Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/I need to solve the problem that I consider important in the eo.wiktionary.org project

< Requests for comment

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Saluton al ĉeestantoj! (translate)

I need to solve the problem that I consider important in the eo.wiktionary.org project. (translate)

Before (en/auto) edit

Before I start I must mention that in addition to the main problem I have an obvious personal conflict with uzer Taylor_49 (future Taylor or the correspondent), who has administrative rights in the project and has the following features: ( )

  • my correspondent changes a text written by me directly in the public discussion forum, I noticed the occasion: ( )

https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Vikivortaro:Diskutejo&diff=next&oldid=972164

So, I see no possibility of solving the main problem directly in the project environment and even further - I am under direct threat of fraud when without constant control over possible changes of everything written by me, all “my" words can be used against me. ( )

Continuous description is in Esperanto as working language, but everywhere I add a resource for fast automatic translation. ( )

Rational (eo/auto) edit

La ĉefa problemo ( )
Mi trovis la fakton, ke en la projekto eo.wiktionary.org okazas nerestaŭreblaj forigoj de artikoloj pri vortoj ( ). La metodo de forigo estas "antaŭa ŝanĝo de nomo de artikoloj en unu saman nomon kun posta forigo" ( ). Iun informon pri la eventoj donas la protokolo: ( )

Ankaŭ ekzistas la artikoloj, por kiuj estas nerestaŭreble forigita la historio de redaktado. La metodo estas sama - "la origina artikolo estas forigita nerestaŭreble, kaj poste estas kreata nova artikolo kun enhavo tute egala al la lasta stato de la artikolo" ( )
La plenumanto de tiuj nerestaŭreblaj forigoj estas ( ) uzanto Taylor_49

Mia kompreno de principoj de la Vikimedio ( )
1. Mi opinias, ke devas rigore distingi nociojn "la artikolo", "la enhavo de artikolo" kaj "parto de enhavo" ( ). Aplike al projektoj de vortaroj, farataj per la rimedo Vikimedio, por mi la artikolo estas parto de la projekta strukturo, kiu povas havi iun enhavon. Kiel enhavo de la artikolo pri la vorto povas esti: difino, la informo pri gramatiko, bilda kaj aŭda informo, la ligiloj al eksteraj fontoj de informo, ekzemple al la Vikipedio ( )
Tre grava parto de enhavo estas tradukoj al aliaj lingvoj, kio en multaj subprojektoj formas la reton de ligiloj inter diversaj artikoloj, krom tio la traduko jam estas unu el formoj difini sencon de la vorto, kiu povas esti eĉ pli grava ol la priskriba difino por alilingvaj vizitantoj de iu konkreta projekto ( )
Iu ajn parto de la enhavo povas havi citaĵojn. En parto kun vorta difino aŭ en parto pri ekzemploj k.t.p. Estas evidente, ke citaĵojn devas doni kun mencio de fonto, kaj same rilate citaĵojn povas ekzisti iuj pretendoj konkorde al leĝoj pri aŭtora rajto de diversaj ŝtatoj. Ĉi tie konstante aperas la demandoj, kiuj estas konstante simple kaj sukcese solvataj. ( )
Tamen nerestaŭreble forigi artikolojn anstataŭ ŝanĝi parton de enhavo - tio por mi signifas detrui strukturon de projekto. ( )
Tamen mi, per persona konversacio, petis klarigojn de spertuloj, kiuj ankaŭ estas administrantoj ĉe diversaj subprojektoj, ekzempole ĉe meta.wikimedia.org aŭ eo.wikipedia.org, pri la problemo de "nerestaŭrebla forigo". El la respondoj mi komprenis, ke tiu maniero forigi informon estas aplikebla en iuj specifaj okazoj, ekzemple, por kaŝi publikigitan personan informon aŭ por kaŝi la vandalismon. Kaj tiun operacion rajtas plenumi stevardoj, sed ne ordinaraj administrantoj de sub-projektoj. ( )
2. Iu ajn citaĵo el iu ajn fonto estas kopio kun menciita fonto, kio estas evidente. Unu nocio estas subnocio de alia nocio. Se nocion "citaĵo" anstataŭigi per nocio "kopio" ĉie kaj malpermesi kopiadon aŭ eĉ similecon, kiel koincido de iu parto de teksto, tio signifas malpermesi paroli entute. ( )

La pozicio de Taylor kaj liaj pruvoj ( )
Kiel pruvo por aplikebleco de "nerestaŭrebla forigo" de artikoloj anstataŭ ŝanĝo aŭ forigo de dubinda parto de la enhavo, je 16:23, 25 sep. 2021 Teylor donis la ligilon al RfC: ( )

La peto pri komento (RfC) estas kreita je 12:47, 21 maj. 2021 ( )
Ĝi havas ligilon al la konversacio: ( )

Miaj konkludoj el studo de enhavo de la pruvoj ( )
1. Mi ne trovis precizan difinon por nocioj "kopio" kaj "citaĵo", tamen uzi nocion "kopio" sonas kiel eraro. Mi ne volus tuj, sen enketado kaj analizo de tria flanko, apliki al tiu okazo vorton fraŭdo. ( )
2.1 Mi ne trovis finan jure gravan kaj pruvitan decidon, ĉu vere estis rompitaj ies aŭtoraj rajtoj? Eĉ se citaĵojn taksi kiel kopioj. Nur supozo pri rompo de aŭtoraj rajtoj ne estas sufiĉa bazo por plenumi iujn ajn agojn, des pli ne detruajn aŭ "neripareble detruajn". ( )
2.2 La juraj kampoj (ŝtataj apertenoj k.t.p) de la Vikimedio kaj menciita fonto PIV estas diferencaj, kaj la problemoj de aŭtoraj rajtoj pro tio povas esti ne aktuala entute, la konkludo de ekstera spertulo pri la demando forestas. Ni devas memori, ke la demando pri aŭtoraj rajtoj estas forte dependa de ŝtataj leĝoj, sed ne de ies opinio. Pro diferenco de juraj kampoj mi povas supozi, ke, kiel la plej sovaĝa ekzemplo, Francio povas malpermesi atingon al eo.wiktionary.org pro leĝoj de Francio, sed tio neniel tuŝos la projekton entute kaj atingon de resto de la mondo al la projekta informo. En la mondo jam ekzistas ekzemploj de similaj malpermesoj: ( ) La Vikipedio estas malpermesita en Turkio
2.3 Mi ne trovis ligilojn al menciitaj leĝoj de Francio, kiuj rekte malpermesas citaĵojn el iu ajn verko. Tamen PIV, pri kiu temas en RfC, tute ne estas "arta verko", kio, eĉ laŭ mia opinio de nespertulo pri leĝoj de Francio, devas nepre esti distingita en la leĝoj. Aliokaze oni ne povus eĉ instrui en lernejoj... pro rompo de aŭtoraj rajtoj por lernlibroj kaj fontoj, el kiu estas prenita la informo por la lernlibroj. ( )
3. Mi ne trovis la decidon, ke "neriparebla detruo de artikoloj estas aprobita per administracio maniero solvi la problemon". ( ) Mi supre jam priskribis mian komprenon por la nocioj "artikolo" kaj "parto de enhavo", sed en pli simpla nivelo de kompreno mi tuj povas proponi decidojn: aldoni mencion por fonto PIV ĉie, kie ĝi vere forestas; forigi nur parton de enhavo kiu estas dubinda; ŝanĝi la difinojn. ( )

Tio estas nur formala analizo. Sed mi trovis ion, kio jam tuŝis miajn emociojn... bedaŭrinde. Jen estas citaĵoj: ( )

  • "I am the malicious sysop deleting articles all the time." Taylor May 19 2021, 10:28 AM @phabricator
  • "I do not oppose hanging of -eo- wiktionary ..." Taylor 49 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) @RfC
  • "... If the wiki is to be nuked, then I would like to know it in advance in order to save my work put into it." Taylor 49 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) @RfC

Bonvolu preni en atenton ankaŭ emocian flankon. ( )

Konkludo. Sen pruvoj kaj decido, nur pro supozo pri rompo de aŭtoraj rajtoj, sen decido pri aplikeblaj rimedoj, kun, laŭ mia opinio, erara kompreno de nocioj "kopio" kaj "artikolo", uzanto Taylor_49 detruas la strukturon de la projekto eo.wiktionary.org. ( )
Se aldoni miajn emociojn... li faras tion kun intenca celo vere detrui la projekton mem, aŭ almenaŭ por li grava estas "nur lia parto de laboro", sed ne ĉiu laboro farita de multaj homoj por multaj homoj. ( )

La historio de la konversacio kun korespondanto ( )

Petition (eo/auto) edit

Mi kredas, estas malfacile atingi unikecon de difinoj, kiam temas pri vortaro. Esperanto-vortaristoj certe ĉiuj serĉas inspiron en NPIV. (translate) Malgraŭ ke NPIV estas kopirajtita, ĝi atingeblas plene per la reto kaj la kopirajto-posedanto SAT apenaŭ procesos kontraŭ Wikimedia: mi komprenas, ke tio ne pravigus amasan kopiadon de artikoloj; tamen tiu konsidero povas klarigi, ke ne temas pri urĝeco de la forigoj, eblus averti pri la trovita koincido tiel ke la verkinto havu tempon reverki la difinon ĝis dezirata nivelo de nekoincido. (translate)

Mi aliĝas al la peto de Vami difini pli precize eblan koincidon de la tekstoj. Tio ege gravas, se ni volas altiri novajn redaktantojn al Vikivortaro kiel viki-projekto. (translate)

Mi bedaŭras, ke la konflikto akriĝis ĝis la punkto, kie la partoprenantoj komencis ofende moknomi unu la alian. Tio estas nepre evitinda afero, sed samptempe signalas pri tio, kiel la aplikataj en eo.wiktionary praktikoj vundas la partoprenantojn de la projekto. (translate) Kiel persono, certe spertinta la entuziasmon de forigistoj ankaŭ dum mia sperto en Vikipedio kaj Vikikomunejo, mi imagas la emociojn kaj la senton de senelireblo, kiujn li spertis. (translate) Mi volas aparte emfazi gravecon de ĝentila interago kaj solvado de eventualaj problemoj per interkonsento, speciale en la projektoj, kiuj spertas mankon de aktivaj redaktantoj. (translate)

La maniero de Taylor 49 forigi artikolojn per alinomigo aspektas malbele, interalie ĉar malfaciligas esploradon de la okazintaĵoj: estus interese aŭskulti la motivojn de Taylor 49 kaj la tekstojn de viki-projektoj, kiuj igis lin pensi, ke forĵeto de la redaktohistorio estas bona ideo. Kiel administranto de unu el vikipediaj projektoj, mi neniam aŭdis pri tia ebleco, nek uzis ĝin mem. (translate)

Rational/copy (ru/auto) edit

То же самое, но на русском языке, как моём втором рабочем. Специально для случая, если системы автоматического перевода не справятся с первым вариантом текста запроса. ( )

Основная проблема ( )
Я обнаружил, что в проекте eo.wiktionary.org выполняются необратимые удаления статей о словах ( ). Метод удаления - "предварительное переименование статей в одно имя с последующим удалением" ( ). Протокол событий: ( )

Также есть статьи, у которых безвозвратно удалена история редактирования. Метод тот же: "исходная статья удаляется безвозвратно, а затем создается новая статья с содержанием, идентичным последнему состоянию статьи". ( )
Автор всех таких необратимых удалений ( ) - пользователь Taylor_49


Мое понимание принципов Викимедиа ( )
1. Я считаю, что необходимо строго различать понятия "статья", "содержание статьи" и "часть содержания" ( ). Применительно к проектам словарей, выполненным с помощью Викимедиа, - для меня статья является частью структуры проекта, которая может иметь некоторое содержание. Содержанием статьи о слове может быть: определение, информация о грамматике, изображения и аудио информация, ссылки на внешние источники информации, например, на Википедию. ( )
Очень важная часть контента - это переводы на другие языки, которые во многих подпроектах образуют сеть ссылок между различными статьями, причем перевод уже сам по себе является одним из способов определения значения слова, и может быть даже более важным чем описательное определение, если посетитель не владеет или слабо владеет языком конкретного подпроекта. ( )
Любая часть содержания статьи может содержать цитаты. В разделе с определением слова, в разделе с примерами использования и т.д. Очевидно, что цитаты должны быть даны с указанием источника, и именно в отношении цитат могут возникать какие-то претензии в соответствии с законами об авторском праве различных государств. Такие претензии постоянно возникают и благополучно решаются. ( )
Однако необратимое удаление статьи вместо изменения части содержания статьи - для меня это означает разрушение структуры проекта. ( )
Предварительно, в личной переписке, я попросил разъяснений у специалистов, которые также являются администраторами различных подпроектов, например на meta.wikimedia.org или eo.wikipedia.org, по проблеме "необратимого удаления". Из ответов я понял, что этот способ удаления информации применим в некоторых конкретных случаях, например, чтобы скрыть опубликованную личную информацию или скрыть вандализм. И такую операцию разрешено выполнять стюардам, но не обычным администраторам подпроектов. ( )
2. Любая цитата, из любого источника, одновременно является и копией с указанным источником, что очевидно. Одно понятие является частью другого, более общего понятия. Если же понятие "цитата" подменить понятием "копия" везде и запретить копирование или даже саму возможность сходства, как совпадения некоторой части текста, - это будет означать запрет на любые высказывания вообще. ( )

