Open main menu

Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the EO Wiktionary

< Requests for comment
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


Contents

Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure availableEdit

Involved partiesEdit

  • Taylor_49 filling party, not admin (admin at SV Wiktionary but not at EO Wiktionary)
  • Pablo_Escobar opponent party, admin

Case detailsEdit

The local page about admins is useless: in case of abuse of admin rights it suggests to contact Jimbo Wales (not yet done, bad idea?) or The Arbitration Committee (that does not exist yet and possibly never will). My account got blocked on EO Wiktionary by "Pablo Escobar". There is no appeal procedure available there. There is almost no community, there is only one administrator abusing eir rights and totally controlling the place. I am not a vandal. I am a contributor with (globally) > 12'000 edits. The edit causing the block [1] is consistent with previous discussion, while Pablo's revert and block are not. Pablo should not be allowed to control the Wiktionary that way. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:03, 2018-Sep-21

    • The problem with one person totally owning a public wiki, excessive piracy being committed by the admin in person and unjustified bans persists. I am permanently banned again (officially 3 months). Contacting Jimbo now. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Close eowiktionary and move all content to a new "Vortaro" namespace on eowikipedia. This should be done with all conlang non-Wikipedia sisterprojects: jbowiktionary is virtually dead. Lojbanist (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • And "Lojbanist" got globally permanently banned just 2 days after this post. Thank you for caring about this case given that nobody else does. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Copied contentEdit

Copied from Steward requests/Miscellaneous. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC); re-formatted, 04:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red links and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there. Some weeks later Pablo deleted those 2 pages after "some extra pressure" organized via EN Wikipedia. All other pirated pages are left. Can any steward agree with such a sysop?

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary (bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo).

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

  • "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
  • "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not at all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.
An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there (it used to be a red link, later some IP-user created it with content "M"), Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to King Jimbo. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it. I tried to contact King Jimbo. Result: no answer User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232 [ATJ_Misbehaving_sysop_%22Pablo_Escobar%22,_piracy,_and_permanent_ban_at_the_EO_Wiktionary User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_233].

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. The "unblock" template is deliberately defective. The 2 instances suggested at the local sysop page are both deliberately defective (red link to Arbitration Committee, and King Jimbo who gives a f**k about answering). There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. Neither by the Grace of God, not by the grace of an incapable bureaucrat who left Wikipedia 6 years ago. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

6 months laterEdit

6 months have gone and no results. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

For completeness sake, some updates:

  • the ban has expired, Pablo is still admin, I am active there again, nobody knows when I am going to get banned next time
  • my new template has been moved here: tf-en-sb and both manual and bot work to switch all pages to it continues
  • the page Kaiser does no longer cause script errors after having been minimally fixed by my bot, the problem that it lacks content in EO persists
  • I applied for adminship there and accumulated 4 supporting votes (Pablo had 3 votes back in year 2010). Taylor 49 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • Taylor 49 is there a need to continue this RFC? AFAIK the issue resolved itself, the past concern and report goes stale as there are no new proof and you are no longer blocked there, and now you are also an admin there? If there are no further concern I can close this RFC, and I suggest making new report(RFC) if the problem continued, next time of course, I can watch this more carefully.--AldnonymousBicara? 11:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Aldnonymous I am not yet admin there, and Pablo is still admin (but recently less visible). Can we wait one more month to see how the thing evolves? Indeed I would like to have this closed, too. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This RFC can be opened for next 1 year if needed. Thank you.--AldnonymousBicara? 13:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Taylor 49 since you are already sysop per Special:diff/19046000, can this RFC be closed?--AldnonymousBicara? 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Aldnonymous Well, I have a crucial question: how is it about misbehaving admins or admins who are enemies to each other? Can one admin ban all others and become the only king on the site? Obviously, I do not dare to test this. I would like to see Pablo resign, but this is unlikely to happen. In year 2007 ey got permanently banned from ES wiktionary for submitting large amounts of nonsense. Between 2007 and 2010 ey got several times temporarily banned from DE wiktionary for submitting large amounts of nonsense. So ey came to EO wiktionary and became sysop in order to continue with this behavior: submitting large amounts of nonsense. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Taylor 49 admin may block another admin, but admin can not unblock themselves, please do not do this, only do this when emergency such as account hijacking happen. Anyway is such behavior still continued? If not I think we can let this pass, can we? Also I have to notify Pablo about this RFC.--AldnonymousBicara? 19:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Aldnonymous So Pablo can still ban me. Feel free to close this. I will contact you if Pablo dares to ban me again. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Taylor 49 Ban is not block, ban is formal revocation of all ability to edit by community, block is just block, if he block you when you are not doing anything wrong, then its an abuse, then you may open new RFC for local sysop abuse. I still plan to open this RFC to hear from Pablo sides, thank you.--AldnonymousBicara? 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Aldnonymous I am banned again. Is there a productive way to proceed now? I could have banned Pablo preventively ... I did not do that and now I am banned. Pablo is permanently banned from ES wiktionary (for having introduced large amount of nonsense) and was banned even from DE wiktionary several times for same reason. How can a user not tolerable at ES wiktionary nor DE wiktionary become sysop at EO wiktionary? Taylor 49 (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I will note that, as of July 15th (and since July 6th), Taylor 49 and Pablo Escobar (the only two human administrators) have blocked each other. Vermont (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

