeautifulFlying 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is no such a thing as "my" language)) Volgota group (not me, but including Ottorahn and some others) simply collected all the words from Northern dialect dictionaries which are not identical to Russian Standard, and try to write articles and translate serious text using this compiled dictionary. That's all what we are doing. Is this conlang or is this dialect or is this language - actually depends from political interpretation. And tales about chauvinism and imperialism of my movement were invented by you yourself. Tricks which you use for invent them show your real intentions - close the wiki and fulfill the task of your Russian masters. And about your ethnicity - being an anonymous virtual you can invent any ethnicity you want. I am rather well-known person in Russian Internet, you can use my personal blog for fabricating accusations from my jokes - but who are you, can you prove your identity? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In short - if Siberian language is constructed, than Russian is 200 times more constructed - it almost have no word from people`s real dialects.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, and you forgot to mention that Russian language doesn't have any native speakers, and there's no literature or any other culture or science in that language, etc. --BeautifulFlying 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Esperanto has literature too. I hope after fall of your empire your imperialistic language will perish. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The time will tell, I guess. --BeautifulFlying 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

72,8% for, and 27,2% against closure. Criteria?[edit]

Long time it is so still there. Many words were spoken, arguments is clear, So I want to ask - what is the criteria to close sibwiki? Carn ru 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about that, too. The proponents of the phony "siberian" Wikipedia so far failed to address any of the arguments in support of closure with any reputable sources, or to address the community concerns with any action towards cleaning their Wikipedia from the aggressive/OR content, from 5000+ blank pages, etc. And this Wikipedia still exists?? --BeautifulFlying 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is no such thing as a clear-cut policy on closing existing projects (for the bits that exist, see New project policy#Closing_of_a_project, however, this applies to projects rather than languages). What happens to proposals filed at WM:PCP is largely undefined, given that the Siberian case is, to my knowledge, only the second case (after Moldovan), where one wiki community is engaged in a row with another community. It is certainly not as simple as which side wins the most votes. When it is big wiki against small wiki, the big wiki will almost always be capable of ensuring a higher turnout, therefore the number of votes by itself cannot be the sole criterion.
Since the langcom has not (or not yet) assumed responsibility for closing projects, the decision making is to the Board of Trustees. After taking a quick and superficial look at the personal pages of the board members, I don't think that there is a board member who is proficient in one or more East Slavonic languages. Therefore, I suppose that for the board, the severity of the allegations and concerns is extremely hard to assess. They would have to examine closely all the arguments discussed here, without being able to verify them (at least not those which require language skills). This would be probably just as time-consuming as it is a low priority for a body which can be expected to be constantly overwhelmed with work. Whether or not ru-sib continues to exist has very little relevance for the rest of Wiki[m,p]edia, --Johannes Rohr 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly right in that the BoT is understandably busy, but at the same time paying attention to things like this is the function you volunteer for when you volunteer for the BoT, right? Also, I disagree that whether or not ru-sib continues to exist has little relevance to the rest of Wikimedia projects. Ru-sib sets a precedent of how a Wikipedia can be used by a political movement as a vehicle for self-promotion, for propaganda of someone's POV-driven original research with falsified notability, when materials of low encyclopedic quality in a bastardized version of a language not just settle in an article, but become a full-fledged Wiki project under a name that is blatantly stolen from a huge geographic region. Then readers who follow the interwiki link to ru-sib from the article w:en:Russia learn that Russia's nickname is evil empire, and that vodka and herring are the symbols of Russian mentality. What a wonderful bit of information. --BeautifulFlying 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the BoT I can only repeat that they simply do not have the capacity to assess the contents of individual wikis in less common languages. Wikipedias exist in something like 200 languages. There is no way, the board could micromanage the contents of all those editions. As said above, I believe that there is probably no-one on the board who is fluent in Russian.
While I agree that some what you quoted above is annoying, I still have difficulties understanding the degree of rage that I see here on this page.