Позиция Тейлора и его доказательства ( )
В качестве доказательства применимости "необратимого удаления" статей вместо изменения или удаления сомнительной части контента, в 16:23, 25 сен. 2021 г. Тейлор предоставил мне ссылку на RfC: ( )

Этот запрос комментария был создан в 12:47, 21 мая. 2021 ( )
В запросе есть также ссылка на тикет фабрикатора: ( )

Мой анализ содержания доказательств Тейлора ( )
1. Я не нашёл однозначных определений для терминов "копия" и "цитата", однако использование понятия "копия" выглядит как ошибка рассуждений. И без предварительного расследования и анализа третьей стороной я бы не стал сразу утверждать, что это "подмена понятий" или даже "мошенничество". ( )
2.1Я не нашел окончательного юридически обоснованного и подтвержденного решения, действительно ли были нарушены чьи-либо авторские права. Даже если "цитаты" оценивать как "копии". А просто предположение о нарушении авторских прав не является достаточным основанием для совершения вообще каких-либо действий, не говоря уже об удалении или, тем более, о "необратимом удалении". ( )
2.2 Правовые поля (по государственной принадлежности и т.д.) у Викимедиа и упомянутого в RfC источника PIV различаются, а значит и возникший вопрос о возможном нарушении авторского права может даже не быть актуальными - заключение хоть какого-то эксперта по этому вопросу отсутствует. Мы должны помнить, что вопрос об авторском праве сильно зависит от законов государств, а не от чьего-либо персонального мнения. Из-за различий в законах максимум что я могу себе вообразить, - это что Франция запретит доступ к проекту eo.wiktionary.org на основании своих законов. Что это никоим образом не повлияет на сам проект в целом и на доступ из остальной части мира к информации этого проекта. Примеры подобных запретов в мире уже есть: ( ) Википедию запрещали в Турции
2.3 Я не нашел ссылок на упомянутые законы Франции, которые прямо запрещают цитирование чего-либо. Однако PIV, который обсуждался в RfC, ни в коем случае не является "художественным произведением", что, даже на мой взгляд, как человека ничего не знающего о законах Франции, обязательно должно быть как-то отмечено в законах. В противном случае у них там было бы невозможно школьное преподавание,... из-за нарушения авторских прав на учебники и на источники, из которых цитируется информация для учебников. ( )
3. Я не нашел решения, утверждающего, что "безвозвратное уничтожение статей одобрено администрацией для решения этой проблемы". ( ) Выше я описал свое понимание терминов "статья" и "часть содержания", но если решать вопрос на простом уровне, то вполне возможны такие варианты решений как: добавить указание источника PIV, везде, где он не указан; удалить только часть сомнительного содержания; изменить сам текст. ( )

Это всего лишь формальный анализ. Но я нашел кое-что, что затрагивает мои эмоции ... к сожалению. Вот несколько цитат: ( )

  • "I am the malicious sysop deleting articles all the time." Taylor May 19 2021, 10:28 AM @phabricator
  • "I do not oppose hanging of -eo- wiktionary ..." Taylor 49 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) @RfC
  • "... If the wiki is to be nuked, then I would like to know it in advance in order to save my work put into it." Taylor 49 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) @RfC

Имеет смысл обратить внимание и на этот аспект вопроса. ( )

Заключение. Без доказательств и окончательного заключения, только на основании предположения о возможном нарушении авторских прав, без решения о применении конкретных инструментов, при, по моему мнению, ошибочной трактовке понятий "копия" и "статья", пользователь Taylor_49 разрушает структуру проекта eo.wiktionary.org. ( )
А если ещё и эмоции добавить... то даже может показаться, что он делает это с намеренно с целью действительно уничтожить сам проект, ну, или считает важной только "свою часть работы", а не работу всех остальных, сделанную на общую пользу. ( )

История общения с корреспондентом по этому вопросу ( )

  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Vami#betulo - 07:59, 11 sep. 2021 - Обращение, когда я в первый раз столкнулся с фактом "необратимого удаления", упомянутая статья была спасена простейшим изменением текста в определении слова. ( )
  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Taylor_49#Klarigu_sencon - 16:23, 25 sep. 2021 - Моё обращение за разъяснением по поводу массового уничтожения ("необратимого удаления") статей, именно здесь я получил ссылку на RfC и требование больше не задавать вопросов об этих удалениях. ( )
  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Vami#Forigo - 08:47, 30 sep. 2021 - Тейлор прислал мне странный пример... я перевёл определение слова с родного, так как сам понимаю слово из статьи, и потом обратился к источнику PIV - совпадение текста составило около 80%. Я что, теперь не имею права писать вообще ничего своего, если это может совпасть со словарём PIV? И, да, эту статью Тейлор тоже уничтожил. ( )
  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Taylor_49#Kio_signifas_%22(rekreo_sen_pirata%C4%B5o)%22? - 20:54, 5 okt. 2021 - Событие, когда я в первый раз обратил внимание на уничтожение истории редактирования. Это была какая-то очередная статья, которую я немного улучшил мимоходом. После моей редакции статья была уничтожена, а после пересоздана Тейлором без истории. В той редакции статья, которая была уничтожена, никаким PIV даже не пахло. Именно в этом обращении я попытался объяснить Тейлору разницу между понятиями "статья" и "содержание статьи". ( )
  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Vami#Mia_lasta_favoro_al_vi - 19:51, 7 okt. 2021 - Разговор о статье, которая была пересоздана Тейлором (с пометкой о нарушении авторских прав, с предварительным "необратимым удалением", с потерей истории редактирования) с содержанием полностью соответствующим моей последней редакции и совпадающим со статьёй из словаря PIV только в слове "mem" - "сам". ( )
  • https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vikivortaro:Diskutejo#Iu_ajn_tolero_havas_limon. - 15:28, 10 okt. 2021 - Я выяснил, что "необратимые удаления" статей происходят уже долгое время, что число уничтоженных статей большое, что взамен уничтоженного ничего не создавалось, и что разрушенные перекрёстные ссылки между статьями так и остаются оборванными. Здесь же я попытался объяснить разницу между понятиями "статья" и "содержание статьи" повторно, но уже в форме, пригодной для людей, которые не желают понимать с первого раза. ( )

Petition/copy (ru/auto) edit

Моя просьба к администрации ( )
1. Прошу повторно рассмотреть вопрос об авторском праве и дать точные определения для понятий "цитата", "копия", "статья проекта", "содержание статьи", "часть содержания", а также юридически обоснованное определение для "степени совпадения" для текста, при котором данный текст не будет считаться "копией", если речь идёт не о "художественном произведении", а эта "степень совпадения" применяется к определениям, разъяснениям, формулировкам законов природы, аксиом, теорем, доказательствам терем и всему аналогичному, что даже при выражении "собственными словами" может сильно совпадать, поскольку таково внутреннее свойство таких текстов. ( )
2. Прошу чётко установить, какие действия должны применяться к "части содержания" "статьи проекта", если это содержание доказано нарушает авторские права. ( )
2'. Прошу чётко объявить, кто имеет право на действие "необратимое удаление" ( ); Если правом на "необратимое удалении" может обладать рядовой администратор какого-либо подпроекта, то прошу указывать такой факт отдельно в описании прав такого администратора ( )
3. Прошу, с привлечением лиц, не причастных к проекту eo.wiktionary.org, провести расследование действий и дать оценку этим действиям по пользователю Taylor_49 за всё время, когда он обладал правами администратора. Считаю полезным, если бы привлечённые к расследованию лица были бы связаны с сообществами подпроектов *.wiktionary.org и eo.wikipedio.org. Также было бы полезно участие лица, знакомого с законодательством Франции. ( )

Informing edit

Per personaj mesaĝoj mi dekomence informis kaj invitis rigardi la RfC (peton pri komento) personojn: ( )

  • as administration of Meta ( )
    • Amire80 (kun menciitaj lingvoj eo kaj ru) ( )
    • Sotiale (kun menciita lingvo eo) ( )
    • Kaganer (с указанным рабочим языком ru, как моим вторым рабочим) ( )
  • kiel reprezentantoj de administracio de unu el aliaj sub-projektoj Wiktionary (vortaroj) ( )
    • Cinemantique (с указанным рабочим языком ru, как моим вторым рабочим) ( )
    • DonRumata (с указанным рабочим языком ru, как моим вторым рабочим) ( )
  • kiel pesrono, menciita kiel dua administranto de subprojekto eo.wiktionary.org ( )
  • kiel persono rekte menciita per mi en la priskribita problemo ( )

Several examples obtained by analyzing the protocols available at the user level edit

destroyed page date of destruction had important paragraphs
(my assessment of the probability of existence)		 number of links to this page restored with destroyed history
tendeno 16:14, 16 okt. 2021 tradukoj - 90% ~9 paĝes has links
kluĉi 15:37, 16 okt. 2021 ~3 paĝes has links yes
funebro 21:25, 12 okt. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~7 paĝes has links yes, 4 back links of translating may be destroyed
spato 06:22, 10 okt. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
proceso 01:03, 10 okt. 2021 ekzempoj - 100%, tradukoj - 90% ~5 paĝes has links
ezoko 22:53, 9 okt. 2021 ~12 paĝes has links restored from my last redaction with an offensive comment about theft
komizo 23:12, 7 okt. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~8 paĝes has links
hordeo 22:42, 7 okt. 2021, 23:42, 5 okt. 2021 tradukoj - 90% ~16 paĝes has links restored from my last redaction with an offensive comment about theft, restored my last redaction with an offensive comment in descussion, current paragraph "tradukoj" requires restoration
kvaternaro 06:37, 7 okt. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
cikatro 22:32, 5 okt. 2021 ~12 paĝes has links yes
stipo 22:05, 5 okt. 2021 ~6 paĝes has links yes
libera 01:30, 2 okt. 2021 ~18 paĝes has links yes, as minimum 8 links requires restoration
soldo 07:26, 1 okt. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~3 paĝes has links
dogmo 11:44, 30 sep. 2021 ~4 paĝes has links
fajenco 17:47, 25 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 90% ~10 paĝes has links
hiperbolo 15:40, 25 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~4 paĝes has links
orakolo 16:51, 21 sep. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~4 paĝes has links
trabo 13:21, 18 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 90% ~16 paĝes has links
stabo 07:46, 18 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~4 paĝes has links
esprimo 07:41, 18 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 99% ~11 paĝes has links
spadiko 00:17, 13 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~4 paĝes has links
amento 00:15, 13 sep. 2021 ~6 paĝes has links
betulo 11:38, 11 sep. 2021 ~18 paĝes has links yes, i remember this page - restored from my last redaction, as minimum 14 links requires restoration
troglodito 11:33, 11 sep. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
konotacio 00:58, 10 sep. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
konjunkcio 00:53, 10 sep. 2021 tradukoj - 99% ~14 paĝes has links
inkvizicio 21:14, 5 sep. 2021 ~4 paĝes has links
redingoto 22:43, 19 aŭg. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
gudro 03:01, 13 jul. 2021 tradukoj - 99% ~12 paĝes has links
konstelacio 19:50, 12 jul. 2021 ~4 paĝes has links very strange editing story
orkido 05:05, 7 jul. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
legacio 21:36, 3 jul. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~1 paĝes has links
vivologio 00:21, 2 jul. 2021 ~6 paĝes has links
propozicio 01:16, 28 jun. 2021 ~7 paĝes has links
maleolo 00:06, 22 jun. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~15 paĝes has links
milda 20:28, 12 jun. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~8 paĝes has links
cimo 18:33, 12 jun. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~9 paĝes has links
sino 15:58, 6 jun. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~6 paĝes has links
sindiko 21:36, 5 jun. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
Antverpeno 13:33, 4 jun. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~20 paĝes has links
manki 11:37, 4 jun. 2021 ~12 paĝes has links yes, as minimum 4 links requires restoration
brakteo 01:16, 2 jun. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
sklavo 17:50, 26 maj. 2021 ~16 paĝes has links yes, as minimum 9 links destroyed and requires restoration
senĝena 23:00, 23 maj. 2021 ~3 paĝes has links
preterito 21:35, 21 maj. 2021 ~1673 paĝes has links yes
stompi 21:02, 21 maj. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~4 paĝes has links
sekura 23:45, 19 maj. 2021 tradukoj - 50% ~6 paĝes has links
bigota 23:43, 19 maj. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~1 paĝes has links
kruciĝi 23:40, 18 maj. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
kamero 22:44, 17 maj. 2021 ~3 paĝes has links
emancipi 02:14, 15 maj. 2021 ~3 paĝes has links
knari 01:36, 15 maj. 2021 ~5 paĝes has links
stipendio 01:32, 15 maj. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
sandviĉo 01:07, 15 maj. 2021 tradukoj - 90% ~13 paĝes has links
stagni 00:55, 15 maj. 2021 ~4 paĝes has links
stoko 00:54, 15 maj. 2021 ~2 paĝes has links
prefikso 22:25, 13 maj. 2021 ~5 paĝes has links
kraŝi 22:20, 13 maj. 2021 ~1 paĝes has links
umbiliko 03:17, 9 maj. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~4 paĝes has links very strange editing story
To be processed later Va (🖋️) 10:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
aberacio 23:20, 7 maj. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
familio 23:29, 4 maj. 2021 ~? paĝes has links yes
labila 01:44, 2 maj. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
rimo 01:22, 2 maj. 2021 ~? paĝes has links i need page, recreated from template
turneo 21:35, 29 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
klapo 22:16, 27 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
kamelo 01:52, 15 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
lorno 00:59, 9 apr. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
voli 22:45, 8 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
lekanto 17:17, 5 apr. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
aranĝaĵo 15:11, 3 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
ĉantaĝi 14:40, 3 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
sardona 22:31, 2 apr. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
sakso 22:30, 2 apr. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
konsterni 20:30, 30 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
epigono 18:00, 27 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
drivi 17:55, 27 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
duonsfero 17:51, 27 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
nominativo 17:48, 27 mar. 2021 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
apopleksio 23:38, 26 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
lanuga 23:52, 23 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
leŭkemio 13:17, 20 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
sakri 01:18, 19 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
kulmo 23:52, 13 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
kredi 23:30, 13 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
dinosaŭro 16:28, 10 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
vazistaso 13:02, 10 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
medicino 02:35, 8 mar. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
komuna 18:54, 21 feb. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
ĉirkaŭparolo 18:53, 21 feb. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
ĉasado 18:51, 21 feb. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
cifozo 18:50, 21 feb. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
haŭli 23:45, 7 feb. 2021 tradukoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
ikso 21:33, 1 feb. 2021 ~? paĝes has links user Kwamikagami created a new version from scratch
maceri 21:17, 30 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
adenozino 21:15, 30 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
citrolo 21:13, 30 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
aero 21:05, 30 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
evolui 23:37, 23 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
fiziologio 22:01, 23 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
cendo 23:36, 18 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
justa 23:21, 18 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
konscienco 18:10, 17 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
kupli 22:02, 16 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
arkeo 21:36, 16 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
tra 22:21, 15 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
Porto-Riko 22:18, 15 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
aŭgmentativo 22:16, 15 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
vira 04:17, 7 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
koridoro 04:00, 7 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
kapvorto 03:58, 7 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
ankoraŭ 03:05, 5 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
abstini 03:03, 5 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
nukleotido 05:16, 2 jan. 2021 ~? paĝes has links
abako 17:12, 29 dec. 2020 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
keglo 18:49, 26 dec. 2020 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
krupiero 18:47, 26 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
islamo 13:40, 25 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
ĉerpi 13:36, 25 dec. 2020 tradukoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
ŝpari 13:16, 25 dec. 2020 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
Ŝekspiro 13:07, 25 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
ŝablona 13:06, 25 dec. 2020 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
glaĉero 13:44, 17 dec. 2020 ekzempoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
geologio 13:41, 17 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
terologio 13:40, 17 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
kuŝujo 13:37, 17 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
vortfiguro 17:01, 16 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
Kievo 16:58, 16 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
svusujo 16:56, 16 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
jungilaro 14:05, 15 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
ŝvabo 14:03, 15 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
vokativo 14:02, 15 dec. 2020 tradukoj - 100% ~? paĝes has links
biokemio 14:00, 15 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
vojo 13:57, 15 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
ĝigolo 13:54, 15 dec. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
didelfo 21:45, 14 nov. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
tondro 15:58, 18 jan. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
taksi 14:45, 18 jan. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
sed 05:17, 4 jan. 2020 ~? paĝes has links
kuspi 06:44, 26 dec. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
stompi 17:20, 12 dec. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
frambo 13:05, 7 dec. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
bigoto 22:48, 30 nov. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
hipotezo 21:57, 30 nov. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
garnizono 21:20, 30 nov. 2019 ~? paĝes has links
paruo 11:19, 23 nov. 2019 ~? paĝes has links

