Де ла Википедия ын лимба молдовеняскэ

Vote for administrators will begin on ____________ and end on _________.

All people who are registered users of mo.wiki before 16 September 2005 (UTC) can vote, pending a sockpuppet check by a developer.

Anybody may nominate themselves for administrator, or be nominated by someone else.

Any candidate must gain the approval of ##% of the voters to become an admin. Voters may support as many or as few candidates as they would like. If no single candidate receives ##% of the vote, the candidate with the most votes will become an admin (?).

Listed alphabetically.

Contents 1 Template 2 Dmitriid 2.1 Questions 3 Jeorjika 3.1 Questions 4 Node_ue 4.1 Questions 5 Voting system 6 Vot/Вот/Vote 6.1 Duca 6.2 Anittas 6.3 Jeorjika 6.4 Mihaitza 6.5 Landroni 6.6 Ronline 6.7 Oleg Alexandrov 6.8 Domnu Goie 6.9 Node ue 6.10 Post-Election Comments 6.11 The vote stands 6.12 The vote Stands 6.13 I am sorry, Oleg Alexandrov 6.14 Questions 6.15 Clarifications and procedures 6.16 Node vandalizing the Moldova article 6.17 Wider discussion needed 6.18 Going to wikimedia 6.19 Node on Wiki

[edit] Template

User contribs (main namespace): [1] (number of contribs)
Candidate statement:

[edit] Dmitriid

User contribs (main namespace): [2] (10)
Candidate statement: I have been away (first chance to go home in two years) so I haven't been able to keep up with all the discussions here. Anyway...

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

My agenda:

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

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

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

[edit] Questions

1. Do you plan to contribute to this Wikipedia (which means using the cyrillic alphabet)? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I will work on correcting pages that are in place and will work on expanding stub articles. Dmitriid 05:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Do you promise to put yourself about politics, watching for vandals and protecting pages first, and arguing your views second? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, most definitely Dmitriid 05:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeorjika

User contribs (main namespace): [3] (0)
Candidate statement:

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

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

• 1) I certainly do not plan to “kill” the Moldovan Wikipedia, unless an overwhelming majority of the members that comprise the Moldovan Wikipedian “community” are for that course of action.

• 2) The number of articles will have to be increased. It is really outrageous that after such a long time all that this Wikipedia has, is 221 stubs and only a few medium-sized articles. Most articles concern countries and they don’t run for more then a couple of lines. Others like the new URSS one is a clear copy of the Romanian version. What Node ue does is he copy-pastes the Romanian version and then he changes letter by letter the whole thing. I do not think it takes a genius to figure that one out. Regardless if this is so due to Node’s inability to speak the Official Language of Moldova, a Wikipedia once started off, must progress and under Node ue the Moldovan Wikipedia progressed at an extremely slow pace. One of the reasons is that instead of urging people to contribute, he angered parts of the Moldovan Wikipedia community which could have contributed to the Wiki, rather then end up repulsed by it. I strongly believe that everyone should be welcome to participate but I myself will take an initiative to increase the number of articles and write about Moldova’s cities, traditions, known Moldovans, writers, poets, musicians and politicians. Likewise, articles will have to be written that will deal with a variation of fields and subjects: cultural, artistic, scientific, etc. etc.

• - Node ue or some of you will ask me, why haven’t I already contributed to the Wikipedia? After all, it does look good if you want to be sysop and you already contribute to it, doesn’t it? Well first of all, let me tell you that I am not here to LOOK good. I put forth my candidacy because I see that many people are not happy with the way things are going and I am one of those people. Secondly, until recently when I was just a spectator, not a candidate, I had personal reasons for not contributing for the Wikipedia in its present form. Unlike Node ue who failed to consider other opinions but his own, I am willing to put those personal reasons aside, and once sysop I will take the initiative to increase the quality of the Wikipedia in whatever form the Moldovan Wikipedia community will want me to. I believe that a sysop has more extensive responsibilities then a potential contributor and one of those responsibilities is to listen and do what the majority wants.

• 3)People will finally be able to cast their opinions and I promise that I will not interfere with them like Node ue has done so far. Comments will be made without me having to immediately repudiate them or attack them. Instead of listening, Node ue has aggravated the situation and irritated the already annoyed users who merely tried to post their reservations and comments. On one hand he talks about internationalism, how we are all equal yet he divides this community into "ro.wikipedians" and the other “good wikipedians”, thus creating further friction. In my view, the job of a sysop is to manage a Wikipedia, increase its number of good-quality articles, not invite fighting and bickering. A sysop is supposed to create a pleasant environment with his/her community, not increase the hostility. Node ue did the total opposite and this is why we have come to this squabbling in the first place.

• 4) Now some of you have expressed their problems with the existence of this Moldovan Wikipedia. I myself have problems with certain aspects of it. However, it would be totally undemocratic to take a measure that does not have the consent of the community.

• This is why, I will organize a poll within two weeks of my election which will ask the consultation of the community on the future of the Wikipedia. I think many have a problem with its existence, others with its name, while others would want to see Latin letters instead of Cyrillic letters. Some of you may want it to stay the way it is. All of you have the right to believe the way you do and no sysop should tell any of you that your viewpoints are wrong. You will ALL get to voice your opinions and concerns and a decision will be taken NOT according to MY political views and motivations, but based on YOUR opinions and concerns.

• 5) Most of all, after reading older comments, I noticed a great inability to be flexible on the part of the current sysop, Node ue. I will not be characterized by this inflexibility because it is my honest opinion that a community can only strive when everyone can feel that they are part of this community and can each contribute something to it. We will really get nowhere if some of us are alienated or pushed to the side because of our beliefs. In some respect that is a lot like a communist-authoritarian system and most of you, I think, will agree with me that we have to do away with that.