If, say, the Bavarian, the Low Saxon, the Allemannic or the Ripuarian Wikipedias would say that the symbols of German mentality are Beer and Sauerkraut, and that its nickname is "Forth Reich", it would be perceived as a lame joke and either be fixed or simply ignored. Dialect Wikis tend to be less serious on common topics, they do have quality issues. But since their overall visibility is very small, this is not a real problem. After all, Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, you go there, when you look for information. Hardly anyone would seriously consult the Bavarian edition when looking for real information. The same is most likely true for ru-sib. So why bother? I simply cannot understand the hysteria, the fury about this topic. Some of the allegations are in themselves just so silly that they do not shed a positive light on those who made them, e.g. saying that ru-sib violates "international law" or, more generally "законодательство" is just crap. Is there any law against setting up web sites in whatever language you want, artificial or natural? Where the Wikipedia servers are located, this is clearly covered by freedom of speech. I would be deeply suspicious of any legislation that prohibits specific languages. While I maintain that "Sibirskoi govor" in its present shape is a non-notable, almost private conlang, I feel that the best thing you can do if you don't like it, is to ignore it. --Johannes Rohr 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
About the articles, why they do not edit them if they do not like them??? Instead of that they organize demonstrations in the Meta. And about the non-notable conlang I do not think so, it has very good reaction in the Russian Internet, especially in blogosphere, which is more important in Russia than in EU and USA. More than 15 real writers in ru-sib also testify that the lang is not private. But I support your position about their hysteria - I so not understand too, why do they bother about us and about our wiki. Without this voting I bet those words about evil empire would not appear in the article about Russia. Every day we can see 1-2 Russian vandals in ru-sib. I hope WIkipedia will not bow to their historically intolerance to the dialects and to the regionalist movements. Especially this childish inventions about my "racism" and "fascism" make me laugh - it is well-known that Volgota is pro-Western democratic (so called "national-democratic") group, supported by orange Ukrainians, with 90% of resources hosted in Yuschenko's Ukraine, always declaring necessity of "Western way" for Siberia, union with native Turkic and Mongolic nations and having strong conflicts with some pro-Chinese Siberian separatists' groups. When some members of Volgota and of those who support Volgota, and when some members of ru-sib wiki were fighting with police in Marsh Nesoglasnyh in StPetersburg this April[23], those who want to close us were chatting here, inventing against us accusations in racism and fascism. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Zolotaryov, you are a very plain LIAR. The picture you presented is taken in Irkutsk, not St. Petersburg, see [24]. This was not the Dissenters March, although the organizers of the event like to think about themselves as aligned with that. Nobody was fighting with police. You are lying about everything to just promote yourself and your political views: about your language having gazillions of speakers; about the oppressions you're suffering from; about the meanings of words in your language; about the sock-puppetry actions against you (look whose side has most unauthorized votes?); etc. etc. etc. Now you are trying to exploit the Dissenters March turmoil to your advantage, and yet again, you are lying. Shame.
Your views are just as imperialistic and colonial as those you are accusing the Russian nation of, if not more so. Isn't it your desire to absorb (or "swallow"?) the separatist movement in Vladisvostok [25]? to occupy wast territories for your "siberian" nation [26]? to diminish the role of the native peoples of Siberia to just paying taxes to the Slavic population[27]? to use the Siberian oil to your advantage [28]?--BeautifulFlying 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Вы что не понимаете, как глупо выглядите? В России все знают кто я такой и с кем работаю. Воспользоваться тем, что иностранцы могут не сразу въехать в ЖЖешный стиль и контекст, можно только временно, и потом вы же будете выглядеть глупо. Никто так нам не помогает, как подобные вам ораторы. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