Okazo de Ŝekspiro edit

(#Shakespeare-1)
La artikolo Ŝekspiro estis forigita. ( ) El parta informo pri enteno el protokoloj pri renomigo kaj forigo mi povas konkludi, ke la artikolo havis la difinon: ( )


La difinoj por la vorto en diversaj lingvaj subprojektoj: ( )

A surname.
=> familia nomo ( )
William Shakespeare, an English playwright and poet of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries
=> Ŝekspiro, angla dramaturgo kaj poeto je fino/malfruo de deksesa kaj komenco/fruo de deksepa jarcento ( )
His works or media adaptations of his works.
=> liaj verkoj kaj adaptaĵoj de liaj laboroj ( )
Nom de famille anglais, essentiellement connu par William Shakespeare (1564–1616).
=> angla familia nomo, ĉefe estas konata ( ) William Shakespeare (1564–1616)

https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/Shakespeare

Apellido
=> familia nomo ( )
английская фамилия
=> angla familia nomo ( )

https://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BE%CF%80%CE%B7%CF%81

αγγλικό επώνυμο
=> angla familia nomo ( )


gravecon de la artikolo montras la listo de ekzemploj pri vortfarado, kiun estonte uztilus aldoni al la artikolo (se ĝi ne estus forigita aŭ kiam ĝi estos rekreita aŭ restaŭrita): ( )

  • Ŝekspir+o => ŝekspir+a, ŝekspir+e, ŝekspir+em+a, ŝekspir+ig+i, preskaŭ+ŝekspir+a, kavazaŭ+ŝekspir+a k.t.p.


Simila ekzemplo de la Okazo de Ŝekspiro estas la artikolo ( ) Antverpeno


Laŭ mia opinio, ambaŭ ekzemploj estas okazoj de "evidenta fakto". La unua punkto de #Petition_(eo/auto) mia peto pri klarigo koncernas same tiujn ĉi ekzemplojn. ( ) Mi ne vidas simplan vojon anstataŭigi vortojn per sinonimoj, pro ili povas simple foresti, aŭ formaligi la difinon kiel citaĵon, pro tio postulus mencii ĉiujn ekzistantajn vortarojn, al kiuj povas esti simila la difino, aŭ krei longan difinon, ĉar vortara (de Vikivortaro) artikolo ne devas estis same vasta kaj pleninforma kiel la artikolo en la Vikipedio. ( )

Okazo de cimo edit

(#cimo-1)
Detruo de la strukturo. Kiel ekzemplo mi proponas rigardi forigitan artkolon ( ) cimo:

Post tiu evento daŭre ekzistas la paĝoj: ( )

  • cimoj - kiel substantiva formo, pluralo, nominato por vorto cimo ( )
  • cimon - kiel substantiva formo, singularo, akuzativo por vorto cimo ( )
  • cimojn - kiel substantiva formo, pluralo, akuzativo por vorto cimo ( )

La paĝo kun la artikolo pri vorto cimo, kiel ĉefa artikolo, enetenis la fleksian tabelon, kie estis difinitaj la ligiloj al paĝoj cimoj, cimon, cimojn. Forigo de paĝo rompis la strukturon, kiu ligis vortajn formojn. ( )

Ankaŭ ekzistas paĝoj ( )

  • cimedo - esperanta artikolo, la ligilo al vorto estas parto de la difino ( )
  • bug - la ligilo al vorto cimo estas traduko ( )
  • chinche - la ligilo al vorto cimo estas traduko ( )
  • Wanze - la paĝo entenas kelkajn artikolojn, la artikolo pri germana substantivo havas la ligilon al vorto cimo kiel traduko ( )
  • punaise - la ligilo al vorto cimo estas traduko ( )
  • xinxa - la ligilo al vorto cimo estas traduko ( )
  • bugg - la ligilo al vorto cimo estas traduko ( )

El listo de tradukoj mi povas nur supozi, ke la paĝo por vorto cimo povis enteni parton pri tradukoj, kiu povis havi reajn ligilojn al tiuj artikoloj. Forigo de la paĝo rompis la strukturon, kiu ligis tradukojn. ( )

Mia opinio estas, ke sendepende de iu ajn reklamacio al iu parto de enhavo de paĝo pri vorto "cimo", oni devis apliki agojn nur al la parto, sed ne al iuj ajn aliaj partoj de la paĝo kaj ne al paĝo mem. ( )

Addition.
After the case with the page about the word сimo was analyzed here, the page was re-created.
This does not negate the example itself and the problems with structure destruction for the rest of the words from the above list. Va (🖋️) 05:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of massive copyright infringement between ca 2010 and 2019 edit

See the "Discussion" section below for analysis. The few cases listed here show only a very tiny fragment of the problem.

(#Va-9)
Vi aldonis vian parton, kiu estas parto de diskuto, en ĉefan parton - ne vi kreis ĉi tiun RfC, do ĉio, kion vi skribas ĉi tie, estas nur "via respondo". Bonvolu memstare tuj transporti ĉi tiun blokon en la diskuton. ( ) You’ve added your part, which is part of a discussion, into a main part - you didn’t create this RfC here, so everything you write here is just the “answer”. Please independently transport this block into discussion. ( )
El via pruvo, laŭ mia opino, sekvas, ke ekzistas ekzemploj de "malĝuste formitaj citaĵoj", kio postulas nepran prilaboron de enhavo por la atrikoloj per ĝustigo de formato de citaĵoj. ( ) Tiu prilabo neniel tuŝas iun ajn alian entenon de la artikoloj/paĝoj. ( ) Post tiu prilaboro povas esti kaŭzoj por "kaŝi iujn revizion" pri redaktado por la artikolo/paĝo. Sed mi ne vidas kaŭzojn: ( )
  • por forigo de la artikoloj/paĝoj ( )
  • por via varianto de forigo (kiu laŭ jam kelkaj respondoj estas malpermesataj por apliko, spite tio estas ebla fari teknike) ( )
  • por "alproprigo de kontribuo" de aliuj ( )
 From your proof, in my opinion, it follows that there are examples of "incorrectly formed citations", which requires unavoidable processing of content for the articles by adjusting the format of citations. ( ) This process does not affect any other content of the articles / pages. ( ) After that processing there may have been reasons to "hide some revision" about editing for the article/page. But I see no causes ( )
  • for deleting the articles/pages ( )
  • for your deletion variant (which according to some answers is already banned for application, despite being technically possible) ( )
  • for "appropriation of contribution" by others ( )
Vi donis bonan ekzemplon ( ) - "modalo" https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=modalo&oldid=221355 kaj fonto el PIV https://vortaro.net/#modalo_kd

Bonvolu ĉiuj ĉeestantoj kompari la version donitan kiel pruvo kun mia lasta versio por la artikolo modalo kaj doni la komentojn same pri mia versio kaj pri daŭraj agon por tiu artikolo/paĝo por eviti iujn ajn reklamaciojn tute. ( )

You gave a good example ( ) - "modalo" https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=modalo&oldid=221355 and source from PIV https://vortaro.net/#modal_kd

Please all present compare the version given as proof with my latest version for the article modalo and give the comments both about my version and about ongoing action for that article/page for avoid any claims. ( )

Va (🖋️) 10:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Taylor 49 - 1 edit

(#Taylor 49-1)

Some short comments from me:

Några korta kommentarer från mig:

Taylor 49 (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blahma - 1 edit

Because I have been addressed by Vami through email, I thought I would provide some facts for orientation to whoever else is going to deal with this RfC: I have never used the Esperanto Wiktionary. I only have contributed to its content once, in 2013. As far as I know, it enjoys no or little popularity in the Esperanto community. I can therefore easily imagine that some contributors may have started mass importing entries from popular dictionaries, particularly PIV (a.k.a. Vortaro.net) and ReVo (Reta Vortaro). The first one is copyrighted. The second one, however, is published under the GPL (the main page includes a link to [1] in a footer, and the menu includes a similar link under "aldonaj informoj" – "Permeso de uzado"). I conclude that while copying dictionary entries from ReVo might be acceptable (if performed correctly), copying content from PIV is not possible (notwithstanding that it is the most prestigious Esperanto dictionary today).