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

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

[edit] Questions

1. Do you plan to contribute to this Wikipedia (which means using the cyrillic alphabet)? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Answer. : I plan first and foremost to organize a poll which will ask people if they are for the continuation of this wikipedia and if so in what way. I will be honest. I, myself do not think that Moldovan should be written in Cyrillic. However, if in the poll people will express their wish that this wikipedia should continue in Cyrillic then yes by all means I will contribute to the wikipedia in Cyrillic.Jeorjika 05:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To organise a vote for such things is anybody's privelage. You may do it now. You don't need to be sysop for it. This is a democracy. To remove this as a pivotal part of your campaign, I will begin to organise a vote now for the future of this Wiki. --Node ue 13:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Node ue. Becoming an administrator has nothing to do with organizing a vote. Organizing a vote is not the job of administrator. The job of an administrator is to keep Wikipedia free from vandals, edit the interface, and protect vandalized pages. See User:Node ue/Viitor de aceasta Wikipedie for a discussion about the future of this encyclopedia. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 18:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry Node but I believe my words were organize a vote. Maybe they were misleading so I will reiterate that. "I will take the initiative". Yes, to "take the initiative" is not the job of a sysop but according to you nor is contributing to articles. You yourself, said that a sysop is a janitor. Yes, I totally agree and never said otherwise. I also believe that if as sysop you want to take the initiative in having a poll, well then there is nothing wrong with that. After all, you yourself did it. I could just as easily accuse you of this and say that is not your job but I do not. In fact I am really happy that you took up this idea of mine to have a poll as soon as possible.Jeorjika 01:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Do you promise to put yourself about politics, watching for vandals and protecting pages first, and arguing your views second? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Answer. Absolutely yes. As I have stated before I do plan to fulfill my responsibility and what will be asked of me. Unlike Node has tried to imply in the past, I DO in fact understand that with the job of sysop comes great responsibility.Jeorjika 05:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

3. If people will vote that they do not want a Wikipedia in Cyrillic, what will you do? Will you make this a Wikipedia for "Moldovan" in Latin script? Ronline 08:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all : if people do not a Wikipedia in Cyrillic, that means that they either want a "Moldovan' Wikipedia in the Latin script or conversely a deletion of the Moldovan Wikipedia altogether. In my view, people should be consulted again in order to specifically find out which of these two options they would want to opt for. Jeorjika 01:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Node_ue

User contribs (main namespace): [4] (84)
Candidate statement: My candidacy is based on a simple platform:

• I have been a sysop for a little bit now on this Wikipedia. I am also sysop on the Nauruan and Navajo Wikipedias. Because of this, I already have experience. My only controversial sysop action was protecting the main pages.
• My contributions as a sysop include translating large parts of the interface, cleaning vandalism, and deletion of pages that were empty or created by mistake.
• My contributions as a normal user include creation of many articles, including Холокауст (about the Holocaust), Иоан Паул ал Ⅱ-ля (about the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II), and Ӂеорӂе Кошбук (about the Romanian poet George Cosbuc), adding to and editing existing articles, as well as writing a small amount of original content. It has been alleged that I am horrible at Moldovan/Romanian; if this is true it should be easy to find my original content among the articles I've created. If you will take a look at all of the longest pages on this Wikipedia, you will see that most were created by me.
• My primary goal is the growth of this Wikipedia. This is why, as part of a quality initiative, I have begun to write original articles for this Wikipedia which you won't find anywhere else. I also take an active role in urging anonymous contributors to register. In the future, I hope we can support the creation of separate Wikipedias for the minority languages of Moldova, Gagauz and Romany.
• I am currently one of the leading contributors to this Wikipedia, and the most active in the past few weeks. Other prominent contributors include Gabix, Ronline, and Vertaler.
• I have so far been the only one who has always been here for this Wikipedia. Nobody else has stayed all along. Many, if not most, have only been active near election times.
• I have given a primary position to Latin script, and used the word "Romana" on the main page as a compromise, rather than abuse my sysop powers to force my will as Jeorjika has accused. --Node ue 17:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

1. Do you plan to contribute to this Wikipedia (which means using the cyrillic alphabet)? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. I have actually already contributed here. --Node ue 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Do you promise to put yourself about politics, watching for vandals and protecting pages first, and arguing your views second? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. --Node ue 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting system

Before we vote, we have to confirm the system we're going to be using to determine who is sysop. So far I think people have proposed two models:

• The approval system - for each candidate, a person can either vote for and against. Whatever candidates have more votes for (that is, 50%+ approval), they come sysop. In this way, we can have more than one sysop. This system is good because every sysop that will be voted in will be approved by the majority of the community.
• The adversarial system - Duca gave an interesting boost to this by saying that we could have a run-off. I actually agree with this more now. It would mean that each person gets one vote to vote for the best candidate, and then if there isn't a majority, a run-off is held between the two best candidates. Sort of like the Romanian presidential elections (and we know what a big difference run-offs can make to the result :)

What do you think? Ronline 01:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Support first system. It does not make any sense to restrict the number of sysops only to 1. Two sysops makes it more likely that at any given time one person will be online, especially due to the time zone differences. People, this is not politics, a sysop is not a president, rather a janitor. You can vote for two people at the same time. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 01:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Multumesc, Oleg. Jeorjika and domnul Goie continue to paint it as if this is an election for a president. They say I rule this Wikipedia with an iron fist. That's absolutely rediculous, since neither of them has been here for months. There is nobody to rule! The only people who have been here for the past months are myself and Gabix. According to domnul Goie, I am antidemocratic, ex-KGB Smirnovist agent. "Democratic" means "rule by the people". But so far, there aren't any people here most of the time! I support a democracy, but a democracy needs "demos" (Greek for The People), which this Wikipedia does not have. I still think it's a bit strange that extremist unionists from Romania whose sole stated aim is the complete annihilation of this Wikipedia, such as domnul Goie and Duca, are allowed to vote, as are his friends, and yet so far Oleg Alexandrov, a real live Moldovan, is not on Ronline's list of people who are allowed to vote. Now, I think everybody should be allowed to vote, pending of course a sockpuppet check by a developer. But that's not practical. So I propose instead that anybody asks BEFORE the opening of the election, may vote. So this will include Ronline, Goie, Duca, etc., etc., but hopefully Oleg Alexandrov as well. --Node ue 04:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oleg Alexandrov should be allowed to vote, no dispute on that. Ronline 07:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey people, don't use bold, please. Many capitals either. Makes it look as if there is fighting in here. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

One more time, I would like to reiterate that I have never tried to paint this as an election for a president. Please Node ue, it would be very nice if you could not spread that kind of untrue and unfair remarks around.

About the vote, I was under the impression that anyone that registered can vote. I am also in favor of Duca's second run-off or Mihaitza's two-ballot system.Jeorjika 05:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You painted it as a presidential election with inflammatory remarks such as "under Node ue the Moldovan Wikipedia progressed at an extremely slow pace". In that phrase, I emphasise the words "under Node ue", because "under" implies the role of a president and therefore a presidential election, rather than a janitor. --Node ue 13:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeorjika stated above that he understands the job of an administrator, and that he plans to contribute to this encyclopedia if it is decided to keep it. Jeorjika also stated that he nevertheless prefers this encyclopedia to be closed. The views are rather clear now, so I think Node ue does not need to iterate again what Jeorjika thinks of this encyclopedia (so that we cool down the atmosphere). en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 18:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry Node but I believe my words were organize a vote. Maybe they were misleading so I will reiterate that. "I will take the initiative". Yes, to "take the initiative" is not the job of a sysop but according to you nor is contributing to articles. You yourself, said that a sysop is a janitor. Yes, I totally agree and never said otherwise. I also believe that if as sysop you want to take the initiative in having a poll, well then there is nothing wrong with that. After all, you yourself did it. I could just as easily accuse you of this and say that is not your job but I do not. In fact I am really happy that you took up this idea of mine to have a poll as soon as possible.