По-моему, это вы выглядите неубедительно. Противоречите сами себе и в Википедии, и в ЖЖ. Грубите. Вы пытались временно сыграть на гуманистических идеалах иностранцев, а также на существующих и поддерживаемых представлениях о кровавом терроре в России, создавали мифы о своём проекте и языке, а теперь теряете позиции, когда все факты здесь представлены. Кажется, вы заявляли, что Википедия для вас уже сыграла роль, и вам она больше не нужна [29]? Ну так отстранитесь. Ну, да ладно. Время нас рассудит. --BeautifulFlying 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Полная чушь. И в Википедии и в ЖЖ из контекста ясно, про что говорится. Очевидно, что в ЖЖ очень много шуток и пародий, это не знаю кем надо быть, чтобы не понимать, где я шучу, где нет. Особенно меня, сибирского татарина, обвинять в антитатарском империализме, это буйную фантазию надо иметь просто))) В России действительно авторитарный режим, и мы действительно несем гуманитарную миссию по сохранению чалдонского диалекта. Это мое искреннее убеждение. Нужна мне Википедия, или не нужна, мой долг перед Богом отстаивать здесь правду перед ложью. СОмневаюсь, конечно, что сторонники империи могут это понять, у вас один царь, кесарь. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Какой режим в России, к делу не относится (хотя я и согласен, что авторитарный). В своём рвении выполнить самопровозглашённую "миссию" по сохранению своего искусственного языка (а не чалдонского диалекта), вы вытираете ноги о культуру и язык моего народа, навешиваете на всех подряд ярлыки про империю, и т.д. Я устал повторять, что я бы и сам принял посильное участие в вашем проекте, будь он действительно гуманитарный. А поскольку он основан на вашей политической позиции, пропитан анти-русскими и антироссийскими интригами и т.д., то все ваши разговоры о долге перед Богом – просто профанация, поэтому мы с вами останемся оппонентами. --BeautifulFlying 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Абсолютная демагогия, ни на чем не основанная, кроме того, что вы хотите выслужиться перед боссами рувики, которые решили устроить против нас тут войну. Они много уже кого из рувики выжили, руководствуясь своими партийными интересами. Поскольку моя группа действительно массовая, мы в состоянии открыть другую википедию на русском языке, и уже открыли Викиславию[30], которая за неделю имеет 600 статей и растет как на дрожжах. Этот проект направлен не против викимедии, с которой мы будем сотрудничать при первой возможности, но это попытка реализовать действительно свободную энциклопедию без той цензуры и партийных склок, которые постоянно стоят на рувике. Ваш политический soapbox про антирусскую деятельность засуньте себе куда угодно и почитайте хотя бы линки на те статьи, которые я вам дал про то, как понимается слово "москаль" в украинском и северном движении. Там постоянно подчеркивается, что движение направлено не против русских, а против московского авторитаризма. Эта позиция заявлена там четко, объяснена на многих примерах, написана большими буквами. То есть мы прямо, везде, постоянно, заявляем, что движение не антирусское, и вы прямо и непосредственно врете, приписывая нам такую позицию. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Да, а все ваши инсинуации русский патриот – это тоже не русский? Ваши "объяснения" слова москаль таковы же, как объяснения, что обсценная лексика – не обсценная [31]. Вы можете сколько угодно ссылаться на свои линки, всё равно украинские и другие шовинисты будут употреблять это слово в значении "русский", и в этой связи русские будут вопринимать это слово в любом контексте прежде всего как оскорбление. Эти ваша Москальска сволоч и т.д. вполне соответствуют духу ваших высказываний о русских, русском языке и т.п., поэтому отсылки к каким угодно интерпретациям – впустую.
Вы можете сколько угодно объявлять себя борцом с московским авторитаризмом, но если при этом вы выбираете жаргон украинских шовинистов/националистов и хамский тон, не удивляйтесь, что вас не поддерживают.