I am also afraid that nobody can provide as exact answers to his questions as the original poster asks for (what exact amount already constitutes a copyright violation etc.). I realize that building an alternative dictionary from a scratch for a language such as Esperanto must feel particularly tough, and mass copying from other sources especially attractive, because the language owns it lasting unity to a (sought for) single standard that it has depended upon since the very moment it was designed. In spite of that, a strong lexicographical tradition exists among Esperanto speakers and many people have produced all kinds of dictionaries for the language. Not being familiar with the situation at Esperanto Wiktionary, I can only guess that some contributors to Esperanto Wiktionary wanted to take a shortcut and started importing entries from existing sources without taking care of their copyright status. This could perhaps be done with ReVo (if thought out appropriately), but not with the copyrighted entries from PIV. In this light, I support any ongoing removal of such "pirated" entries, at least as long as it does not do much harm to whichever other content previously existing in the Wiktionary. My knowledge of the project, its history and user community, though, is too limited to openly dare suggesting a restart. --Blahma (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It seems that the core of this dispute is exactly that deletion of whole articles may be taking away with it also some free content that had been contributed to the affected articles earlier by other users. I have not followed the history of these copyright violations, so I can't tell how deeply rooted they are in the edit history of the Wiktionary, and therefore how easily (or not) the infringing material could have been removed while retaining the rest. I hope that Taylor 49 is aware of the possibility to revert particular revisions in the page history and hide them, which would provide for a more sensitive solution of the copyright violation than deletion of whole pages with full edit history. However, it may have easily been the case that it was usually impossible to separate the infringing material from other material. Probably Taylor 49 could explain more. --Blahma (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-4)
@Blahma vi estas sola el la invititoj, kiu respondis ĝis nun en la konversacio, do mi ankaŭ dankas vin pro la respondo. ( )
Mi skribis al vi, pro vi estas menciita kiel administranto ĉe projekto eo.wikipedia.org, kio garantias ke vi havas samtempe sperton en la projekto, estas aŭtoritatulo inter aliaj administrantoj kaj, kompreneble, vi posedas la lingvon. ( )
La lasta trajto estas tre grava, ĉar kiu, se ne posedanto de la lingvo, povas precize kompreni sencon de konversacioj? ( )
Mi vidas, ke vi vere tralegis entenon de la peto, ĉar via opinio esprimas subtenon por ambaŭ flankoj - flankon de Teylor 49, ke devas kontraŭi al iu ajn kopiado kaj ke por tiu celo taŭgus eĉ plena detruo de ekzistanta projekto, kaj mian flankon, ke antaŭ eĉ ion ŝanĝi utilas komence kompreni ĉefajn kondiĉojn, pli atente taksi, kio vere povas esti rompo de aŭtoraj rajtoj, kaj pli senteme prizorgi laboron de aliaj partoprenantoj de la projekto. ( )
Bedaŭrinde, vian respondon ni ambaŭ povas trakti kiel voĉo por propra flanko. En la respondo Taylor 49 dankas al vi, pro via subteno al liaj vidpunkto kaj agoj. Mi vidas nur, ke via pozicio estas neŭtrala. ( )
Ekde via respondo en la diskuto aperis aldona informo kaj pliaj detaloj. Mi petas de vi vere gravan - dediĉi iom da via tempo al la problemo. Ĉar mi ne dividas la tutan Projekton al iuj gravaj aŭ ne gravaj partoj, kiuj konkuras unu kun alia por populareco. Temas pri komuna scio kaj sperto. Kiun ni ĉiuj devas kolekti kaj pligrandigi, sed ne malgrandigi. ( )
Pri la "ebleco reverti apartajn reviziojn en la paĝa historio", bedaŭrinde mi jam havas la ekzemplon de tiu ago de flanko de Taylor 49. Jen estas du ligiloj, al la konversacio kaj al la historio de la artikolo(paĝo). Mi taksas valora nur propran opinion, kiun vi povas akiri nun memstare rigardante la fontojn de la informo: ( )
Va (🖋️) 14:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami - 1 edit

(#Va-1)

La respondo ( ) #Taylor 49-1 en punkto pri forbarado nur montras, ke ene da la projekto iel ajn solvi problemojn mi vere ne havas eblecon. ( )
Pri la priskribo de motovo (ne kaŭzo) de la forbarado, mi devas mencii, ke ( )

  • evidente, ke solvo por la persona konflikto estas ekster de RfC, kiun mi kreis, kaj bezonas apartan RfC, kiun mi kreos post solvo de ĉefa problemo - konstanta detruo de la strukturo de la projekto ( )
  • publikigante la motivon de forbarado eĉ ĉi tie, Taylor 49 por unua punkto de akuzo skribis ne tutan veron, sed duonveron - antaŭ mia temo "Iu ajn tolero havas limon" ( ) - Iu ajn tolero havas limon, kiu estas datita ( ) 10:49, 9 okt. 2021 (UTC) okazis tri pli fruaj konversacioj: ( )
  • aliaj 3 punktoj de la motivo estas rekte trompaj, kaj mi povas tion pruvi ( )

Va (🖋️) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami - 2 edit

(#Va-2)

Pro internacieco de la konversacio mi petas ĉiujn partoprenentojn uzi la ŝablonon {{TIT}}. ( ) Поверьте, это просто. ( )
En diskuta parto mi ankaŭ petas meti en komencon de la mesaĝoj la ankrojn kun numero de via mesaĝo por simpligi referencadon. ( )
Va (🖋️) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Just refactored by moving the long "Several examples" section before the discussion, adjusting the section headings, and putting the anchors in consistent places). ( ) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grandan dankon! Tiel estas pli bone! ( ) Va (🖋️) 12:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, there is useful addons for most popular browsers for context menu item that calling "Google Translate" for selected text. IMHO there is no need to use special templates in wikitext. Kaganer (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mi estas konsenta - mi mem uzas. Bedaŭrinde ne ĉiuj havas tiujn rimedojn instalitajn kaj ne ĉiuj sistemoj permesas ilin komforte uzi. ( )
Mi celis allogi homojn pertopreni esprimi propan opinion kaj dividi propran sperton same en solvado tiel malsimpla problemo kiel gardado de aŭtoraj rajtoj sendepende de havo de rimedoj por traduko, kaj rekte uzi lingvon, en kiu ili kapablas esprimi la plej precize. ( )
Tamen evidente estas, ke anoncoj de administraj decidoj ne postulas iujn ajn tradukajn ŝablonojn, ĉar devas esti skribitaj en labora lingvo de konkreta projekto. ( ) Va (🖋️) 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49 - 2 edit

(#Taylor 49-2)

@Blahma: Thank you for your comments:

  • IMHO copying from ReVo to wiktionary is not possible either, because the 2 licenses are both "free" but unfortunately different.
  • Several 10'000's of articles were created by a bot (not mine) by importing from very old low-quality dictionaries. This is admittedly legal, but does not create any value. [2]
  • Several 1'000's of articles (words in languages other than -eo-) were created manually by pirating from other wiktionaries (mostly -de- but also -it-, -es-, -en-, ...). Copying from one WMF wiki to another one is on its own ultimately legal, but attribution is required and was not given this time.
  • Several 1'000's of articles (words in -eo-) were created manually by pirating the definitions from PIV (rarely also from ReVo) and the translation block from -de- wiktionary from a German (!!!) word (typical case vortaro.net/#acida_kd). Some translations may match, many don't, and the translation block frequently refers to non-existent definitions. Unfortunately such articles are inherently worthless. They were edited many times by bots [3]. It happens that some users performed minor in itself useful edits such as adding or fixing a single translation. But in the context of an inherently broken translation block below pirated definitions and 1000's of such pages in a single wiki such "free" and "useful" edits cannot be rescued. Separating and rescuing "good faith edits" from desperately broken and pirated pages may not take more time than the original contribution, or redoing such a contribution on a legitimate and intact page.
  • Indeed "some contributors to Esperanto Wiktionary wanted to take a shortcut and started importing entries from existing sources without taking care of their copyright status". A huge waste of time and resources.
  • Thank you for "In this light, I support any ongoing removal of such "pirated" entries, at least as long as it does not do much harm to whichever other content previously existing".
  • RE "how easily (or not) the infringing material could have been removed while retaining the rest" - not worth the time as outlined above, since the infringing material clearly outweights the free one.
  • RE "hope that Taylor 49 is aware of the possibility to revert particular revisions in the page history and hide them" - YES I am but most revisions on most pages are bad, and a perfect isolation is not feasible. The sooner the unlawfully copied material is removed, the sooner rebuilding of those pages can begin.

Taylor 49 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-3)
  • You are asserting "created manually by pirating from other wiktionaries". What? Are you really familiar with the license for the entire project to use the term "pirating" in this case? ( )
In this case, you are already insulting the entire community. ( ) Even using the word "but" does not diminish the degree of your insult. ( )
In addition, it is obvious that we are not talking about copying, but about translating articles from other sections into Esperanto. Is the "translation" also "pirating from other wiktionaries" in your opinion? ( )
In addition, within the entire project, between subprojects in different languages, links are provided automatically - the menu on the left, section "In other languages". Do you really think that every word spoken or written already belongs to someone and requires an indication of the source? This is already ridiculous. ( )
  • Some statistics.: ( )
"Substantivo_ (Esperanto)" - 2903 - Nouns ( )
"Adjektivo_ (Esperanto)" - 456 - Adjectives ( )
"Adverbo_ (Esperanto)" - 132 - Adverbs ( )
"Pronomo_ (Esperanto)" - 21 - Locations ( )
"Konjunkcio_ (Esperanto)" - 18 - Conjunctions ( )
Total: 3530 articles ( )
What 10'000 are we talking about? How long do you need to go through 3530 articles so that after your "work" the rest of the world can use the project and contribute their knowledge there? 10 years? 100 years? ( )
As you state and the history of your quarrels with other participants, you have been participating in the project for several years. And the previous discussion of copyright was in the spring. ( ) From my personal experience, when, in conditions of constant interference from you, I was able to process ~ 1600 articles from the category "Substantivo_ (rusa)" - Nouns in 5 weeks by hand. ( )
Even if you claim that the "part of the content" of 1000 articles raises some doubts, then only 1000 articles can be processed in a reasonable time. And I mean the action is "process articles", not "delete articles". ( )
In this RFC, I assert - you replace the concept of "part of the content that is in doubt" on the understanding of "article" and this justifies your actions to destroy the structure of the dictionary. ( )
In this RFC I assert - you replace the concepts of "quote", "translation", "partial coincidence of the text" with the concept of "pirating" and "copy" and by this you justify your actions to destroy the structure of the dictionary. ( )
Va (🖋️) 07:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49 - 3 edit

(#Taylor 49-3)

@Vami: Please stop accusing me of "vandalism", "destruction of structure", "total destruction" and similar. Deleting single lemma pages, even if many, does NOT affect the structure. BTW it was me who built most of the structure (working and documented templates, pages in structured blue categories, ...) during past 3 years. The core of the problem is that you (and yes you are very intelligent):

  • refuse to accept the need for deletion of pirated material
  • are notoriously rude and use your intelligence to "mask" your rudeness (gaming / borderlining) by for example:
    • creating a template "antinazi" instead of writing "you are a nazi" on my userpage (still the context of the incident makes clear that you target me)
    • whine repeatedly about "most stupid template" (still the context of the incident makes clear that you target me)
    • write "you must go to school" instead of "you are stupid" (the huge number of obfuscated/indirect uses of the word "stupid" placed on my user page by you wipes away any doubt about the message you intend to send)
    • begin your post in the Beer parlour with "Particularly for idiots" (the context of the incident makes clear that you target me)

Furthermore I strongly discourage creating another RFC about this. If Vami happens to brew another RFC about same subject I propose to immediately close that one as INVALID.

Taylor 49 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amikeco edit

Mi kredas, estas malfacile atingi unikecon de difinoj, kiam temas pri vortaro. Esperanto-vortaristoj certe ĉiuj serĉas inspiron en NPIV. ( ) Malgraŭ ke NPIV estas kopirajtita, ĝi atingeblas plene per la reto kaj la kopirajto-posedanto SAT apenaŭ procesos kontraŭ Wikimedia: mi komprenas, ke tio ne pravigus amasan kopiadon de artikoloj; tamen tiu konsidero povas klarigi, ke ne temas pri urĝeco de la forigoj, eblus averti pri la trovita koincido tiel ke la verkinto havu tempon reverki la difinon ĝis dezirata nivelo de nekoincido. ( )

Mi aliĝas al la peto de Vami difini pli precize eblan koincidon de la tekstoj. Tio ege gravas, se ni volas altiri novajn redaktantojn al Vikivortaro kiel viki-projekto. ( )

Mi bedaŭras, ke la konflikto akriĝis ĝis la punkto, kie la partoprenantoj komencis ofende moknomi unu la alian. Tio estas nepre evitinda afero, sed samptempe signalas pri tio, kiel la aplikataj en eo.wiktionary praktikoj vundas la partoprenantojn de la projekto. ( ) Kiel persono, certe spertinta la entuziasmon de forigistoj ankaŭ dum mia sperto en Vikipedio kaj Vikikomunejo, mi imagas la emociojn kaj la senton de senelireblo, kiujn li spertis. ( ) Mi volas aparte emfazi gravecon de ĝentila interago kaj solvado de eventualaj problemoj per interkonsento, speciale en la projektoj, kiuj spertas mankon de aktivaj redaktantoj. ( )

La maniero de Taylor 49 forigi artikolojn per alinomigo aspektas malbele, interalie ĉar malfaciligas esploradon de la okazintaĵoj: estus interese aŭskulti la motivojn de Taylor 49 kaj la tekstojn de viki-projektoj, kiuj igis lin pensi, ke forĵeto de la redaktohistorio estas bona ideo. Kiel administranto de unu el vikipediaj projektoj, mi neniam aŭdis pri tia ebleco, nek uzis ĝin mem. ( )

Amikeco (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaganer edit

1. About copyvio purging.
Coping with copyright violations is a complex issue. Not everyone who claims copyright for content actually owns it.
In my opinion, here we should call @Al Silonov as the administrator of the Russian Wiktionary. His experience will be helpful.
By default, we should assume that the project administrator has the authority to remove copyright violations wherever they see them.
The practice of wiki projects says that it is always advisable to first warn authors and readers about a possible violation, and only after a while - if there were no corrections - to delete the page. But deleting pages cannot be considered the preferred way - only as a last resort if there is no chance of improving it. If violations were eliminated by correcting one or two words - were they violations at all? And did they demand such a serious reaction, and not a simple warning?
Any efforts to remedy violations should be encouraged. If the article has a revision that does not contain a copy, you can rollback to it. You can also delete the article and then restore only the trusted revisions (if exists).