[EO] Saluton. Mi finfine decidis afiŝi mesaĝon ĉi tie ĉar ne estas juste, ke Taylor 49 nuntempe agu per sia robota konto Uzanto:Taylorbot redaktante tute libere dum mi estas blokita de li por ĉiam. Mi klarigis la kialojn de mia blokado kontraŭ ŝi ĉe ŝia diskutpaĝo. Sincere, tio, kio mi plej malŝatas pri tiu homo estas tio, ke ŝi, aŭ verŝajne uzas alian artefaritan lingvon en nia Vikivortaro (ĉu Idon?), aŭ ŝi altrudas reformegojn, kiuj deiĝas multe de la oficiala Esperanto. Mi mem voĉdonis por ŝia administrantigo sed nun pentas. Ekzemple ŝi per sia roboto nun amase ŝanĝas nomojn de ŝablonoj (“*ŝabloj” dirus nia amikino), kiuj estis en tre klara Esperanto, en volapukaĵojn. Ŝi uzas la lingvon adaptante ĝin al si anstataŭ adapti sin al la lingvo. Ĉu vi rimarkis ĉi-supre, ke eĉ la anglan ŝi volas ŝangi laŭplaĉe? Mi dankas, ke ŝi igis min ŝanĝi aferojn, kiuj estis nedece en la germana en nia esperantlingva vikio. Malamikoj anstataŭ amikoj ĉiam estas pli helpaj ĉar ili konas niajn erarojn pli bone. Tamen la sinteno de Taylor 49 sinteno estas iel – kiel diri? – paranoja, perdinta la prudenton, freneza, laŭ kio vi povas tralegi en ŝia ĉi-suba skribmaniero. Kiel delonge administranto multe kontribuanta al ĉi tiu projekto por ke ĝi kresku (ĉu ankaŭ tion vi neos, Taylor 49?), mi petas, ke oni nuligu mian blokadon. Krome nenies laboron mi iam detruis. Ŝi ja tion faras. Mi certas, ke se tiu homo estus esperantisto (t.e., se ŝi uzus normalan Esperanton samkiel la aliaj uzantoj) neniun problemon mi havus rilate al ŝi. Mi ne estas la nura uzanto, kiu plendas pri ŝia (intence deiga) lingvuzo. Por kontrubui al iu ajn projekto en Esperanto oni estu esperantisto. Eĉ pli: mi amegas Esperanton! Ŝi male ne akceptas la saman kodon de nia komunumo. Kiel do akcepti la ŝian? Ĉu vi almenaŭ estas esperantistino, Taylor 49? (Mi pensas, ke ni miros pri ŝia respondo)--Pablo Escobar (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