И прекратите сыпать оскорблениями в мой личный адрес. У меня нет боссов ни на рувики, ни где угодно, и вам об этом известно. По поводу этого и прочих ваших оскорблений – перечитайте вот эту просьбу, пожалуйста. Ваше хамство только выдаёт, насколько вам нечем больше маскировать вашу неправоту. --BeautifulFlying 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Именно вы прекратите сыпать оскорблениями в мой адрес, и в адрес украинцев, а также заниматься абсурдными политическими инсинуациями, с которых вы тут и начали. Именно вы и прекратите. Впрочем, у вас же задание устроить тут побольше флуда и грязи, вы же надеетесь, что чем больше грязи, тем быстрее закроют, как я понимаю? А в стихах - всей вашей компании там все померещилось, не понимаете стихов, так не читайте. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is Irkutsk part of Dissenters March[32], whre were not fights with police, because in Siberia even police has good attitude to the Siberian movement. So that's you who are a fascist liar, always inventing absurd accusations for saving of your bloody empire. Shtepa, Shavu and other supporters of Volgota were fighting in StPetersburg, but in the photo you can see the Irkutsk March, they were in different cities. The oprrssions can be see in ruwiki itself, where iwikies to the sibwiki are prohibited - what is this, if not opressions??? The meaning of word Moscal you can check in Ukrainian articles about it, in many Northern dialect speakers and Ukrainian explanations [33] [34], so stop LIE yourself about Russophobia in ru-sib, you can know meaning of this word from very many sources. That's you who promoted here your chauvinistic views in a very dirty manner. Discussions between Siberian separatists about future bounds of Siberia are not irrelevant both to current colonial exploitation of Siberia by Russia, which you support, and especcially to real oppression of sibwiki by ruwiki - by organizing mobes, votings, by writing OR articles about us in your wiki, by this voting too. And your manner to misinterpret my words, manner of fascist putinist demagogue, is well known in this discussion already. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What's this, if not fighting with police in StPetersbourg? [35][36] The old woman in the 2nd film speaks in Russian how policemen beat her old husband, all the other in this films is comprehensible without translations. You know that Shtepa was here and that he was petitioner, he and Shavu brang petition of the demonstrants to the Smolny. And you know that Shtepa is member of Siberian language movement too, he wrote a lot of articles promoting the language in, and other top Russian internet newspapers, and his blog is filled with lnks to my blog and appeals to support Siberian (Northern Russian) language. He and Shavu are participants of all the Siberian language communities in LJ too. So you lie about the Dissenters March, where your friends Russian Patriots have beaten old men and young girls, and lie about all our movement too. Just because you yourself speak about politics, inventing those racist and fascist accusations, I speak about real politics, where participants of our movement take part. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, what these videos have to do with the ru-sib Wikipedia?? This sentiment about the Dissenters March vs. police can't be related to Volgota, or to Siberian dialects, or to ru-sib Wikipedia at all. The Dissenters March was not a Volgota March (and the meeting in Irkutsk was _not_ a part of Dissenters March, for this matter), and among the protesters there were opposers of your separatist movement along with supporters of such. The fact that the police clashed with the protesters doesn't prove your language is a real Siberian language, or that the language you invented is oppressed by the Russian government, or that the Russian Wikipedia is infiltrated with imperialists, as you like to claim. --BeautifulFlying 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The links illustrate that figting with police has been, but you lie that it has not. And please do not try to change the context, as you usually do: now I am speaking about your fascist and racist accusations: when leaders of Northern and Siberian movement, to which the language belongs, fight for democracy in Russia, you invent that we are fascists and racist. Connection between me and Shtepa-Kulechov can be easily proven: reading often my blog you yourself should see that this is actually one group, and leaders of demonstrations in StPetersburg really support the language. So this is not about your absurd "language or dialect" accusations, but this is about your absurd political accusations --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Fighting with police occured in St Petersburg, not in Irkutsk from where you presented the original picture. At the meeting in Irkutsk nobody was fighting with police – this is exactly what I said earlier. The Dissenters March was not about your language. I'm sure that the activists of the March support many other things in their individual lives, but at the March they were not for your language. Honestly, I'm not awere who were the leaders of the March in St Petersbourg (besides the leadesr of the entire movement, Kasparov and Limonov?), but the people you named (Shtepa and Kuleshov) don't seem to be among prominent leaders. I'll be grateful for links that confirm otherwise. --BeautifulFlying 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
And this was exactly what I have said - fighting with police in StPetersburg, but the photo was taken from other city, because I wanted to represent different cities and different branches of our activity. Again: the March is example of democratic intentions of Siberian and Northern movement, which participated in the March. I think your goal here is just to develop maximal flood, because you ignore my direct answers to your questions. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To JohannesRohr: see, this behaviour of Zolotaryov's is exactly what provokes what you are calling 'the hysteria'. All this project is founded on false and absurd claims, and of course the Russians understand this best becuase they understand the language. Zolotaryov is calling everybody who doesn't share his views Москальский фашист (Moscal fascist), имперец (imperialist), etc., he invents accusations, lies about things in Siberia and about things in the ru-sib Wikipedia (in your discussion with him below), writes the slur poetry that targets Russians – isn't this what's supposed to be called 'hysteria'? The Russians are understandably annoyed with this, and that (along with understanding of the language) explains why the turnout of Russians at the voting is higher than that of any other ethnicity. --BeautifulFlying 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the above links - Yes, point taken. I have to concur that the idea of a Slavo-Turkic Greater Siberia, extending from the river Rhine to Vancouver is not only completely mad but also imperialist and very much resembles the ideas of crazy Russian radical nationalists like Zhirinovskii, who also wants to have Alaska "back". A, well, just re-read the text: Yaroslav also claims "our" California, much of the Middle East, vast parts of China as well as "our" Papua-New Guinea for his yet-to-be-built empire. Yaroslav - are you completely nuts? What kind of colonial bullsh§$t is this? How can one complain about "imperialism" and "colonial exploitation" and at the same time publicly indulge in wet dreams of ruling half the world, including former colonies, such as PNG which suffered and continue to suffer a great deal from the consequences of colonialism?