2. About cycling renaming/deletion.
As far as I understand, admin @Taylor 49 invented the following form of removing the copyright violation seen in the project: they deleted the page, then changed another page to the name of the one just deleted, and deleted again. And so on in a circle, many times.
As a result, we have a chaotically mixed log of the history of edits of different pages, it is impossible to understand what was contained in each of the deleted pages, it is impossible to undo any of the actions it performed. Recovering any of these articles will be very time-consuming (if at all possible).
I don’t understand for what purpose @Taylor 49 chose such an algorithm, and on what basis was decided that they have the right to do so? I am asking @Taylor 49 to explain this. If this method is described in the rules of the project, then please provide a link to this and the author of this.
I have already seen in the past the desire of the administrators of some small editions to "better hide" the deleted revisions and to make it difficult to undo their actions, making them "irreversible". In my opinion (and I was still convinced that this is the basis) administrative actions in the project should be a) rule-based, transparent (explainable to participants, including a direct reference to the rules), and reversible (that is can be canceled by any other administrator, bureaucrat, or steward). Attempts to complicate this and refusal to explain (not only the goal but also the method), I would consider a gross abuse of authority and abuse of admin rights. In the past, this has led to an immediate flag withdrawal. I am not calling for this. I just want to emphasize the importance of this aspect.

Small note: If project admins want to delete a page - they just delete pages. Theirs can also restore only the trusted revisions (if exists). This is sufficient for all readers and visitors, and these actions are reversible. For other members with the right to view deleted revisions - other admins (local and global), stewards, oversights, etc., - it should be possible to see what was deleted and read the comment in the edit, which says why it was done. If needs bury it more deeply, someone may call Stewards or Oversighters, and they hide these revisions. But in general, this is no longer area of responsibility for project's local admin - let those who wish to complain to the Foundation, the Foundation's legal team will give a command, they themselves will come and hide everything that they need.

3. Summary.
Small edition admins - especially when is only one active admin - in fact, has very large powers and bear a very large responsibility. They are the de facto ambassador of his project to the global community of the Wikimedia movement, and are very trusted by this community. By default.
His/her actions are often criticized - sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes with bias. But if the admin, in responding to criticism, focuses on the personality of the critic, and not on the essence of the discussed action, this is an alarming symptom. Kaganer (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Dear @Taylor 49, i'm advise using some tools like Convenient Discussions, to avoid breaking the structure of talk pages like this edit. Kaganer (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Silonov edit

Being asked to participate in the discussion I should first say that I have no intention to intervene in the conflict as such. As to the copyright issue in general -- it is a tough and unclear isuue indeed. I've spoken with several traditional lexicographers about it and got no clear directions.

My opinion: theoretically the uniqueness of a dictionary may be defined by 3 items: 1) uniqueness of the words list 2) uniqueness of the article structure 3) uniqueness of all articles content (wordings, definitions etc).

Here the 3rd item is the weakest -- many competiting ('oficial') dictionaries contain lots of identical word definitions. So, in lexicography you may talk about copyright violation only in case of identity of word lists and article structure. In case of Wiktionaries these two points are by far unparalleled. --Al Silonov (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-4)
Thank you for your comments. ( )
Каково ваше мнение: ( )
  • о самой возможности использования должным образом оформленных цитат в разделе определения слов; ( )
  • если же цитата не была по каким-то причинам должным образом оформлена, то версия статьи с полностью исправленным оформлением цитаты снимет ли возможные угрозы получить претензии, или нужно выполнять дополнительные манипуляции с историей редактирования - это общий вопрос, который шире, чем вопрос со словарем PIV, который никаких формальных претензий пока не выдвигал (и вряд ли будет, на что есть несколько причин); ( )
  • как рассматривать "казус Шекспира" - статья ( ) Ŝekspiro была удалена, по остаткам информации о содержании из протоколов можно восстановить, что она содержала ( ) ~"Ŝeksipro - angla poeto kaj dramaturgo (1564−1616)", - это пример очевидного факта, любой человек на любом языке с ненулевой вероятность может сформулировать так, что это даже по буквенно совпадёт с определением в каком-либо словаре, а уж просто дословно - с переводом из большинства словарей; ( ) то есть, с моей точки зрения, такой пример не может рассматриваться даже как цитата; даже попытка подборов синонимов для снятия совпадения может оказаться неудачной, потому что для слов "поэт" и "драматург" просто может не оказаться синонимов, а замена слова "poeto" на "homo, kiu verkas versojn" или что-то подобное, уже выходит за рамки здравого смысла. ( )
Va (🖋️) 11:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor -- 4 edit

Related to above request, here is my explanation of the "cyclic deletion algorithm": it is far less complicated than described above, there are only 2 steps, namely moving the unfree content away (to dedicated page "PIRATAĴO") with subsequent deletion of that page (see here) and it is my "invention" (note that the wiki in question lacks 99.99% of policies known from other wikis, there is no deletion policy), and the motives are following:

  • large proportion of "bad" content (as opposed to for example Swedish wiktionary where some minor piracy incidents also have occurred, but most likely >99% of content is "good" at least when it comes to copyright issues)
  • large proportion of "bad" versions on single pages example "pasto"
  • attempt to quarantine and isolate the pirated content
  • long time the problem has existed (copying from PIV started around year 2010)
  • the desperately bad quality of most articles, for example "pasto" again has 18 versions and they all contain large fragments of text copied from PIV, plus an unformatted useless mixture of Esperanto and Spanish, probably copied from some probably copyrighted Spanish-Esperanto dictionary (Esperantists can see this problem immediately, but other people can't and are tempted to falsely assume such Spanish or German text would be Esperanto and contributed by human contributors), unfortunately, after 6 years and 18 versions, there is no value created by human effort at this page, and this page is very typical for that wiki: plain text brainlessly copied from other mostly copyrighted sources plus bot edits plus very few minor human edits
  • the problem was pointed among others here by User:Robin van der Vliet and here and here by User:Psychoslave
  • deleting pages is the less drastic alternative to closing and deleting the wiki that alternatively could occur

Related to above mentioned claims about the "destroyed" page "Ŝekspiro", this was the content at the time of "creation": 

Ŝekspir/o. Angla poeto k dramisto (W. Shakespeare, 1564-1616).
Ŝekspira. Rilata al Ŝekspiro: la Ŝekspiraj komedioj; vere Ŝekspira fantazio.

(no language, no word class, no category, note that "k" is not a valid Esperanto word)

and at the time of deletion (some bot added a category): 

Ŝekspir/o. Angla poeto k dramisto (W. Shakespeare, 1564-1616).
Ŝekspira. Rilata al Ŝekspiro: la Ŝekspiraj komedioj; vere Ŝekspira fantazio.

[[Kategorio:Esperanto]]

Feel free to compare to https://vortaro.net/#%C5%9Cekspiro_kd: 

Ŝekspir/o. Angla poeto k dramisto (W. Shakespeare, 1564−1616).
Ŝekspira. Rilata al Ŝekspiro: la Ŝekspiraj komedioj; vere Ŝekspira fantazio.

This is not about "coincidence", this is about large-scale plain and dumb copypasting. This is not about one page or a few pages copied from one dictionary to another dictionary, this is about a "project" of "creation" of a dictionary by copying (in a very dumb and lousy way) more or less the complete content from other dictionaries: definitions, examples, article structure.

  • Is this a problem that needs to be solved?
  • Is it feasible and worth the time to exhaustively search for possible valuable and free content on every single page, given the overwhelming quantity of unlawfully copied content, and blatant lack of edits based on honest human effort to create value and improve the dictionary?

The huge and useless table above posted by user "Vami" contains the "destroyed" page "vivologio", content at the time of deletion: 

=={{Lingvo|eo}}==

==={{Vortospeco|substantivo|eo}}===
===={{Signifoj}}====
:Scienco pri la vivo kaj vivuloj, i.a. pri la komunaj leĝoj de la vivo

{{Frazaĵoj}}
:besta, vegetaĵa, molekula ''vivologio''; ĉela ''vivologio'' aŭ [[ĉelologio]].

{{Vorterseparo}}
:{{radi|viv}} + {{sufi|ologi}} + {{fina|o}}

{{Samsencaĵoj}}
:[[biologio]]

===={{Tradukoj}}====

Compare vortaro.net/#biologio_kd: 

biologi[1]o. Scienco pri la vivo k vivuloj, i.a. pri la komunaj leĝoj de la vivo:
animala, vegetaĵa, molekula biologio; ĉela biologio aŭ ĉelbiologio.

Why aren't the texts identical? Because the "creator" of the page was a fanatic purist and replaced the word "biologio" by a neologism "vivologio" (Corpus: biologio 387 hits vs vivologio ZERO hits), but was unable to define this new private word, thus simply pirated the definition from the word "biologio" in the PIV! There are or were several 10:s of such pages in the -eo- wiktionary. Invent a new word, pirate the definition and examples from PIV, done.

In the huge table user "Vami" writes "restored from my last redaction with an offensive comment about theft". This is another lie by Vami. The comment is "rekreo, bonvole ne kopiu el PIV" thus "re-creation, please do not copy from PIV". The comment is NOT offensive and does NOT contain the word "theft".

Taylor 49 (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-5)
If a subproject does not have its own policies, then this means nothing more than that higher-level policies are in effect. Also, no subproject's own policy can contradict, limit or override the policy of the entire project. ( ) And also, you personally were the administrator in this subproject for several years, so it is not clear who would have to define and fix local policies. In this case, any action should be evaluated based on the global policies of the entire project. ( )
You have started using the "bad content" and "pirated content" statements. ( )
  • But where are the resolutions and evidence? ( ) Neither the RfC ( ) Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto nor the current RfC are closed with specific resolutions what is considered as "bad content" and what specific measures should be taken. ( )
  • You contradict yourself. You have previously used the term "page", but not "content". ( ) And your actions were applied to "page". And even to "page" with several articles at the same time (words identical in spelling in several languages, combined in one "page"). ( )
Your example article ( ) example "pasto" is very unfortunate even for you: ( ) from 18 versions at least 6, starting from "18:18, 31 maj. 2019" are made by your robot. That is, you knew for sure about this article, but at the same time you have not done anything for several years. ( ) And this is provided that according to the statistics that I cited in # Va-3 we are talking about 3530 articles in total, and not just those that you named as "bad". ( )
You gave an example of an exchange of views between ( ) Robin van der Vliet and Pablo Escobar.
  • It would be helpful to hear their views on this issue again here. But from this exchange of views it follows that ( )
  • Pablo Escobar offers a solution: ( ) :"Mi modifos tiujn kapvortojn por ke la teksto ne estu tute samkia tiu de PIV" ( )
  • Robin van der Vliet links to RevisionDelete, although in the same sentence Robin states that deletion is necessary for "page": ( ) "Prefere unue forigu la paĝojn anstataŭ redakti ilin". ( ) These parts of the same sentence contradict each other. ( )
  • This discuss took place at "23:15, 19 okt. 2018 (UTC + 3)". You still continue to delete articles, provided that according to the current statistics, there are only 3530 of them left. ( )
(#Va-5-1) (la ankro estas aldonita Va (🖋️) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
How can you justify your actions regarding articles, for example ( )
which have been re-created with content identical to my last revision, but on your behalf and with an offensive comment about theft. Your change from ":" to "#" did not affect the content in any way. ( ) From my point of view, it looks like "appropriation of contribution", and your reference to "copyright infringement" is just an excuse for such an action. ( )
Moreover, the fact that you have hidden my contribution makes it impossible for me to prove that your accusation against me "refuse to accept the need for deletion of pirated material" stated here # Taylor_49-3 is a lie. I can already claim the official protection of my honor and dignity. ( )
I looked into the issue of the article ( ) Ŝekspiro here # Shakespeare-1. And I asked for additional clarification here # Va-4. ( ) Of course, I can argue that this is an "obvious fact"; that this is a "direct translation" of a definition from an English or French Wiktionary, and under the general license there is no violation at all; that this article in the PIV is not a "unique statement" and will not constitute any labor to prove that such a definition since the death of Shakespeare himself has already been given more than once, and you can find examples both in the "public domain" and in sources "prohibiting even citing"; that no court in the world will agree to accept the claim for such a definition ... ( )
Nevertheless, I started this RFC and am awaiting clarifications from competent specialists. ( )
Va (🖋️) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The meaning of the word "biologio" is precisely "scienco pri vivo", "vivologio", because word formation is an intrinsic property of the Esperanto language, and the formation of words according to the rules, even in the process of living speech, does not create any neologisms. But this topic is again outside the scope of this RFC. ( )
Va (🖋️) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 Did you know that you have exceeded the authority given to you by the Wikimedia community? As a project administrator, you had every right to delete pages, as well as restore pages or restore only certain revisions. This is quite enough for the purposes that you declare. You were not given the authority for a higher degree of deletion, which means you shouldn't have to invent workarounds to do this.
Renaming over the deleted page is only permissible if there is reason to believe that the revision histories of those pages are compatible and can be merged. That is, this is mainly done just to merging the revision history. In all other cases, this is undesirable - precisely because it makes it difficult to check and undo these actions, if necessary. Which is exactly what happened in your case. Kaganer (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 Now about your warnings to @Vami. There is no problem in changing the content of a page that previously contained copyright violations. If you want to delete earlier versions of a page that violates copyright, then simply delete the page in the usual way and then restore only the latest version(s). This is a common wiki practice. The same 2 actions, and strictly within the framework of your authority. Without inventing your own processes. What prevented you from doing this? Kaganer (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor - 6 edit