[ES] Hola. Finalmente decidí publicar un mensaje aquí porque no es justo que Taylor 49 haga de las suyas ahora a través de su cuenta robot Usuario:Taylorbot mientras que yo permanezco bloqueado por él para siempre. He explicado las razones de mi bloqueo contra ella en su página de discusión. Honestamente, lo que no me gusta de esta persona es que ella en nuestro Wikcionario o bien esté usando otra lengua construida (¿Ido?), o bien nos esté viniendo a imponer reformas que van muy a contrapelo del esperanto oficial. Yo mismo voté para que fuera administradora pero ahora me arrepiento. Ahora por ejemplo, con su robot o cuenta títere este individuo está cambiando masivamente los nombres de las plantillas («ŝabloj», como diría nuestra amiga, en su flamante idioma), que tenían nombre en un esperanto muy claro, ¡por galimatías! Es que usa el idioma adaptándolo a sí misma en lugar de adaptarse ella al idioma. ¿Sí vieron aquí arribita que hasta el inglés quiere reformarlo como le plazca? Aprecio que Taylor 49 me haya hecho apresurarme más en traducir cosas que indebidamente yo había dejado provisoriamente en alemán (o redireccionadas a plantillas en esperanto) en nuestro Wikcionario en esperanto. Los enemigos, más que los amigos siempre le ayudan a uno más porque conocen mejor nuestros errores. Sin embargo, la actitud de esta usuaria es, de alguna manera −¿cómo decirlo?— paranoica, como que le falta un tornillo, loca. Las palabras con que se expresa aquí lo dicen todo. Como administrador de longa data a este proyecto y que ha contribuido a que éste crezca (¿también eso lo vas a negar, Taylor 49?), solicito comedidamente que anulen mi bloqueo. Además, nunca he destruido el trabajo de nadie. Ella sí. Estoy seguro de que si este individuo fuera esperantista (es decir, si usara el esperanto convencional como todos los demás usuarios), yo no tendría ningún problema con ella. No soy el único usuario que se queja de su (intencionalmente aberrante) uso del idioma. Para contribuir a cualquier proyecto en esperanto, hay que ser esperantista. Es más: ¡me encanta el esperanto! Ella, por el contrario, no acepta el código de nuestra comunidad. ¿Cómo aceptar entonces el suyo? ¿Eres al menos esperantista, Taylor 49? (Creo que su respuesta sorprenderá a más de uno)--Pablo Escobar (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