I am also horrified by your attitude towards the indigenous peoples of Siberia: "Ихнее дело ясак платить, и за это никто не будет лезть в их дела." ("Their business will be to pay tribute, and in return nobody is going to interfere with their internal affairs") because it exactly describes the policy of Imperial Russia towards the indigenous peoples of the North. Yes, this is colonialist ideology. Labeling it "Siberian", rather than Muscovite makes it no better at all. Sorry, Yaroslav, I'm just completely loosing faith in you (if it ever existed) --Johannes Rohr 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)o.k. I see, it must have been a joke...--Johannes Rohr 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, this comment must have been a joke, too. It is really difficult to believe people can be serious when they write slur about their opponents, isn't it? Oh well. Good humor. --BeautifulFlying 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that is serious. Please cease write slurs against me here, and we will not have an opportunity write about you there)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That were obvious jokes - the LJ is actually postmodern and humoristic enviroment. Serious political statements of Volgota can be found in, but in blogs everybody want to astonish the public by something. And about yasak this is complete ironia about Russian colonialism - I am yourself 50% from Siberian natives (yasashny), so actually my ancestors suffered from this. To be short, the quotations are taken out of context. Examples of my good attitude to Siberian natives and claims for friendship between races: [37] - this is serious message, connecting with Estonian events. I am organizer of Internet-cources for studying Tatar language (ru_learnlang[38]), known patriot of Turkic nations in general, so everybody who knows me understands that this is a joke, but he uses this for say someting bad about me with people who actually do not know my activity. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is also community Fofudya[39] in Russian LJ where Ukrainians make laugh from Russia inventing that they are Russian imperialists and speaking in their way. Because every reader of my blog understand my real political position, they know that this is simple jokes, and jokes on Russian imperialists, some kind of parody. Such a jokes are common in our enviroment. The "opponent" takes this from LJ context, and want to show that this is serious position, when serious position is presented in real manifests, actions, etc, etc. This is very simple dirty trick. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again. Above [40] you are referring to the LiveJournal pages as a solid example of such and such. Here you are claiming that LiveJournal is not serious and everybody there is a jocker. You constructed a language in your Journal (jockingly?), now you are claiming it's serious and real. Where's the truth? --BeautifulFlying 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all the LJ is not serious and not everybody is a joker. But LJ has more jokes than Wikipedia. And in postmodernic art (to which LJ belongs), parody can be serious in some manner, but it should not be understandable directly. Actually every reader in Russian LJ easily understands what is joke and what is not - but you try to use low level of acquaintace of some Western people with Russian LJ-culture. Again - my LJ has hunderds of pages where I try to teach somebody almost dead Siberian Native language like Khanty and Chulym, I spend money and time to promote Siberian Turkic culture, I am often named as "Tatar nationalist" by Russians - did you seriously want to convince anybody here that I has bad attitude to Siberian Turks, basing on one joke? Bugotak, they are real Siberian Tatar group, they have recorded a professional song in ru-sib Siberian language, they have spent time, money, resources - should they do this if they know that I am anti-Turk racist and nationalist? Such way of argumentation only shows your real dirty intentions. Do you really think that people here are so silly to believe you? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

<-------------------------------------------------------------------- Indentation reset
I definitely enjoy the musical jocks by the band Bugotak, such as their interpretations of Конь Тугезый/Come Together by The Beatles and Highway Star by Deep Purple. I would definitely endorse your jock language project if it wasn't so interweaved with your political movement stuff... or perhaps if I were a Bugotak musician. --BeautifulFlying 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the song recorded by Bugotak was not joke, but serious, even romantic. You can read the text and hear to the music in Siberian Wikipedia [41]. Actually the leader wrote this poetry in Russian and for a year asked me to translate to Siberian, but I thank that the language is not ready yet, and only when we had sufficient dictionary, I have translated. But yes, Bugotak are postomdernists, and they well understand, where I use irony and where I am serious in my blog. Do you believe, that Bugotak's jokes on Beatles is Anglophobia? Or Tatar imperialism? But you use similiar logic reading my blog for fulfull task of your Moscow masters. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the Bugotak version of the Beatles song is a joke, and their version of their own song in your language is a joke. Please don't pervert the logic here.