(#Taylor-6)

We had discussed this several times, and I was both sufficiently clear about that it was NOT you who submitted the pirated content, and sufficiently polite when asking you not to contribute to pages containing pirated content. You do not have to prove your innocence when it comes to copyright infringement because there is no accuse against you. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-6)
First, I ask you not to change the structure of the discussion. If my message is only a response, and not some new topic, then please do not make a new topic from my messages in the discussion section. ( )
If I set anchors in the text, then it is only a tool to make references to any part of the text. If necessary, up to a paragraph of text, if it is possible to set an anchor without affecting other people's remarks. ( )
Ĉu vi atente legis la mesaĝon de #Kaganer? Vi povas iel disputi kun mi. Sed vi ne rajtas ignori aŭ ne atente legi mesaĝojn de la administranto, kiu havas pli altan nivelon en hierarkio de decidoj ol vi. ( )
Va (🖋️) 16:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(#Va-7)
Second, what does "asking you not to contribute to pages containing pirated content" mean? Have you asked me not to edit articles? Why then this project at all if I can't "contribute to pages" or even "solve the problem with the content that someone doubts"? ( )
Va (🖋️) 16:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are devil's advocate. You understand the problem very well, but you pretend not to do. You can edit all pages not consisting to 95%...100% of pirated stuff. As for the bad pages, you still can edit them and propose deletion. You can also copy the good content (if you think there is such hidden somewhere in the pirated mess) into your "Provejo" sandbox and improve it there, and copy back after the page has been deleted. You are very intelligent, but unfortunately using your intelligence to do bad. You understand very well that adding translations to pages pirated from PIV obstructs cleaning the wiki from piracy, and you know that I would delete the page afterwards allowing you to cry, and that is why you behave the way you behave. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Taylor 49: Indeed, there is a very good chance that I understand the problem. And this is not one problem, but several different problems. I will describe only a few: ( )
  • You used the expression "You are devil's advocate". The fact that you do not understand the meaning of this expression is a very big problem. In all Abrahamic religions "God is the highest justice, it is mercy to all who have realized their guilt and this equality of all before the judgment of God." This means that before the judgment of God, even the Devil is equal with everyone, and has the right to justice and protection from false accusations. Only a person can be an advocate of the Devil, who in the face of God will be absolutely impartial, honest and just. I could thank you for your appreciation of my fairness and impartiality, but ... ( )
    • But I understand why you used this expression, it shows us another problem - you have entered the slippery path of offending the religious feelings of believers. ( )
    • And there are also people whose job it is to be a advocate. Why you used this expression is already an insult towards people who have chosen their profession as a advocate, and a prejudiced attitude towards the client - this means to stop being a lawyer. ( )
  • Also the big problem is that you haven't read or understood the licenses. Starting with the most important one in our case - the license under which all Wiki* projects operate. It's very simple - there is a link to this license on every page. Especially for you I will repeat ( ) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en.
    • Under this license, you yourself are in gross violation of copyright and license terms. Especially for you, I will quote: "No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." And this problem is much deeper than your violation of technical regulations - at least since November 2019, you have grossly violated the license under which Wiki* projects operate. ( )
  • It goes without saying that there is a problem of your violation of technical regulations. Which means that you decided to take any action with administrator rights without having read the regulations and without even asking questions to the specialists responsible for how you execute the regulations. ( ) "А это уже подстава." (untranslatable phrase)
  • You constantly give examples of what you call "pirated copies". And I remember your statement "created manually by pirating from other wiktionaries" that you cited in the answer to Blahma. But your "proof" is not proof. No matter how paradoxical it sounds. And besides that, I'm curious to know - did Marek ( Blahma) read your answer himself, where did you assign your understanding to it he - "created manually by pirating from other wiktionaries"? And the absence of his answer makes him the same violator of the license under which the Wiki projects operate *, just like you. ( ) "Это тоже подстава". (untranslatable phrase)
  • But there is one more problem. In addition to licenses and technical regulations, there is also the "Universal Code of Conduct". Especially for you, I will repeat this link too ( ) - https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
  • You also do not understand the question of licensing relations with the PIV dictionary. But your desire to prevent others from understanding this issue is very annoying. ( )
Therefore, I want to answer your passage about the Devil - "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." ( ) Va (🖋️) 14:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eblaj neglektoj de kopirajto edit

Dankon pro la revivigo de la temo de (vera kaj supozata) neglekto de kopirajto kaj superrigardo pri la temo! Kiel kolegoj supre jam menciis, enhavo disponebla sub permesilo nekongrua kun la postuloj por Vikivortaro ne povas resti tie. Ĝi povas esti forigita de unuopaj paĝoj (eventuale kun kaŝo de la koncernaj revizioj) aŭ la plena artikolo forigita. Kiel estis menciite, forigo estas malpreferata kaj estas uzata nur kiam ne eblas kun prudenta tempouzo kaj klopodo fari la artikolon uzebla (ekz. kiam ĝia plena efektiva enhavo malrespektas kopirajton ekde la unua revizio). Taylor menciis malĉeeston de reguloj pri forigado - eble tiu ĉi evento povus esti bona ekigilo por starigi la regulojn ;-)

Mi persone ne havas propran sperton pri la amplekso de vera neglekto de kopirajto (precipe kopiado de PIV). Sed se la asertoj de Taylor 49 estas pravaj (kaj mi tendencas kredi ke jes, ĉar tio kongruas kun tiuj etaj spertoj kiujn mi tamen havas), ŝiaj komentoj pri la konsekvenca necesa klopodo por korekti ĉiujn tuŝitajn artikolojn, ŝajnas al mi saĝaj. Kiel administranto en aliaj Esperantaj Vikimediaj vikioj mi farus ion principe (se ne litere) saman kaj dankas ŝin pro la farata laboro por forigo de kopirajte nekongrua enhavo!

En situacio kiam oni estas unusola aktiva administranto en koncerna vikio, oni bezonas agi prudente kaj bone komuniki siajn agojn. Evidente okazis malkonsento pri iuj elementoj kaj eblas akuzi tiun aŭ tiun. Por pliprobabligi glatan funkciadon estontece mi denove proponas (kaj rekomendas) iom labori pri reguloj - por ke estu klare kion administranto povas kaj ne povas fari. Precipe regulo pri forigado kaj regulo pri tuja forigado - en la Esperanta Vikipedio, tuja forigado ŝparis amasegon de tempo de administrantoj kaj komunumanoj! --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maniero de administrado de la Esperanta Vikivortaro edit

Laŭ mia ĝisnuna kompreno, la plej granda problemo / nekutimaĵo pri la administrado estis alinomo de forigota artikolo al "PIRATAĴO".

Taylor 49 en sia klarigo menciis 7 kialojn por tio. Mi persone konsideras nur 1 el ili efektive senci (konkrete "attempt to quarantine and isolate the pirated content"). Neniu el la aliaj prezentitaj kialoj vere postulas alinomon de artikolo antaŭ forigo... (mi dirus, ke alinomo antaŭ forigo eĉ rekte malhelpas al plibonigo de la situacio rilate al la prezentitaj kialoj, ĉar tio postulas plian paŝon, do kostas pli multajn tempon, energion kaj atenton - ĉiuj tiuj ĉi rimedoj povus esti pli bone uzitaj por simpla forigado de maltaŭga enhavo aŭ plibonigado / kreado de enhavo taŭga) Kvankam oni povas voli "kvarantenigi kaj izoli piratitan enhavon", oni ankaŭ volas havi informojn pri forigitaj versioj de iu specifa artikolo. Alinomo de artikolo al iu komuna "rubujo" forprenas tiun ĉi eblon. Se oni poste volus kompreni la situacion, tio estus aparte malfacila kaj teda (mi jam faris ion similan en alia vikio kaj mi ne volas tion ripeti eĉ nur 1 plian fojon - kaj tiam temis pri tre malmultaj revizioj de nur 2 kunigitaj artikoloj...).

Mi forte alvokas al Taylor 49 forigadi paĝojn sen alinomo!

Probable tion indas ie flanke (ne kerne, ĉar preskaŭ neniu tion efektive faras, do havi tion kerne de regulo fakte konfuzus kaj alflankigus preskaŭ ĉiujn) en la novaj reguloj pri forigado kaj tuja forigado en la Esperanta Vikivortaro.

Mi persone konsideras, ke rilate tiun ĉi specifan labormanieron Taylor eraris. Nu, okazas, ĉiu iam eraras. Dankon al Vami pro sciigo, danke al kiu ni (espereble) povas veni al nova interkonsento, kaj certe klarigo de volo. Sed eble la komunomo de la Esperanta Vikivortaro opinias malsame ol mi. Se Taylor volas plu uzadi tian ĉi forigado-manieron, mi rekomendas unue konsulti la lokan komunumon en Diskutejo aŭ alia taŭga tutkomunuma loko. Se Taylor pretas ĉesi uzadi ĝin, mi rekomendas ke ŝi eksplice tion skribu ĉi tie por ke ni scii en kia situacio ni estas. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nerestarigebla forigo edit

Plurfoje estis menciata "nerestaŭrebla forigo". Laŭ mia plej bona kompreno, en Vikimediaj vikioj tio tute ne eblas (sen aliro rekte al datumbazo). Eblas forigi artikolon, kaŝi revizion, superkaŝi revizion, eble eĉ iom plian kion mi forgesis. Ĉio de tio estas restarigebla. La maniero uzata de Taylor (alinomi ĉiuj forigotajn artikolojn al unu la sama artikolo kaj forigi) estas ankaŭ restarigebla - sed tre pene. Do, kvankam teĥnike ne temas pri "nerestarigebleco", fakte eblas ĝin tiel konsideri, ĉar eventuala restariganto bezonus fortajn nervojn kaj amason de tempo por tia restarigo. Mian proponon por plua agado pri tiu ĉi ero mi menciis supre, do ĉi tie mi nur klarigas mian komprenon de la situacio. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(#Va-8) Dankon pro via respondo. ( )
Ĉu vi povus doni aldonan komenton al la situacio, kiun mi priskribis en mia respondo al Teylor 49 en la parto #Va-5-1. ( ) Va (🖋️) 20:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor -- 7 edit

Dankon al @KuboF Hromoslav. Mi dumtempe haltigas forigadon kun alinomigo, kaj intencas respekti interkonsenton kiu povus estigxi ene de cxi tiu RFC. Mi petas komprenon pri la gxisnuna foriga metodo per "komuna rubujo", cxar kiel mi skribis supre, piratado estas rekte malpermesita, do oni ne premiu sed hontigu gxin. Mi kelkfoje klopodis starigi regulojn ene de la esperanta vikivortaro, parte sukcese (Helpo:Tradukoj, minimuma interkonsento de minimuma kvanto da uzantoj), parte malsukcese (neniu respondis). Kaj mi demove memorigas la terure insultan kaj abomenan stilon de komunikado de uzanto "Vami" (idioto, nazi, "vi devas viziti lernejon", "vi estas stulta", ...). Mi fakte ne volas esti dauxre ridindigita kaj atakata far uzanto "Vami" kaj petas konsilon kion fari (portempa forbaro?).

Thanks to @KuboF Hromoslav. I suspend the deletion with renaming for the time being, and intend to respect a consensus that could arise in this RFC. I ask for understandning for the deletion method until now with a "common recycle bin", since as I wrote above, piracy is clearly prohibited, thus should not be awarded but blamed. I tried several times to establish rules in the Esperanto wiktionary, partly successfully (Helpo:Tradukoj, minimal consensus of a minimal number of users), partly fruitlessly (nobody answered). And I remind about the horribly rude and loathing style of communication of user "Vami" (idiot, nazi, "you have to attend school", "you are stupid", ...). I honestly do not want to be incessantly mocked and atacked by user "Vami" and ask for suggestion what to do (temporary ban?).