As far as my views are concerned; Yes, I do not believe in a Cyrillic Moldovan wikipedia. But that is my opinion alone and that is all I am entitled to. I am not entitled to block pages or oppose people with opinions other then my own. Will I be the "janitor" of a mowiki in Cyrillic if people wish it to be in Cyrillic, Absolutely yes.

Can you say the same for yourself. On the discussion page of the main page it is pretty clear that you have blocked pages after people wanted to change them. I think that is not the job of a sysop. As a good sysop, you should have listened to what they had to say. You are doing this now, which is better then never; but imagine where we would all be if you had done this from the start. Jeorjika 01:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say I really love the picture with the bucket there. Someone still knows what humor is. Allow me to put a new title here since the election will start in about a day or two. I hope Ronline will not mind, even though this is Ronline's page.

I know that there has been some confusion about how we are going to vote. In the end Oleg seemed to grasp my idea concerning the double ballot system so I am going to assume that nobody has any other questions or problems with it.

Because of the confusion I am going to give an example, assuming that mini, mani and mo are running for the lection.

If you want to vote for mini and mani

Vote1: mini Vote2: maniMihaitza 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

or if you want to vote for mini and abstain:

Vote1: mini Vote2: abstainMihaitza 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

or if you want to cast all your votes for mani

Vote1:mani Vote2:maniMihaitza 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Bellow is the vote. I also think we should put a similar title on the ronline/propunere and on the main moldovan discussion page, then we count all the votes, provided that nobody voted twice. Mihaitza 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Salut Mihai,

I think it's best if we have as many votes as candidates. As some people have said, they prefer 3 sysops. Thus, you may give all 3 votes to one person, give two to one person and one to another person, or give one vote to each person. This way, you may also vote strategically: if you want Georgica, but you wouldn't mind Dmitriid, but you absolutely don't want me, you can cast two votes for Georgica and one for Dmitriid. --Node ue 08:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Salut Node ue,

We could do that but then it would be harder to have 2 or 3 sysops. Those people that want to cast all their votes for one person would be advantaged since their votes will increase. We said that we will have three sysops if all get 33% of the votes and I think it was 2 sysops if the first two are only 1 vote apart from each other. I think the 3 vote-system will make that a little more harder, but if you really want to we can try that too.

Mihaitza 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vot/Вот/Vote

This vote is still open. Please vote if you have registered.

(This is the vote for administrators. If you want to vote in the election for the future of this Wikipedia, please go to this page.)

[edit] Duca

• Vote1:Jeorjika
• Vote2:Jeorjika
• Duca 20:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anittas

• Vote 1: Jeorjika
• Vote 2: Jeorjika
• Anittas 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeorjika

• Vote 1: Jeorjika
• Vote 2: Jeorjika
• Jeorjika 03:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mihaitza

• Vote 1: Jeorjika
• Vote 2: Jeorjika
• Mihaitza 04:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landroni

• Vote 1: Jeorjika
• Vote 2: Jeorjika
• Landroni 08:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ronline

• Vote 1: Jeorjika
• Vote 2: Node ue
• Ronline 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg Alexandrov

• Vote 1: Node ue
• Vote 2: Node ue

[edit] Domnu Goie

• Vote1: Jeorjika
• Vote2: Jeorjika

Domnu Goie 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Node ue

I support all three candidates. --Node ue 01:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Election Comments

Is it just me, or was this vote only open for one day? I don't remember agreeing to that. --Node ue 06:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Salut Node ue,

No. The vote was scheduled for Oct. 1'st, with the understanding that it would start at 0,00,00 Moldovan time, thus in reality if you lived in Western Europe or North America, then you could have started to vote as early as Friday afternoon/night depending on where you lived. The vote was never supposed to go into the day of october 2, no matter where you are situated on the Globe. Everywhere where we talked about the vote, we always mention the day October 1 and or Oct. 1 and the day before it. We never mentioned oct 2, 3, 4. Even if it would have lasted longer the situation on the ground says it all; Jeorjika got almost all the votes.

Nevertheless, if you really, really want to, we can prolong this vote but I honestly really doubt if it will make a difference.Mihaitza 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This vote must be prolonged! Never ever in any Wikimedia project have I seen a vote go on for one day. This isn't like the parliamentary elections! Votes generally go on for a few days. I say we give the date of end as October 5. Not that it will probably change the result, but limiting it to 1 day makes this vote look invalid. Ronline 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better to wait a week, maybe until Oct 8. That way, if somebody can only use the internet one day per week, or something, they'll still have the chance to vote. --Node ue 09:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Salut Node ue,

Okay, if you feel that this vote should last longer, for validity's sake, then I agree. But really October 8 seems really, really too long. Remember that vote we had before on the future of the wikipedia a few months back? That vote was only for about 3 days. I think a vote on a sysop is less important then a vote on an entire wikipedia. Let's go with your first sugestion. October 5. What do you say?Mihaitza 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Just want to balance things a bit.

In the end, I think I was right that this system is a bit ridiculous. Look, Jeorjika voted for himself, and voted for himself twice. Node ue will probably do the same. This is all silly. On the English Wikipedia, where I am an administrator, you don't vote for yourself, and there is no limit on the number of administrators. There, the vote is what it should be: choosing several members of the community who can be trusted enough to get more powers so that they can serve Wikipedia more effectively. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not right to have the vote be one day only. On the English Wikipedia is one week, so let us make it one week here too. For example, yesterday I moved to a new apartment, and could not vote. One day is too short. My view would be to close the vote on October 8, the same time as it started. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I really have to agree with Oleg here. I think there are a number of weird things about this vote: 1) The adversarial system. Please see en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen, ja:Wikipedia:管理者への立候補, pl:Wikipedia:Przyznawanie uprawnień administratora, es:Wikipedia:Candidaturas a bibliotecario. It is much more normal, democratic, and fair to have a separate vote for each person, and to this date it is what has been done on all other Wikipedias. An adverserial election implies that there is a limit on the number of administrators, which there is not. It also allows people to oppose a candidate without directly expressing opposition: Ronline may support the candidacy of Dmitriid, but he is forced to choose from 3 candidates. 2) To be allowed to vote for yourself is perhaps normal in parliamentary or presidential elections in the real world, but on Wikipedias this is usually not allowed. In a non-adverserial system, it doesn't much matter; in an adverserial system, it means that for example by voting for Dmitriid, I would be lessening my own chances greatly. 3) No vote is permanent. At any point in the future, on any Wikipedia, somebody may re-request adminship, or request that somebody's adminship be removed. As long as consensus is reached at that point in the future, the action will be carried out. 4) The ongoing election reeks of being poorly planned for. First of all, it started when there were still open queries about it (3 instead of 2 votes). Second of all, it's clear that people didn't have the same ideas before it began -- Mihaitza thought it was supposed to last a day, while other people had various other impressions.