My Moscow masters?? Don't you think you are crossing a certain line, after all? --BeautifulFlying 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That was ruwiki who had began this voting and who supports this discussion with your own inventions - so who are provoking the hysteria? Definitely you and your friends. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
About the articles - yeah why not edit them? Because they are write-protected, maybe? Apart from that, I strongly feel that texts like "Москальска сволоч" simply cannot be fixed, they ought to be deleted. Your political views may be as they will, Wikipedia is definitely not the place to publish homegrown poems. And, no, not even Wikisource is. This text is simply non-encyclopaedic and, by all due respect, it is certainly not notable enough for Wikisource as well. So unless you enjoy playing the game of provocation (which, no doubt, can be fun) you should, as administrator of ru-sib, feel obliged to remove these pieces. And btw, even among the wiki community there has been strong support for getting rid of it, judging by the statements at ru-sib:Talk:Москальска сволоч. If you are interested in building a serious encyclopaedia, you should follow their advice. --Johannes Rohr 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
They are protected against anonymous users, because of constant vandalism, but not for registered ones. Actually some Russians who are tolerant to the wiki wrote some text for the article about Russia, and we have translated this text to Siberian, and have included it in the article. The poem presents in the Wiki as an example of the Siberian language, so in context of Siberian language it is notable by my opinion. And if the AFD discussion among contributors of ru-sib (but not among Russian sockpuppets) will have 2/3 votes for deletion, I will delete, but now it is about 50 to 50% in this talk page, and I think this is not ruwiki's business, but this is business of ru-sib users. Just their false accusations on this verse convinced me to vote against it's deletion, because it would be subduing to their tyranny and attempts of political censorship. They do not understand the verse, and invent many crap about it. Yes, it is political, but not fascist, racial, not russophobic, etc. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, your poetry is fully protected. See [42] and [43] . One was protected by you, the other by Ottorahn. If you want to put up "examples of Siberian language", you should better provide something else than your own texts - they are by definition non-encyclopaedic. There should be plenty of folk poetry from Siberia and the North, which would be much better suited and less controversial. --Johannes Rohr 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we have changed the level, maybe we had not pay attention to the level, fighting with vandals. I think "registered users" is good level for it's protection. We have a lot of folk texts in the wiki as well. I personally do not fear controversy; but if real editing community will vote for deletion, I will delete. We already had AFD discussion and decision was "not delete". Actually even I would not be an ardent fighter for this article, if not all this crap about this verse:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The most important point for us in discussion about this verse is that anti-colonialism is not Russophobia[44], just because Northern and Siberian movements are often accused in Russophobia in real life. That's why I am personally against it's deletion - it seems to me that if I would delete, I would recognize, that the text is Russophobic when it is not. 90% of Siberian movement participants think that they are Russians, but they want to have an independent from Moscow Russian culture. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The most important point is that the views that differ from your political or personal views are not allowed in the ru-sib Wikipedia. That's why no user with encyclopedic thinking will want to work in your Wikipedia, as neutral encyclopedic views are simply discouraged there. Not mentioning that nobody would want to contribute in your version of con-slang. --BeautifulFlying 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, if you think that Russian vandals who write here "Siberians are shit" has encyclopedic thinking, I doubt in it. If you speak "neutral encyclopedic views" about your personal soapbox chauvinistic position, it does not become neutral at all. And please say - "nobody contributes" or ";other views are not allowed"? This sentences are contradictory))) Actually 1) nobody from ruwiki contributes except vandals 2) that's why their non-neutral chauvinistic POV (by which all the ruwiki is filled) is not presented --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should stop arguing here, as it clearly does not lead anywhere. However, one (hopefully) final word: Whatever the future fate of ru-sib: is going to be (personally I don't believe that it is going to be closed any time soon), as long as you keep content like your, erm, interesting poetry, as long as their are Uncyclopedia-like articles like ru-sib:Россея, as long as you don't learn to distinguish between your activism , your political views (to which you are fully entitled) on the one hand and the purpose of an encyclopaedia on the other hand, ru-sib has no prospect of ever being perceived as a serious Wikipedia edition. It will be seen as a pet-project, micromanaged by some controversial freak. While you keep reaffirming, that all you do is non-political, your strong politicizing on this very page proofs the opposite: You have stated multiple times that many controversial bits, like the infamous "водка и селедка" are kept, because of the ongoing row with the ruwiki community. This is pretty obviously a non-encyclopaedic approach. What should be in an encyclopaedia and what should not, should and must not be determined by with whom you are currently quarreling. If you want to be taken