Taylor 49 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor 49 I am glad that the above demonstrates the intention to seek consensus and follow it. I still do not understand the rational reasons for using the "common recycle bin". By deleting a page, you have the opportunity to leave a comment, and it will be available in the deletion log. If you wanted, you could simply rename the "Article 1" pages to "Article 1 (copyvio)" and then delete them. Without mixing revision history. Why would it be worse? Kaganer (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 If you admit that you do not not treat @Vami as a copyright violator, then it would probably be worth apologizing for the harshness with which you treated him and which caused him to misunderstand your motives. In response, @Vami could apologize for their unfair characteristics to you. This will allow you to close the topic of mutual grievances and start improving the project together. Kaganer (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining personal conflict is outside the scope of this RFC. Everything that was mentioned here is only a small part of the list, which includes my complaints about the expressions of user Taylor_49, and about the falsity of some his Taylor_49's accusations, and various actions, which, including, several times led to the loss of information in the process of my work, interfering with communication with other participants (so I can even argue that there was "persecution" from the side of Taylor_49), and now I am in a situation where I consider further participation in the project risky and impossible without the resolution of the conflict.
For each of my statements, I am obliged (and ready) to provide evidence, whether it be links to correspondence in discussions or to the logs of editions and page revisions (or the absence of such protocols, about which I remember exactly what they were, but are now inaccessible to everyone at the level of a usually user).
To my deep regret, I now no longer see an opportunity to establish a consensus without a fair consideration of all conditions by an independent party.
For my part, I admit that in the fourth (final) discussion about Taylor_49's strange attitudes towards copyright protection and the way pages were deleted, I spoke emotionally. I am ready to apologize for the phrase "Speciale al idiotoj mi devas mencii", which I used in the topic "Any patience has limits"
Now I understand that I am an idiot, because instead of showing emotions, I had to immediately open this RFC. My emotional response was reckless (stulta, глупый), but I drew the necessary conclusions.
(#Va-10)
As for the general situation in the project, I can say based on the analysis of the discussions of other participants - my situation is not the only one. And there are examples when other project participants either completely stopped participating in the project, or take little part due to Taylor_49 actions. The possibility of self-administration in the project raises doubts - either only one person (Taylor_49 himself) or two persons participate in the elections, which is a fiction in my opinion. The person of the second administrator did not respond to any of my letters - neither about the opening of this RFC (20 oct.), nor to an appeal about clear signs of a personal conflict (15 oct.). Maybe for the near future it may make sense to completely abolish local administration in the eo.wiktionary project and transfer it under the control of the eo.wikipedia community or leave it under the central control of meta.wikimedia. Until at least 5 persons begin to participate in the project, who will be constantly present.
All this is just my opinion, any influencing decisions are only on the side of a higher administrative level. Va (🖋️) 10:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: Estas tre strange vidi, ke vi plu ne uzas la klavarmapon por esperanto: ( )
via "estigxi" = estiĝi
"gxisnuna" = ĝisnuna
"cxar" = ĉar
"gxin" = ĝin
"dauxre" = daŭre
Bonvolu priskribi la kaŭzon. Sen rimedoj por ĝusta prilaboro de esperanta teksto eĉ via taŭgeco pertopreni la projekton fariĝas duba. Sendube estas, ke vi havas la rajton, sed ĉu en la projekto vi ankaŭ planas uzi surogatan skribmanieron? ( )
Ke neniu rajtas rompi aŭtoran rajton - tio estas evidenta fakto. Tamen denove vi kulpigas en "pirataĵo" :
- senatente al opinio de aliuj spertaj personoj kaj eĉ sen decido de ĉi tiu aparta RfC;
- tion, kio neniel rompas aŭtorajn rajtojn fakte, sed nur pro via opinio. ( )
Denove mi devas mencii, ke "la terure insulta kaj abomena stilo de komunikado de uzanto "Vami"" ne estas temo de ĉi tiu RfC. ( ) Va (🖋️) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mi ĝojas vidi, ke vi atendos por la komunuma decido pri maniero de forigado en la Esperanta Vikivortaro! Mi persone ne certas ĉu tio ĉi estas afero, kiu povas esti devigita al la komunumo de ekster ĝi. Sed komentoj de Kaganer sugestas, ke tia alinomado antaŭ forigo estas ĝenerale konsiderata maltaŭga, do mi povas imagi, ke loka komunumo prefere ne superregi ĝin. Sed mi vere ne scias... ( )
Kiam temas pri traktado de kutima uzanto kiu iĝis vulgara: Nu, en situacio kiam estas (efektive) ununura administranto de la projekto, estas malfacile. Kiam estas pluraj aktivaj administrantoj, la aferon povas pritrakti la administrantoj, kiuj ne estas ofedataj. Eventuale, administranto povas peti opinion de samlingva administranto de aliaj vikimedia projekto. Fine, portempa forbaro povus esti taŭga maniero por limigi damaĝon. Sed administranto en tia situacio devas esti aparte atenta por ne misuzi sian povon (kio en projektoj kun tre malgfranda komunumo estas aparte facila kaj alloga)! Kompreneble, kiam ofenda estas iu vandalo (kiu ne kontribuas al la rojekto), kutima traktado kiel ĉe vandaloj estas taŭga. Kaj en la okazoj kiam iu uzanto, kiu kvankam kontribuas bonan enhavon, estas longtempe ofenda kaj maldeca, estas konsilinde forbari eĉ por longa tempo - tiel oni protektas longtempan sanon de la komunumo. Tiun ĉi rekomendon mi prenis rekte de Jimbo Wales La Granda, de lia prezento dum Vikimanio 2014. ( ) --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The week of silence. edit

(#Va-9) I must mention that this RfC is published on October 20th. A week has passed, some authorities have already expressed their important opinion on the issues raised, however in the common discussion forum of the project eo.wiktionary so far on behalf of administrators has not appeared even any information about the RfC.

I must state that the absence of information cannot be caused by the fact that the administrators of eo.wiktionary did not know about the RfC - all were informed by personal letters; nor can it be caused by the fact that due to some living circumstances the administrators themselves are not active - at least user Taylor_49 actively participates in the discussion in this RfC.

I consider that the remark about the absence of information is important. ( ) Va (🖋️) 06:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three strange observations edit

  1. Why does this RFC enjoy far more attention than 2 previous RFC:s on same subject ("Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the EO Wiktionary" and "Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto")?
  2. How come that a new user with less than 200 global edits began performing advanced template edits just a few days after arrival, and then another few days later started a bot?
  3. Why does Vami pretend not to see "any information about the RfC" although it is linked from the title page since 2021-10-24?

Taylor 49 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The сomment line by Teylor 49: "Estas kreitaj du diskutoj ĉe metavikio pri la problemo: Resolve_massive_copyright_infringement_on_Wiktionary_in_Esperanto kaj I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project. Taylor 49 (diskuto) 16:23, 24 okt. 2021 (UTC+3)" (13:23, 24 okt. 2021 (UTC))
added to discussion thread "Novaĵoj kaj malnovaĵoj pri PIV, Bertilo kaj kopirajto", that was created "23:59, 16 jan. 2021" (log for thread)
Yes, indeed, I admit that I did not notice this line from "13:24, 24 okt. 2021 (UTC)", written as comment on the topic from "23:59, 16 jan. 2021 (UTC)" (log for comment)
The "week" is my inaccurate statement. The time difference between the dates of the comment of Teylor 49 (13:23, 24 okt. 2021 (UTC)) and the date of the creation of this RfC (10:39, 20 okt. 2021 (UTC)) is 4 days 2 hours 54 minutes. Therefore, the exact statement had to be "98 hours 54 minutes of silence". My apologies. ( )
The rest of the questions are beyond the scope of this RfC. ( ) Va (🖋️) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion edit

Unfortunately, I have to state that I have also encountered unacceptable behavior of the Taylor 49 administrator. One day he renamed an article about a Russian proverb [4] without any reason and without discussion. At the same time, he removed the redirection. In all other wikis, the article was called the same as in my original version, so he simply destroyed the opportunity to find it from another wiki. When I drew attention to this vandalism and demanded to restore the former name, Taylor 49 accused me of rudeness, said that the Russian language is a "slave to English", and then said that he did not block me at all, although "in Russia, people with other opinions face not only blocking, but also arrests, torture and murder." All this can be seen in the discussion [5] I believe that a person so unbalanced, prone to arbitrariness and intolerant of other opinions, cannot be an administrator in any wiki project. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for satisfying personal ambitions. RG72 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention. edit

There is a message of User:Kaganer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project#Kaganer paragraph 2 - "I would consider a gross abuse of authority and abuse of admin rights".

And there is a post of Taylor_49 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project#Taylor_--_7 - "Mi dumtempe haltigas forigadon kun alinomigo" which means "I /"temporarily" or "for the current time"/ stop deleting with renaming". Which in turn means that Taylor_49 did not understand what the violation was and that Taylor_49 did not promise to end the violation forever.

From these two messages, it really can be concluded that activities of Taylor_49 in the eo.wiktionary project should be suspended at least until a decision on the RFC is made. This action was performed by the second administrator Pablo Escobar, marked "due to deleting articles". Log.

But there is also a response. Taylor_49, as an administrator, locked out the user Pablo Escobar. Lock marked as "10 years copyright infringement..." Log

I believe that actions of Taylor_49 have signs of revenge. And this is an attempt to unleash another blocking war.
Va (🖋️) 12:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More strange edits by "Vami" -- Pliaj strangaj redaktoj far "Vami" edit

User:Vami recently uploaded a new template "Bonvenon2". Unfortunately it is identical to a template that has been available for long time called "Bonvenon" except a bit light blue background (note: "bonvenon" = "welcome"). What is supposed to be the purpose of the new template? Vami began to welcome new "users" (who do not speak Esperanto, but only accidentally clicked a link to the Esperanto wiktionary) using it. The existing template would have done the job if such was desirable. The first user just rejected the welcome message.

User:Vami ĵus alŝutis novan ŝablonon "Bonvenon2". Bedauxrinde gxi estas identa kun jam delonge disponebla sxablono "Bonvenon" krom iomete blueta fono. Kio estu la utilo de ĉi tiu nova sxablono? Vami komencis bonveni novajn "uzantojn" (kiuj ne parolas Esperanton, sed neintence alklakis ligion al la espernata vikivortaro) per gxi. La ekzistanta sxablono farintus la laboron se tiu estus dezirinda. Nun la unua uzanto forĵetis la bonvenmesagxon.

Vami also created a new template "ru-multvorta" (note: "multvorta" = "consisting of multiple words"). The template is apparently to be used on pages where a word in a language can belong to multiple word classes. Whether such a template is useful is debatable, at least the answer is not an obvious "NO". In any case the template is misnamed, should be "multvortospeca" (note: "multvortospeca" = "belonging to multiple word classes"). We have 340 languages in the central table, and many of them expose the phenomenon of same form belonging to multiple word classes. Vami is aware if this fact since Vami has already edited that table. Given that, either we need 340 separate templates for "belonging to multiple word classes", or Vami wants to give Russian a privileged role at the Esperanto wiktionary. We had this discussion 3 years ago, about the privileged role of German. The purpose of the template "ru-multvorta" is obviously not to improve the dictionary, but (again) to provoke.

Vami ankaux kreis novan sxablonon "ru-multvorta". Sxajne la sxablono estu uzata sur pagxoj kie vorto en unu lingvo povas aparteni al pluraj vortospecoj. Cxu tiaspeca sxablono utilas estas diputeble, almenaux la respondo ne estas evidenta "NE". Cxiuokaze, la sxablono estas misnomita, estu "multvortospeca". Ni havas 340 lingvojn en la centra tabelo, kaj multaj inter ili montas la fenomenon ke unu vorto povas aparteni al pluraj vortospecoj. Vami bone scias pri tio cxar Vami jam redaktis la tabelon. Sekve, aux ni bezonas 340 apartajn sxablonojn por "multvortospeca", aux Vami klopodas doni privilegitan rolon al la rusa cxe la esperanta vikivortaro. Ni havis tiun diskuton antaux 3 jaroj, pri la privilegita rolo de la germana. La utilo de la sxablono "ru-multvorta" ne estas plibonigi la vortaron, sed (denove) provoki.

Previously Vami created the template "ru-temaro". It is identical to a template that has been available for long time called "fak" except that the default language code is "ru". The template is rather primitive and serves adding topic categories, and it is language-independent. In the light of that, there is no point to create a Russian version. We have 340 languages in the central table. Vami is aware if this fact since Vami has already edited that table. Given that, either we need 340 separate templates for adding topic categories, or Vami wants to give Russian a privileged role at the Esperanto wiktionary. We had this discussion 3 years ago, about the privileged role of German. The purpose of the template "ru-temaro" is obviously not to improve the dictionary, but (again) to provoke.

Antauxe Vami kreis sxablonon "ru-temaro". Gxi estas identa kun jam delonge disponebla sxablono "fak" krom la fakto ke la defauxlta lingvokodo estas "ru". La sxablono estas primitiva kaj celas aldoni fakajn kategoriojn, kaj estas senlingva. Pro tio ne utilas krei rusan version. Ni havas 340 lingvojn en la centra tabelo. Vami bone scias pri tio cxar Vami jam redaktis la tabelon. Sekve, aux ni bezonas 340 apartajn sxablonojn por aldoni fakajn kategoriojn, aux Vami klopodas doni privilegitan rolon al la rusa cxe la esperanta vikivortaro. Ni havis tiun diskuton antaux 3 jaroj, pri la privilegita rolo de la germana. La utilo de la sxablono "ru-temaro" ne estas plibonigi la vortaron, sed (denove) provoki.

As a sysop, I consider it as my duty (besides removing pirated stuff) to promote a sustainable development of the wiki. Creating unnecesary separate "solutions" (for single pages, languages, word classes, etc) is less desirable. But when I politely contact Vami about such issues, the answer are personal attacks, insults, loathing, and obstructive and destructive behaviour.

Kiel administranto, mi pritraktas kiel mia devo (apud forigo de piratajxoj) subteni dauxripovan evoluon de la vikio. Kreado de nenecesaj apartaj "solvoj" (por unuopaj pagxoj, lingvoj, vortospecoj, ktp) estas malpli dezirinda. Sed kiam mi gxentile kontaktas uzanton Vami pri tiaj demandoj, la respondo estas personaj atakoj, insultoj, abomeno, kaj obstrukcia kaj detrua konduto.