I don't want to explicitly propose a new election as I feel people will say "Oh, he's just being a sore loser". So if nobody else wants a new election, I will accept this one, despite the irregularities I feel exist. But if somebody else agrees, then I think we should pause, rewind, and wait until everybody agrees 100% on how the election will go before starting again. --Node ue 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, let's try not to put comments right beside the vote so that we can have a clear space for the votes. This is why I moved them all here. About your comments, the voting system does not necessarily have to be the same in all circumstances. I think its perfectly normal for people to vote for themselves. That is true for any election. The fact that you yourself have voted means that you agreed to the system. If you want the vote to last until October 8, then I guess that makes two people already and only one that wants it to end on October 5 so October 8th it is.

For me, it really does not make a difference and I do not think it makes a difference for anyone else either. But just look at the results and you will see for yourself that if Dimitriid gets even one vote or if Jeorjika gets even one more vote, then the end result will be the same as it was on October 2. So I propose that the vote should end officially on October 8 or as soon as a clear result will come up. Mihaitza 17:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well that was not a surprise. Domnu Goie voted like a true partizan. Well guys, it's 13 for Jeorjika, 3 for Node ue and 3 people or 6 potential votes to go out of all registered voters. Even if all three give 2 votes to Node ue each, there is no way that Node ue can win. I think the smartest thing to do is for Node ue to concede defeat. Bravo Jeorjika.Mihaitza 01:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As Ronline said, it isn't required that a winning candidate get the most votes, but rather that they are approved by the majority of voters. Anyhow, I, Oleg, and a third party on wikipedia-l (Andre Engels) have expressed doubts about the adversarial system, and the hasty manner into which this election was rushed. --Node ue 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The vote stands

Oh my God. I did not know you could sink this low Node ue. Remember the election on the wikipedia 3 months ago? Did I ever say anything that we should have another vote? So now that you finally saw that you lost, you are requesting another vote?

I never requested another vote. As I said, I will accept the results to this vote if nobody else requests another one, which so far they have NOT.

• It's funny how you say you " donnot explicitly propose a new election" cause you know how that will look on you, but in fact that is exactly what you are doing.

... no, it's not exactly what I'm doing. You have begun to try to act with some air of authority here, as Ronline did in the last vote we had, but it doesn't seem a good idea to me because your opinions are clearly much less neutral than are his.

• It is funny that you only thought about pointing out the so-called "irregularities" you saw only after you lost.

"After you lost" -- what?

• It's funny how you did not think of requesting a re-election or proposing to have the vote at another day, before you found out that you lost.

"Before you found out that you lost", "requesting a re-election"...

• It's funny that you think it's normal that if only another person agrees with you then we should all just have another vote ( BECAUSE YOU LOST).

Wow.

• It's funny that that other person among the registered is Oleg and only Oleg( and you know it). It's funny how Oleg, although claims or rather you claim that he has problems with this vote, he actually participated in it. I am sorry, but Oleg has no right to say the vote is not good if he himself voted in it.

Why is that?

• You talk about people. Node, open you eyes, more then half the people have voted and they all voted against you. So no matter how you count it, by people or by votes, you lost.

Aha, but that is one of the irregularities of this vote. Nobody voted against me. It is not possible in this election to cast a vote "against" somebody. Ronline likes Dmitriid, but since he had only 2 votes, he could not express support for him. His lack of vote for Dmitriid, was most definitely not a vote "against". If it hadn't been a non-adverserial election, though, people would've made "votes against".

• You know what else is funny, Node ue? If things were the other way around and if you were the one to win the election, then I really, really wonder if you would have still whined that because of the way the vote was set up then we should have a revote?

As it stands, I have still not lost.

• Finally, I really hope you will not embarrass yourself even further, because the timing of your demand for “pausing and thinking for a re-election” is really suspicious.

... you "really hope"? You told me before that you're not politically motivated and how it angers you that I accuse you of that. Then later you call me a "moldovenist". Somehow, it seems to me as if you're politically motivated. --Node ue 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a good day, Mihaitza 03:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think it's time for a compromise here. I think, and many would agree with me, that this was a flawed vote. Not only were the voting procedures unclear to people, but the adversarial two-vote system is inherently unfair. But, the overwhelming support for Jeorjika is undeniable, so I think he should be made sysop as soon as possible. At the same time, a "request for adminship" page should be made so other people, such as Node and Dmitriid, can also candidate. These people would then be subject to an approval vote by the community where turnout must exceed 50% and "Yes" votes must also exceed 50%. In that case, people like Dmitriid, which I do support as a sysop, can actually get the chance to become sysop rather than having to compete. The approval system is how sysop elections are done everywhere. So, I say = make Jeorjika sysop, and then let other people candidate. If they get approved, let them become sysops too. It's the only fair way. Ronline 06:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Jeorjika should be made a sysop right away. And I think we should make an RfA page. --Node ue 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• The only fair way? For who? For Node ue and his team of "Moldovensists"?

Remind me who isn't politically motivated? We already talked about Moldovenism. I am Node, not Vasile Stati.

• Did we look for "the only wair way" when Node managed to get his wikipedia to survive in the past vote?

..._my_ Wikipedia? Didn't other people vote to keep it?

• I remember in the last vote, I agreed to participate in a vote which had rules, I accepted those rules, I did not agree with the outcome but I accepted it because that's what we do in a democracy.

It was not a vote for sysop. The rules were much, much, clearer, and more widely-agreed upon, before it began.

• No, the vote stands the way it is. Ronline, if you thought the vote was flawed you should not have voted in it or you should have protested to its flawdness by not voting and making a comment, instead of going along with it. You also had no problems with it before, you voted quite normally like everyone else. Node ue's reasons are really really stupid(sorry to say so) but he only started complaining that the vote was flawed after it became obvious that he lost. There is no compromise. The majority voted and the majority wanted Jeorjika as sysop and not Node ue. Mihaitza 13:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems suspect to me as well. The only reason you oppose setting up an RfA page, which would, again, let the majority decide, is because you are afraid of the majority. IF people really don't want me or Dmitriid as admin, what is the harm? --Node ue 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Mihai. This is outragous. How is it possible that Node was against the vote only a few hours after he was saying in BOLD "This vote must be prolonged!". So as long as there was still a chance for him to remain sysop, it was ok to hold the vote and even to prolong the vote but after he realized that there is a strong public opinion against him, he immediately decided to say that the vote was flawed and that we should vote again?