serious - ensure encyclopaedic quality, adhere to Wikipedia's standards. To the best of your own interest. --Johannes Rohr 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But they can change the article in any time they want. They do not do this just to organize protests here in Meta--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is some unbiassed problems with the language. Carn ru 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe we see the GIGO principle at work here, cf Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small, inactive wikis#General discussion about small, inactive wikis. If you publish crap, you will receive crap. If you expect your users to contribute serious content, you should offer serious content in the first place. There is no "they", which you can put the blame for poor content on. Apart from that, there is a little issue, called "language barrier". While it may be possible to understand much of the text in ru-sib, writing requires learning it first. Since there are no classes in "Sibirskii govor" anywhere in the world, this might proof difficult. Left aside all the controversy - I believe that someone learning a language just to edit a Wiki is an extremely rare case. --Johannes Rohr 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that references to законодательство are largely irrelevant. However, with all respect to the freedom of speech, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor it is a soapbox. If Wikipedia endorses racial hate speech such as w:ru-sib:Москальска сволоч and w:ru-sib:Москальски выблядки and countless statements made by the ru-sib admin, then Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia, and becomes just a hate site. --BeautifulFlying 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no hate speech in this texts, this is only your imagination. Especially, there are nothing about race there, please do not deceive the audience. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This poetry has been largely discussed on the main voting page, and on this page above. I can't decieve the audience here. --BeautifulFlying 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And this discussion shows that it does not contain hate speech. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In cases of extremely offensive content, my best idea would be to approach a steward and ask them to remove it. --Johannes Rohr 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All this Russian Patriotic "voting" is simple demonstration of unity of Russian Patriots and it has no similiarity to any real voting at all. The same can be seen in Moscow near Estonic embassy now: [45]. All the "votes" mean nothing. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You justify your own surname. For those who don't know, "zolotar" (Золотарь) is a historical Russian occupation of handling shit (Золото means "gold" (a yellow metal)) . How much more gold you will pour on Russians, you expert in Russian Patriots? Mikkalai 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks - that's all what you can do, but they prove nothing, bacause the real situation is 100% reverse to all your imaginations about sib-wiki and Siberian movement. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this attack involving the name mockery is really a shame. However, Yaroslav Zolotaryov, your own actions are not much better when you undertake personal attacks, too. --BeautifulFlying 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually personally about you I can not make personal attacks by default, because you are a virtual, and I do not know you personally. So all the attacks are only about your Net personage and his behaviour. Who knows, maybe you are actually my friend Shtepa who simply make jokes here?)) I try to answer only one time a day just to reduce flood and mutual accusations. But, кто с мечем к нам придет, от меча и погибнет. When you wil tend to comprimise and to consent in something, I will support such behaviour. But not those absurd accusations to Ukranian and Northern movement, who just use word Moscal speaking about imperialism, but not about russian nation. And this meaning is directly presented everywhere, but you ignore this, inventing new meaning for abusing many, many good people who use it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing to observe how a persistent political activist with nothing better to do thirves in the domain where people of power don't really care that their computer resources are abused or have better things to do. Mikkalai 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stay calm and civil please[edit]

Meta tends to be rather laid back about things, but in my view some of the recent comments take things a bit too far. Can those who I am referring to please tone down the level of anger and harshness? I'd prefer not to name names, as this is a long drawn out controversy, but if you think there is a chance I am talking about you, I probably am. So please, let's all do our best to remain calm and collegial. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ребята, давайте жить дружно! (с) Леопольд (boys, let's live amicably!) Please, live harshness in the past. If anyone insult you - stay cool. Carn ru 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

В этом плане поддерживаю, если Бьютифул прекратит дискуссию на каком-то компромиссе, я с удовольствием ее закончу, тем более большей частью мы уже повторяемся. Я думаю, что зря тратится дисковое пространство, все аргументы уже высказаны. I think, the discussion should be stopped in some way - all the sides are only repeating the same arguments, this is waste of time and disk space. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Судя по действиям и высказываниям, которые вы себе позволяете, достигнуть компромисса нам будет тяжело. Но я согласен, мы уже ходим по кругу, каждый в своей аргументации, и наверно хватит. Каждый из нас сказал, что ему было сказать, пусть те, от кого это зависит, принимают решения.