[EN] OK, some comments from me (Taylor 49):
  • It is NOT very true that Pablo would have voted for my adminship. Well, Pablo did, but first AFTER my rights had got upgraded, thus the voting was more or less closed.
  • I have no clue why Pablo writes in ES here ... it is neither the language of EO wiktionary nor of the meta wiki.
  • It is ultimately NOT true that I would use "some constructed language different from Esperanto, maybe Ido?". Background info: "Ido" is a derivative of EO. The split occurred already 1908 and both parties, ie both "genuine" Esperantists and Idoists/reformists behaved very badly. Nor am I "spreading drastic reforms and evil neologisms over all pages of the wiki". As about absurd neologisms, look at the page diologio. There is no word "diologio" in EO. "diologio" gives 0 hits in the "official" corpus, "teologio" gives > 100. But Pablo thought that the word should be "diologio" instead of "teologio" (EN: "theology"). Thus Pablo created the page "diologio". But Pablo lacks skills to write definitions. So as a solution, Pablo PIRATED the definition from the word "teologio" at vortaro.net/#teologio. Pablo even delibarately added 5 invalid references (giving "page not found" or "word does not exist") and an invalid interwiki link ":en:diologio" (this happened in year 2013, interwiki links were acceptable at that time but the page "diologio" apparently never has existed at EN wiktionary. Pablo behaves like the owner of both EO wiktionary and the language. Another neologism promoted by Pablo are the (probably useless) -ut-&-unt- interfixes: Pablo's edit.
  • It is true that I sometimes use the less correct word "ŝablo" instead of "ŝablono" (EN: "template"), predominantly in edit summaries, but this is a subminor issue that reasonably never should have a chance to cause a ban. BTW, it was me (NOT Pablo) who added definitions to the page "ŝablono" (see below).
  • It is true that I have changed a huge amount of template names and calls (via bot). Why? Because after Pablo's "contributing", 99% of templates had German names!!! SV wiktionary does NOT use German templates, so why should they be used at EO wiktionary? Esperanto is not German after all. Another problem is that Pablo created a huge amount of aliases for every template (5...10 was common). Partly they were redirects, partly copies, partly different implementations with different syntax. What is the benefit of such a mess? I lack the ability overview such a mess. Maybe Pablo is more skilled? Nope. The difference between me and Pablo is that I do care about severe errors while Pablo doesn't. There are still 3 templates for EN verbs (after I had deleted some more). What is the difference between "Ŝablono:Angla verbo" and "Ŝablono:Angla verbo (superrigardo)" (both copied from DE wiktionary)? I don't know. Pablo most likely does not know either, but considers redundant and mostly broken templates (full of German Hitlerisms) as a valuable contributions. slip -> the table is empty. grope -> the table is full of garbage. Why? Because templates "contributed" by Pablo never have documentation thus nobody knows how to use them. Not even Pablo. But Pablo gives a F**K about broken pages without any valuable content. It's the amount of edits and amount of pages that counts. Another horrible habit of Pablo is to change the syntax of even the purpose of a template despite there are many pages depending on the "old" syntax or purpose.
  • Templates contributed be me (example):
  • always do work (almost, if not, plese report a bug and I will fix it)
  • always have documentation
  • usually have examples and a self-test
  • contain clean, well organized and efficient code
  • have as few dependencies as possible
  • have possible dependencies documented
  • are designed to be as useful as possible, not as many as possible
  • It is irrelevant that Pablo claims "never have destroyed someone else's work". Pablo causes damage by contributing nonsense (empty or broken template calls, empty sections (this is Pablo got banned for from ES wiktionary 12 years ago), translation blocks not congruent with definitions, invalid references, "help" pages full of German Hitlerisms, ...) and commiting PIRACY. I indeed have removed a huge amount of empty nonsence and German Hitlerisms (example).
  • Pablo shall NOT claim that I would "not be an esperantist". I am one. One of the few who are left. I have a C1 certificate about my proficiency in EO. Even worse, I do contribute DEFINITIONS of EO words (the hardest part) (example). Pablo never writes definitions. Pablo only pirates from DE wiktionary.
  • I got a rude comment from Pablo to my discussion page "Ĉi tio ne estas la Ida Vikivortaro" (EN: "This is not the Ido wiktionary") 2019-Jul-04. My answer: "Ĉi tio ne estas la germana Vikivortaro" (EN: "This is not the German wiktionary").
Anybody (Pablo and others) feel free to make proposals about what can be done about the absurd problem of two sysops who have banned each other. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
[EO] Bone, kelkaj komentoj de mi (Taylor 49):
  • NE estas tre vere ke Pablo voĉdonintus por mia administreco. Fakte, Pablo faris tiel sed nur post ke miaj rajtoj estis sxangxitaj, do la voĉdonado estis pli malpli fermita.
  • Mi entute ne havas ideon kial Pablo skribas en ES ĉi tie ... tio estas nek lingvo de la EO vikivortaro nek la lingvo de la meta vikio (EN: "meta wiki").

...

  • Veras ke mi foje uzas la malpli gxustan vorton "ŝablo" anstataux "ŝablono", ĉefe en redaktopriskriboj, sed tio estas precipe eta malplacxajxo kiu lauxsagxe neniam povintus kauxzi forbaron. Parenteze, estis mi (ne Pablo) kiu aldonis difinojn al la pagxo "ŝablono" (vidu sube).

...

  • Cxiuj (Pablo kaj aliaj) sentu vin liberaj fari proponojn pri kion oni povas fari pri la absurda problemo du administrantoj kiuj forbaris unu la alian. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)