I am not the one who said that the vote "must be prolonged" -- that was Ronline. Ronline and I are two very different people.

How long are we going to vote again? Until Node remains sysop?

...

Don't you all think that this will create even more problems? Because if we accept Node's demand( and probably Aleksadrov's too cause he supports Node) for a new vote, then just the same Jeorjika can challange the next vote and ask for a revote just the same. And then we are going to keep on going on like this in circles.

The difference is, this vote is adverserial, and there are many clear flaws. It was also not clearly agreed upon in all aspects before it started.

One more thing

Haven't you all realized that all of this is not about the regularity of the vote but rather about those who voted for node and node ( which is node and aleksandr) who are pissed that node did not win. Why didn't they complain before they voted.

I complained before I voted.

Ronline is the only one that voted for both. His interest obviously was for Jeorjika to become sysop and Node ue to remain sysop too. Ronline wants a compromise because he voted for two sysops and its in his interest to have a compromise.

...we could say the same thing the other way. The only reason you don't want a compromise, is because you voted for Jeorjika.

Basically this is all about interests, not about the vote. So please people be mature about it and accept it the way it is. Those who want a new vote have a really dubious and weak case at best.

...

This is a democracy. The majority voted for Jeorjika. They have no problems with the vote.Duca 15:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Node ue 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The vote shows that people want Jeorjika to be an admin, that in spite of the flawed procedure. So I guess it does not make any sense to have a new election. But now people, please stop those indignant comments in bold. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And a request to Duca. My first name is Oleg, not Aleksandrov, and not aleksander. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 17:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that rather than declaring the results invalid here, and starting a whole new election, it is better to evaluate and enforce the results here, and allow other elections in the future (as we did with the earlier election). Andre Engels, a steward, seems to agree that this election is very weird, so it seems likely to me that he, for one, would not make sysops from it if people challenge the results. Why not accept the results of this election (although it seems we can't even agree on what those may be), and then allow for additional elections at an rfa page?? --Node ue 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The vote Stands

Well for starters, you have not answered my questions. None of them. As usual, you tried to get around them but once again you fail to address the questions, Node ue.

And what questions might these be? All I saw were accusations and complaints.

Secondly, I don't care what your buddy Andre Engels says. I doubt that many people here do except for your supporters( Oh wait I forgot, You have almost none).

Andre Engels is a steward. He has ultimate control over who becomes or doesn't become a sysop. So, whether or not you care, you certainly should care what he thinks.

Thirdly, do you want me to tell you what is wrong with your RFA page? Because you did not explicitly ask for an RFA page before the vote!!! That is what is wrong with it. At the beginning, of course you and your little crew wanted something resembling an RFA. Most people, myself included wanted a normal vote. I suggested the form of the vote that we proceeded with because I thought it was the fairest way for people who wanted 1 sysop and those who wanted more.

"A normal vote"? How long have you been around Wikipedia? RfA *is* normal -- all other Wikipedias have them.

You did not object and you did not say it then ( AS IN BEFORE THE ELECTION STARTED) that: "no matter the result you wanted an RFA". Did you say that explicitly? No. I don't know why you did not ask for one and say it lound and clear before the vote that:

"unless we will have an RFA, I will under no circumstances candidate and I will not recognize the result. the only result I will recognize is one under RFA"

...RfA is something that exists at all active Wikipedias. It is not open for discussion. I am going to create an RfA page. If you don't like it, feel free to go whinge on Wikipedia-l "Node ue just created an RfA page!" and people will just laugh, and laugh, and laugh until the cows come home. Democracy is democracy.

Did you say that? No. You went along with the vote. When it was still unclear who would win, you even wanted to prolong the vote until October 8. Ronline and Oleg Alexandrov went along with it too. They posed some questions but then they all went along with the vote and they all voted.

"Prolong" the vote? The primary problem with the ongoing vote is that nobody knows what the terms of it are. You say "prolong" -- well, who made the decision about the length in the first place? And I still want it to continue until Oct 8.

Let me ask you this: If you had been the one to win 82% of the votes, would you have still asked for an RFA page so we can have Jeorjika as sysop? I don't think so.

RfA pages are non-negotiable. If you had wanted to create one, you would've been welcome to. And you are again painting a semi-adverserial vote as an entirely adverserial one: according to Ronline, this was intended to be an approval vote system, thus I have not "lost" as there is still a large possibility that I will be approved.

Oh but wait, I forgot, you only want an RFA page so you can cling to the post of sysop. I am sorry but that is not a valid reason.

No, the valid reason is that RfA pages exist on all other Wikipedias, and are recognised as the best fair way to choose sysops. If you think each Wikipedia should only have one sysop, you should go complain on the Romanian Wikipedia. And if the majority really hates me as you claim, how would an RfA page help me "cling to the post of sysop"??

How come you did not want to have an RFA or cancel the vote when it was still unclear who would win? Oh wait, back then you wanted to prolong the vote until October 8 cause you hoped more and more people would show up and vote for you.

Which is still quite possible. And it is still unclear who will win -- unless, of course, you misunderstand this as a First Past The Post vote, which it is not.

What would you say if next time we will vote for the future of the moldovan wikipedia, I am going to ask for revotes and all kinds of crap until we can finally have more then 50% of the people voting for its closure? I don't think you would say that is very democratic, would you?Mihaitza 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite democratic. The provisions of the last vote about mowiki included one that said people may reconvene a new vote after a few weeks. You had the opportunity to declare a revote, and you never did. --Node ue 00:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mihaitza, relax a bit, will you? The community has spoken, the community wants Jeorjika to be administrator. That should make you happy.

Node ue, you have to accept that even if this election went according to the usual process, as at en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, the people who voted for Jeorjika would have just voted against you, and you would have not gotten 80% of support votes which are necessary at the English Wikipedia to become an admin.

On a practical note. As far as I am aware, the only reasons for removing somebody from being an administrator, is abuse of administrative powers. Anybody can provide evidence that Node ue abused his powers, such as blocking people wrongly, or deleting or protecting pages improperly? If you can't, Node ue will stay administrator as long as this encyclopedia stands. With Jeorjika as his colleague. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry, Oleg Alexandrov

That was not the agreement before the vote. We all agreed that this vote would settle who will be sysop. This new issue that you bring up was never an option.