Judging by the actions and statements that you permit yourself, it will be difficult for you and me to reach a compromise. But I agree, we are going in circles, each in his own reasoning, perhaps it's enough. Each of us has said what he had to say, now let the decisions be made by the decision makers. --BeautifulFlying 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Обращаю ваше внимание, что именно вы начали атаки не только на меня, но и на все наше движение, и на некоторые союзные нам движения. Однако я не против кончить, у меня сейчас элементарно много работы на Викиславии, и нет особо времени отслеживать эту дискуссию.
That was you who began attacks against me, our movement, and some allied movements. But I agree to end with this, this is senseless. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Однако я не против кончить," =))) Я тоже!
We are not small kids, to elucidate "who bites first", are we? But we can stop it. Carn ru 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Further proceedings[edit]

Since many participants have expressed their dissatisfaction with the procedure and asked when this vote is going to be closed, I'd like to sum up, what I've gathered in various places: This vote is likely to continue, until a policy on project closures is in place. At the moment, such a policy exists only as an initial draft, see: Closure of WMF projects.

According to it, controversial cases as this one would be handled by a Meta Arbitration Committee, which currently does not exist.

Almost certainly, the decision would not be based on numbers of votes, but instead on the weight of the arguments, similar to the language proposal policy. The committee would take its own decision. It would not be bound by the outcome of a vote.

Further, according to GerardM's draft, there would be many more options available for conflict resolution, than simple closure or continuation of a project. These would include e.g. changing existing user privileges (e.g. de-sysopping of individual users) and modification or removal of individual content pages.

However, this proposal is unlikely to be implemented any time soon. Personally, I haven't seen anyone volunteering for a future MetaArbCom any there has been very view discussion activity around the policy draft. --Johannes Rohr 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A BoT member comment on the Siberian Wikipedia issue: [46] --BeautifulFlying 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And so, we end up with a vote which has been open since November 2006, but has not been closed yet. This is unfair to editors of Siberian WP, who probably feel in limbo, and rightly so. I am disappointed such a process takes so long and ends up lacking anything resembling a decision. Odedee 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Zolotaryov reveals the truth[edit]

One final note: shortly after the «close» decision Yaroslav Zolotaryov decided to finally take off the mask and to reveal the truth about ru-sib project (screenshot) (ru→en translation is mine):

Siberian language ... In essense, it was a joke, that many people liked, and many people were disturbed by it, which amused me. Last half a year I wasn't really involved with that project and created several new ones. The language got attention, there was several publications in the media, a lot of discussions on the net, I even appeared on TV, and I am satisfied. I'm sure that soon I'll invent something similar. But were people really thinking that I was going to translate the whole English Wikipedia into that?))) Why the f*ck would I do that, it's boring... --WikiSysop 02:44, 20 сентября 2007 (EEST)

It's a real pity that so many naive Meta users helped Zolotaryov waste thousands of hours of other people discussing this, umm ... "project" ∴ Alex Smotrov 05:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)