Quote, please?

• One of the things we agreed upon, when we went to vote, was that if people overwhelmingly vote for one candidate, then that candidate becomes sysop.

Yes, and nobody here disputes that Jeorjika should now become sysop.

But the Main and Legal reason why Node ue cannot remain sysop is:

There is no "law" involved. Nobody is doing anything illegal, nor is anybody proposing anything illegal.

• If Node ue would have stayed sysop anyways, why did he present his candidacy in the first place?

...

Let me tell you why:

• Node ue presented his candidacy because of a lack of legitimacy. Initially when he became sysop a few months ago, he did so without being elected democratically. We all agreed that was a problem, even before you showed up, Oleg Alexandrov. Maybe you did not know this little fact.

Lack of legitimacy? No, I presented my candidacy due to my feeling that I needed to be confirmed by some sort of democratic process, which this clearly has not been so far.

• Therefore legally, Node ue is not really a sysop. His function was rather provisional and unrecognized. Otherwise he would not have been a candidate in the first place. His acknowledgement of this fact is very clear as he also took part in the election and presented his candidacy.

"LEgally"... right... Currently, I am recognised as a sysop by the powers that be. You have yet to make a formal complaint against me, as has everybody else. Thus, I am quite puzzled as to the roots of this matter. If you fail to vote in the current elections which I have started at the new RfA page, that is your choice. But if consensus is reached without you, that doesn't much matter -- consensus sans Mihaitza is still consensus.

• The fact that you yourself voted for him (2 times), suggests that you had no problem voting for him. Did you not think of this little point before you voted? It seems to me that you keep on trying to find reasons to keep Node ue even when it’s clear that he cannot become sysop.

The reason for this is the air of inherent legitimacy given to this vote. Oleg is himself against the existance of this Wikipedia, yet you have labled him a Moldovenist. And sure, it's fine if I can't become sysop. I'll accept that. Because I already am one... Now, if you want to de-sysop somebody, you have to have a clear vote, a vote which the stewards will not wonder about. That is not what this was.

• Oleg, I don’t like arguing like this with you back and fourth. Listen, the guy lost. The guy has no chance of staying sysop here. People don’t want him. On top of that he wasn’t even a legal, real and legitimate sysop to begin with. Why are you so stubbornly looking for reasons to keep this guy?

I could ask the same in reverse, and much more logically: why are you looking for reasons to NOT keep "this guy"? What exactly is it that I have done in violation of the rules? You and Goie have made sweeping accusations that I don't speak Romanian, am a Romanophobe, a Moldovenist, am antidemocratic, etc etc etc... you can keep shouting these until the cows come home but you don't seem to have a single specific complaint. And who are these "people" who don't want me? You? Domnul Goie? Other people who almost never edit here? Or real mowikipedians? Last time, the reason everybody was allowed to vote was because this WP was so underdeveloped that there WAS no community. But now there is. And you are not a part of it.

• I honestly think that all you are doing is harm your own position ( and his) since you keep on finding new arguments to keep him as sysop. Sadly enough, all these arguments are very dubious and the timing is really bad. If you would have really had problems with the way the vote was conducted, you would have said BEFORE THE VOTE and before the results were clear:

The results aren't clear yet.

“I protest this vote and in sign of protest I refuse to vote or recognize this vote unless….blah blah blah”.

But you did not do that before. Only after it was clear that Node ue cannot possibly win.

It's still quite possible for me to "win" this flawed and unfair election. Please re-read the things Ronline said prior to the election.

Thank you for your understanding and I am sorry for putting some things in Bold. I know it annoys you but ever since Node ue started it, I took up the habbit and now I cannot stop :) I will try harder next time. Mihaitza 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, *I* started it? I started writing in bold? Hmm... me? Or maybe, just maybe, the first person to use bold excessively on this Wikipedia was none other than the illustrious Jeorjika?? --Node ue 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Node, I am sorry but you are in the wrong.Mihaitza 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What about some PROOF?? You're always making baseless accusations against me. Well, I don't want to hear it anymore. From now on, any accusations you make against me without proof will be considered personal attacks and I will take appropriate action against them. You say I am a romanophobe, that I am a Moldovenist, Goie says I am a Stalinist KGB agent... if I had a penny for every baseless accusation you made, you can probably guess just how many I'd have. --Node ue 12:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• What was the agreement made between all parties on the election procedure?

• Not all details were agreed upon, but among those that were: 1) Which people are allowed to vote. 2) When the vote starts. and maybe more

• If Node disagreed with some of the details, why did he not oppose them before the election took place?

Because he thought he would winMihaitza 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I filed a note of my disagreement on Wikipedia-l nearly as soon as the election started. You just didn't see it, because you're not subscribed.

• I did oppose some of them, most notably that people got 2 votes.

• Why do we have a Moldovan Wikipedia? Wikipedia is supposed to cover different languages and Moldovan is Romanian. England and USA are two different countries, but they don't have their own Wikipedia. They share a common portal: the English Wikipedia.

• The difference between these cases is that there are separate ISO codes for Moldovan and Romanian. This is not per se the Moldovan Wikipedia, see Main Page which clarifies that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language. The primary function the continued existance of this domain is content in the Cyrillic script, which seems to be accepted by the Wikimedia community at large with the possible exception of ro.wikipedians.

Because Node ue loves Cyrillic :)Mihaitza 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... that has nothing to do with Anittas' question. And where is your evidence that I "love" Cyrillic? Not hating something is not equivalent to loving it. --Node ue 12:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can the members argue their case through other channels? Who has true authority to change things?

• It depends what changes you are talking about. As a sysop (currently), I am able to delete pages, block users, protect and unprotect pages. If you are talking about any other changes, however -- such as the deletion of this Wikipedia, or making the sky green -- that's not my power. --Node ue 05:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

--Anittas 04:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications and procedures

OK. First of all, I do have many reservations about the legitimacy of this vote, but I think it's fair to say that Jeorjika won and he should be made sysop. At the same time, Node should be desysoped for the time being. This isn't to be harsh or anything, but since he wasn't voted in for this election, he can't remain sysop. Otherwise, things will get controversial and I think people can get suspicious and indeed say "Why is Node still sysop when he was never voted in and received very few votes in the election?" However, I am nominating Node for sysop at requests for adminship. If he is approved, he can once again be sysop. Mihaitza - every Wikipedia has a requests for adminship page. The fact that Node didn't mention this before doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Just because we voted for an initial sysop here doesn't mean that anyone can't become a sysop in the future. And yes, I do want compromise here. Personally, I think it is very unfair that as soon as Node disagrees to something, even if the grounds are fair, he is quickly "cut down". I am not pro-Node anymore than I am pro-Jeorjika, but I think he needs to be given a chance. Hence the nomination for administrator. Ronline 07:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ronline, please explain. What do you mean "nomination for administrator"? And for what position are you nominating him for?

I never said we cannot have sysops in the future but don't we have to wait a certain period of time before new sysops come in?

Also if you nominate him then we have to vote for him on a yes-node, no-node basis, right. In the English wikipedia one must be voted with 80% of the vote. I propose the same thing here.Mihaitza 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... DUH... "Nomination for administrator" implies a nomination for... guess what... ADMINISTRATOR! Could it be any more obvious? And there is nothing anywhere that says anyone has to wait a certain amt of time before new sysops. --Node ue 12:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ohh yeeeey for Node ue. Somebody nominated him. He is going to throw a (gay) party.

Facem ce facem dar pana la urma tot cu Node ue ramanem. Nu conteaza ca am votat. Nu conteaza ca node ue a avut un contra-candidat care a castigat peste 80% din voturi. Nu conteaza nimic aici. Tot ce conteaza este ce vrea Node ue si cu "prietenii" lui, inspecial Ronline. Pe Alexandrov il mai inteleg, ca doar Rusii au inventat termenul "Moldovean" dar Ronline?

Ronline ar trebui sa'ti schimbi numele in Moldline ca prea esti pro-Voronist.

In primul rand sunt de acord cu Mihai. Votam pe baza da/nu dar cu conditia ca sa acumuleze mai mult de doar 50%.

In al doilea rand pana cand votam Georgica ar trebui fi pus sysop si Node ue scos ca sysop. Daca acumuleaza un numar destul de mare de da-uri de abia atunci va putea sa devina sysop.

In al treilea rand, ar trebui sa votam pentru terminarea wikipediei moldovenesti inainte de votul da/ba pentru Node. Ce rost va avea sa facem 1000 de voturi pana cand Node ue va deveni insfarsit sysop daca pana la urma o sa terminam wikipedia asta oricum.Duca 13:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ma baiatule, ti-am zis clar, ma cheama Oleg. Fii atent. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Iertare cumatre, ca doar n-am facut-o intentionat.

In orice caz revenind la discutie, ar trebui sa facem niste lucruri mai clare ca sa nu vina din nou pomponel asta si sa zica ca din nou nu e corect votul si sa ceara ca sa ramana sysop. Il votam noi cu da/ba dar asta dupa ce votam viitorul wikipediei moldovenesti. Si ce e cu pagina asta a lui Rfa? Stie cineva de ea? Sau vrea s-o tina secreta ca sa voteze numai el si sa se aleaga singur sysop ca data trecuta?

Numa bine la toata lumea si Oleg nu te mai supara asa repede. Eu cu Node am probleme, nu cu tine. Duca 19:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Duca, I have been at least a little bit tolerant about you and others making inflammatory comments and accusations towards me. It happens. But you have crossed the line by your personal attack on Oleg Alexandrov and Ronline, who have been nothing but extremely polite here. This is a warning. If you do it again, I will seek permission from a higher authority to have you banned permanently. --71.35.54.239 00:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Duca, Oleg nu-i rusnak. Îi Român. În rest, să trăieşti că zici bine ce zici.Mihaitza 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Daca e roman, de ce nu voteaza in favorul nostru? E ca Brutus? --Anittas 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In favorul nostru? Now my suspicions have been confirmed. The reason Oleg voted for me is that this is a vote for sysop, NOT a vote for president, or for whatever. Sysops are janitors. And Oleg believes I will do a better job at that. Now, people have said lots of things about me. They haqve never backed ANY of them up. If you have a problem with me, PLEASE make a FORMAL accusation with EVIDENCE to back it up. Otherwise, please cease and desist. --Node

What were your suspicions? To me, this election was about a cause that I believe in, not the character. You could bring me the smartest Russian; if he would not work in our service, I would not vote for him. I'm not voting for you, either. You are a foreigner who is against our cause. I don't care for your skills. --Anittas 06:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My suspicions were that you don't understand what the election is for. The election is about a sysop. Goie has told people that if they vote for Jeorjika, this WP will be deleted. If you have a peek at en:Wikipedia:Administrators, you'll find that an administrator's only official tasks are to translate the interface and combat vandalism. That's all that's at stake here -- a janitorial job. --Node ue 07:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sa raspund intrebarii lui Anittas. Pentru ca voi nu aveti nici o ideie cum lucrurile merg la Wikipedia. Eu sunt de cel putin 10 luni la Wikipedia Engleza, unde am peste 15.000 de edituri. Problema principala este existenta acestei enciclopedii. Dar voi va chinuiti cu alegerea altui administrator de si ata nu are nici o legatura cu problema zilei. Admistratorul nu are nici o putere sa inchida enciclopedia. Si in plus, voi ati inventat tot felul de reguli prostesti cu doar un singur administrator, doua voturi, etc.

Jeorjika printre altele nu ar trebui sa fie administrator, pentru ca doar persoane care contribuie la o enciclopedie trebuie sa fie administratori, si Jeorjika nu a scris nici un articlol. Si eu nu stiu care a fost motivatia lui Node ue sa intemeieze aceasta enciclopedie. Dar el sigur nu este agent smirnovist, sau comunist, etc. Si a facut treaba buna ca administrator (daca vreai sa ma contrazici, dovedeste te rog).

In final, voi romanii aveti idei bune, dar jucati urat. Asta este o problema si inafara Wikipedeii. Voi aveti o atitudine cam hipocrita despre moldoveni. Pe de o parte moldovenii sunt frati, pe de alta parte sunt prosti. Nu asa se fac lucrurile. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 00:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Si eu sunt Moldovean, din judetul Botosani. Ce articole a scris ala? Am auzit ca lea copiat de la Wiki Romana. Poate este adevarat ca suntem incepatori la unele lucruri, dar asta nu este motiv ca sa votezi pe unul care saboteaza articolul moldovean de pe Wiki English si care argumenteaza ca limba moldovan (nu moldoveneasca) este diferita de limba romana. --Anittas 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've written 3 original articles here. Try and see if you can find them. --Node ue 07:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Addentum: amandoua nume ale tale sunt rusesti, asa ca nu stiu cat de roman esti. --Anittas 00:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Node vandalizing the Moldova article

In the English Wiki, Node, together with a Russian friend, vandalizes the Moldova article. They both change the census to make it appear as Moldovan and Romanian are two seperate ethnics. I have been reverting their vandalism two times, but they continue to revert it back. I ask all Romanians and all true Moldavians to assemble in English Wiki and revert back their evil lies! Remember! Don't revert the article more than two times! Also, I believe one of them is sometimes posting in their IP (they log out) because one of them threatened me.

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Moldova

--Anittas 00:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, I would agree with your view on Romanians/Moldavians. But please note: you are abusing the word vandal. Vandal is a person who intentionally inserts nonsence or deletes contents from an article. Calling somebody a vandal is a very serious accusation. What you have at en:Republic of Moldova is a disagreement about issues, which happen for example at en:Palestine and other charged articles. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 02:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I accuse Node of being:

• a thief;
• evil;
• a vandal; and
• a bug

And if someone doesn't like it, we can have a vote on that, too. :D --Anittas 04:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, I request that you stop making such accusations. If you do not, I will seek support to open an RfC against you, which I am sure will be widely hailed given your recent actions at en:Republic of Moldova, reverting a number of users, including Moldovans (who you have labled as my "russian buddy").

It's quite funny, my edits reflected the problems with the census. Don't you know what "according to" means? It means that the fact stated afterwards is not to be taken at face value, or that it is to be based on its source. In that article, which isn't even on this Wikipedia, I attempted to resolve a conflict with an attempt at compromise. You greeted this attempt by calling me names. --Node ue 06:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You vandal! Leave our land, now! --Anittas 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, ba este destul de roman. Multi romani de acolo au fost foratati sa-si schimbe numele. Nu este vina lor. Eu chiar cred ca Oleg e Romanofon. Sa stii ca in general rusii de acolo nu prea scriu bine romaneste desi mai sunt si exceptii.

Totusi, Oleg, Din nou cu "voi Românii şi cu noi Moldovenii"?

De ce nu admiţi că nici tu nu eşti imun acestei teme politizate până în măduva oaselor.

Uite ce am auzit eu de la Românii-Moldovenii de-lungul timpului:

• "Voi românii ne-aţi lăsat pe mâna ruşilor."
• "În perioada interbelică, voi românii aduceaţi ce aveaţi mai prost de la Bucureşti, la Chişinău(jandarmul Roman)."
• "Voi românii sunteţi nişte ţigani."
• "Voi românii ne-aţi lăsat baltă la răboiul din 92"
• "Voi românii ne faceţi proşti."
• "Voi românii cerşeaţi de la noi grâne prin 90 iar acum vă daţi mari cu NATO şi EU"

Zi-mi şi mie Oleg, nu-i aşa că acolo, 90% din populaţia românofonă cam aşa gândeşte despre fraţii de peste Prut.

Nu vreau să mă înţelegi greşit. Recunosc că multe din aceste generalisme au un sâmbure de adevăr. Dar nu este cinstit să zicem că e numai vina noastră că "jucăm urât".Mihaitza 01:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mihaita, si eu sunt de acord ca Bucurestiul a stricat multe lucruri, iar multi Munteni sunt nesimtiti si fara cultura. Nu cred ca trebuie sa-mi argumentezi opinia... --Anittas 04:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sunt intradever probleme complicate. Cat despre ce de facut aici, eu as zice sa lasati balta chestia cu administratorul. Trebuie un steward sau un bureaucrat care sa ii dea lui Jeorjika puteri de administrator, si nimeni nu il va lua in serios pe Jeorjika ca nu a contribuit absolut nimic la aceasta enciclopedie, vezi aici. Cat despre contributiile lui Node ue, vezi aici. Desi nu are contributii originale, totusi apare ca un editor si administrator responsabil, chiar daca parerile lui despre chestia moldoveneasca sunt diferite.

Eu ma inclin sa votez pentru inchidera acestei enciclopedii, dar nu sunt sigur. Si sa stiti ca nu va fi usor de inchis. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Da,

dar a fost ales democratic. Node ue nu.

Si eu as fi pentru inchiderea acestei wikipedii pentru ca nu'si are rostul in afara de a crea discutii incinse. Ziceti-mi si mie, cine cu adevarat se uita la continutul acestei wikipedii. Eu ma uit pe ea doar ca sa vad cum va fortau rusii sa scrieti in cirilica si i-mi vine sa plang.Mihaitza 03:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Alegeri democrate inseamna un contribuitor activ la aceasta enciclopedie ales de alti contribuitori activi la aceasta enciclopedie. Nici voi, si nici eu nu suntem contribuitori la enciclopedia chirilica, si nu am avea drept de vot. Faptul ca Node ue va lasat sa votati inseamna ca este mai de treaba de cat credeti. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 04:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nu conteaza daca ne-a lasat sa votam daca nu ia in considerare pentru ce am votat. --Anittas 04:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Node ue nu are puterea sa renunte la titlul de administrator, si nici puterea sa il faca pe Jeorjika administrator. Iarasi, trebuie un bureaucrat sa faca deciziile. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 15:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Pai asta am intrebat si eu: la cine trebuie sa apelam care poate sa schimbe deciziile astea? Cine? --Anittas 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wider discussion needed

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

[edit] Going to wikimedia

At the village pump it was suggesting posting this issue at Wikimedia, which is the place from where Wikipedia is coordinated. I think if we make a discussion here, and only we Moldovans/Romanians/etc vote, it will not be legitimate. While, if at Wikimedia it is decided to delete this encyclopedia, I think those people will have authority to delete it.

I am not really sure, but I think the right place to do a vote is Meta:Requests for deletion. What do people think? Shall we post a discussion there and let the wide public vote on the issue? en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 16:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg,

I agree with this sentiment.

However, you posted it at the improper place.

"Meta:Requests for deletion" says "This is a list of pages nominated for removal from this Wiki" (emphasis is mine). Thus, it is like VfD (now AfD) on the English Wikipedia, but for articles on Meta, rather than whole Wikipedias.

Having said that, I don't know if there *is* an appropriate location on Meta to discuss it. I would recommend posting to Wikipedia-l about it, which will reach an international audience, including the people in charge of the Wikimedia Fndt'n. --Node ue 12:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but there should be an explination made so people know what the exact situation is. Most people haven't even heard of Moldova. Mihaitza 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

See the text I put at the village pump, the link in the previous section. I can put the same text at the beginning of the vote for deletion page. Also, when you vote, you can also post your own explanation. See en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of natural gas filling stations in Germany for a sample votes for deletion page. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea. Oleg, the text on Village pump is well written. You could transfer it on the deletion page. --Landroni 11:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Node ue is right above. "Meta:Requests for deletion" might be not the right place. I posted a question at Meta:Talk:Main Page#Moldovan_Wikipedia. en:Oleg Alexandrov (en:talk) 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Node on Wiki

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

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

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