Vami also put a funny message on the talk page of user "Kwamikagami". The background is an "incident" several month ago when I twice deleted a page about a nonexistent word "ĉjanja" upon proposal by another user User:Robin van der Vliet. Vami declared me to be the big villain destroying other people's work for pleasure, and officially allowed "Kwamikagami" to recreate the page. Also Vami claimed that I would not understand the language Esperanto. Vami who has harassed me for several weeks ("idiot", "nazi", ...) pretends to be the "good guy" helping the poor. This is inherently dishonest and malicious.

Vami ankaux metis drolan mesagxon al diskutpagxo de uzanto "Kwamikagami". La fono estas "incidento" antaux kelkaj monatoj kiam mi dufoje forigis pagxon pri neekzistanta vorto "cxjanja" sekvante proponon de alia uzanto User:Robin van der Vliet. Vami proklamis min esti la granda fiulo detruanta laboron de aliaj por plezuro, kaj oficiale permesis al "Kwamikagami" rekrei la pagxon. Ankaux Vami asertis ke mi ne komprenus la lingvon Esperanto. Vami kiu cxikanis min dum pluraj semajnoj ("idioto", "nazi", ...) sxajnigas esti la "afablulo" protektana la malfavorulojn. Tio estas kerne malhonesta kaj malica.

Previously Vami deliberately trashed the page "Kategorio:Verbo" and other pages for the purpose of insulting me as "nazi". [6] This is blunt vandalism or disruptive editing, and would give a block on any other wiki. I still suspect that the newbie with a bot named "Vami" is a new account for an old LTA permanently blocked somewhere in the wikiworld.

Antauxe Vami intence rompis la pagxon "Kategorio:Verbo" kaj pliajn pagxojn por la celo insulti min kiel "nazi". [7] Tio estas klara vandalismo aux gxena redaktado, kaj rezultigus blokon cxe iu ajn alia vikio. Mi dauxre suspektas ke la novulo kun roboto nomigxanta "Vami" estas nova konto por malnova LTA / LDF porĉiam blokita ie en la vikimondo.

Taylor 49 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion edit

Historically where we have administrators in conflict and where it is difficult for external scrutiny of the edits we have removed all administrator rights for an extended period of time and then let that community reappoint administrators through normal consensus processes. As an interim measure we have GS and Stewards undertake the administrative work and allow communities to progress matters through consensus discussions. I see that this is probably the approach to be taken here. We should remove all blocks, and if edit wars take place rather than civil discussions on that wiki's talk pages then GS should action as for any other edit war. Removing conflicts of interest and power dynamics is important.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, I   Support. Unless a trusted third party can sit down and try and figure out who is in the right and wrong here, this is the best way forward. That being said, I am not even sure that the community is large enough for permanent admins anyway. --Rschen7754 01:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. Another act of blatant and stupid piracy by Pablo: [8] pirated from [9] and German wiktionary. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Taylor_49, You must read the license immediately. You are in direct violation of the copyright and license under which you agreed to work. You are violating the license from the very first statement - "You are free to: Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially ..."
    You must read the terms of use immediately. You agreed to them too. And you break them too. Even in the paragraph "Lawful Behavior - You do not violate copyright or other laws". Public intellectual property can be appropriated as well as private intellectual property. All your actions and evidence are aimed at appropriating public knowledge and at limiting access to public knowledge.
    Your statement "Pablo pirated from German wiktionary" is a direct insult to the entire Wikimedia community and you should apologize immediately for that. Your statement means that everyone who participates in the Wikimedia project is thieves. Va (🖋️) 12:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assumed the possibility of such a solution almost three weeks ago - #Va-10.
However, the problem goes deeper. In my request, I ask the administration to investigate all the actions, because my experience is not sufficient to identify all possible problems. It is necessary to investigate all actions, both on behalf of Taylor 49 and from the account of the Teylorbot - the bot operating under Taylor's control. Va (🖋️) 11:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention.2 edit

I would like to administration to give an urgent rating for the following editions, the meaning of which is the complete removal of the content of the pages (13 nov. 2021):

Please note that despite the fact that account of Taylor 49 was blocked, the removal of content was performed from account of Teylorbot. The bot's activity has been hidden by several thousand minor editions.

And these are not the only significant changes. As correctly noted in the post #Suggestion - "edit wars take place". Simultaneously with the described deletion of articles, a massive change was made to the content of my personal messages on the discussion pages of users. For example, from [10] to [11]. These changes are outside the scope of this RfC. But this means that within the eo.wiktionary project it is impossible to conduct any discussions - everything that you write can be substituted and used against you. This is exactly what I wrote at the very beginning - #Before_(en/auto) Va (🖋️) 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please shut up now. I proposed 5 pages for deletion because they are copied/plagiated/pirated from PIV that is still copyrighted work. If you are unable to understand this - please avoid editing any WMF wikis. About your "welcome messages" - you persistently edit against the (not yet approved) Welcoming policy and against common sense. Your messages are useless, and one user has already bothered to reject your message. Also you created a redudant copy of an already existing template. Finally you after several warnings still persistently use wrong pronouns about me in order to pressure me to fix them myself in "your" text allowing you to cry. You harass me all the time in order to seize the role of the victim for you. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention.3 edit

I would like to administration to give an urgent(?) rating for the following editions, the meaning of which is the complete removal of the content of the templates (16 nov. 2021):

  • Template:ru-alfabeto-minuskla diff
  • Template:ru-alfabeto-majuskla diff
  • Template:ru-alfabeto-miksita diff

Please note that account Taylor 49 was unblocked 16:46, 15 nov. 2021 log

Va (🖋️) 07:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one: "antinazi-alfabeto-majuskla" :-D Taylor 49 (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to get rid of a toxic user edit

The 3 templates listed above are not used, and were created for the sole purpose of joining the template "antinazi-alfabeto-majuskla" created for the sole purpose of harassing me. Yesterday I dared to change the language code "antinazi" introduced by "Vami" some weeks ago back to the standard "mul", and that is what made "Vami" mad.

(lingvokodo "ANTINAZI" estas rekte NETOLEREBLA, krom tio ni jam delonge havas lingvokodon por translingva, ĝi estas "mul")
(language code "ANTINAZI" is bluntly INACCEPTABLE, besides that we have had for a long time a language code for translingual, it is "mul")
Vami claims that I would have "totally destroyed" the category structure (the opposite is true, I have built most of it since year 2018), and that the language code "mul" would break the word formation rules of Esperanto (devil's advocate again), and linked to unrelated word "mulo". Language codes do not follow word formation rules https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/mul and Vami knows that. BTW the language code "antinazi" does not follow word formation rules of Esperanto either (it would mean "do against the nose"). Taylor 49 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion began at 25 sep. 2021 - https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Vami#Esperantaj_kategorioj
Where you accused me of destroying a lot of categories. But at the same time, all you have done now is rename my item for selecting the index line in the template from "antinazi" to "mul" ( )... https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Cablono%3Aeht-kat-alfa&type=revision&diff=1017928&oldid=954191
that is, there was no destruction of the categories, since now, after almost two months, you agreed that for multilingual categories the index only in Latin letters is discriminatory. This is already a great progress. The only thing left to do is to resolve the issue with all the content that you have removed over the years. ( )
Your appeal to the language codes according to ISO-1,2,3 is meaningless, because it is quite possible to assume that within the framework of the "dictionary" project we can create bilingual indexes, or, more precisely, indexes for pairs of specific alphabets that are not in any ISO standards invested. We are talking only about the understandable values of the parameters of one specific template. But this technical issue is outside the scope of this RFC. ( ) Va (🖋️) 10:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"mul" is the correct language code according to ISO and en wikt, whereas "antinazi" is Vami's fanaticism and loathing against me.
More nonsense available: https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Uzanta_diskuto%3AVami&type=revision&diff=1018113&oldid=1017979
Bad edit https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Cablono:X&diff=prev&oldid=277116 ... performed by "Pablo" :-D
And more piracy available: https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=envii&action=edit&oldid=199798 pirated from https://vortaro.net/#envii_kd.
Taylor 49 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Specifically on the topic of copyright violations edit

It's clear that a significant amount of content on this project is copied from a source with unclear copyright status, that being vortaro.net and probably others, and that this content should be deleted.

However, Taylor 49, I have questions about your attempts to remove these copyright violations. I'm struggling to understand why you chose such a complicated method to remove them, involving moving the page to another page (PIRATAĴO for a lot of them), and deleting it, after which you either selectively restored some revisions or created a new page. In both cases, there is a possibility for content to be mis-attributed due to the loss of revisions. If any content is mis-attributed, then it would be a copyright violation itself.

There are hundreds of deleted edits sitting in the view/restore deleted content logs of the PIRATAĴO page, stretching from 2004 to the present, which is next to impossible to find where they were originally from due to the roundabout way in which they were deleted. As a result of the way MediaWiki functions, all of the editing histories for the dozens of articles moved to PIRATAĴO and deleted are sorted in chronological order of the time of the edit. MediaWiki does not distinguish between them in terms of where they were moved from, meaning that they are all overlapping. If there's 10 edits in a row listed there, it could very well be from 10 different articles, and I have no way of knowing what the original page was unless it's clear from the diff's content. Without extreme effort, it is next to impossible to know the individual edit histories of the pages you deleted in this manner. In the future, if you regain administrative rights, please deal with copyright violations how most other projects do: remove the offending content, and revision-delete the revisions that included the copyrighted content. Do not use the PIRATAĴO page again. This prevents good faith attempts at removing copyright violations from becoming copyright violations themselves, and from being practically impossible to review. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont Thank you for the comment. I promise not to use the PIRATAĴO-method again if I regain administrative rights. The background is, as said, that an overwhelming part of the seemingly valuable content on eo wikt is copied either from PIV (copyright violation) or from some other wiktionary without attribution (ie, mis-attributed to Pablo, thus strictly judged a copyright violation too). This makes it essentially impossible to do right now. The method that I think would be best is to move a page to an unsued pagename, for example "vizaĝo" to "PIRATAĴO-vizaĝo" and then delete it, or delete selected versions only (this will frequently be a majority of such), and move back the clean ones. One of reasons why I used the PIRATAĴO-method is to avoid that almost all lemma pages in Esperanto, the most holy part of the Esperanto wiktionary, are full of deleted versions, visible for all future sysops for all eternity, with a risk for accidental undeletion of those versions by deleting and undeleting the page for whatever reason (new sysop testing the features, any sysop testing red links, ...). Further I am angry about the injustice in the system making piracy quick, easy and rewarding, and removal of such difficult. It takes just a few seconds to insert pirated stuff into a wiki. Open other dictionary, select all CTL-A, copy CTL-C, go to eo wikt, paste CTL-V, click submit, done, a bold green size difference with 4 or 5 digits will award your "work". This has been done on several 1000 pages by Pablo. Last but not least, a sysop filling a wiki by pirated content during 10 years is a severe systemic failure. The stewards should have acted much earlier, and we could have avoided the "shame for the eternity" in the form of the page PIRATAĴO. I consider proposing closure and deletion of eo wikt if a sufficient deletion of pirated content cannot continue (by my or someone else, using a method we can agree upon) and the harassment by "Vami" does not stop.
So far I have been accused by "Vami" of:
  • idiocy
  • nazism
  • terrorism
  • stupidity ("you must go to school", "you are stupid")
  • vandalism (ca 17'000'000'000 times, again and again, usually with bold text)
  • total destruction (ca 17'000'000'000 times, again and again, usually with bold text)
  • not understanding the language
  • inability to code
  • piracy, plagiarism, theft
I tried to keep a minimal level of civility towards "Vami" despite being offended all the time.
Vami is getting increasingly desperate.
As a recent splendid idea, "Vami" created several discussion pages about proposed deletions due to copyright infringement, arguing that "the number of words is different". "Vami" knows very well that the argument is invalid, but the purpose is harassing me and wasting my time (as opposed to just a few seconds it took Pablo to insert the piracy some years ago) and nothing else. The page will never get deleted because nobody except me and "Vami" is there, thus the argument with "the number of words" is not even needed, and there will never be a consensus for deletion. According to "Vami", given an entry in a copyrighted dictionary with say 200 words, one could either
  • copy only 190 of those 200 words
or
  • copy all 200 words and attach 10 more random words
and in both cases obtain "different articles" and thus avoid committing piracy. And one could do the same trick on several 1000 entries and still feel legal and safe.
Another idea is to argue that the questionable content would be already in PV from year 1930 with presumably expired copyright. I rechecked and the content is not there. The claim is untrue and invalid. The purpose of it was to harass me and waste my time.
Fanatically defending pirated content inserted by someone else is an unusual behavioral pattern. I am fed up with discussing with a devil's advocate. The activity of user "Vami" is not part of a colaborative effort to create free valuable content, but harassment, fanaticism and attrition warfare.
Also, much content (well probably over 90% of the translations blocks) is copied from German wiktionary. They relate to some German words, and do not match the Esperanto words they have been put under. A quick-and-dirty way to fill a wiki, and inherently useless. How to remove them without being accused for vandalism and hated more than d:Q352?
Further more than 50% of "help" pages were copied from German wiktionary, by Pablo, typically translating ca 5 words at the beginning, of several 100:s or more than 1000 words present. I have deleted them all, and written new help pages in Esperanto, sorry to everybody who considers this as vandalism. example It took many hours to create that page, as opposed to several seconds it takes to pirate the same quantity of text from German wiktionary. The insults of "Vami" are apparently the justified punishment for my work.
A notable volume of content is also copied from some French??Spanish dictionary that I do not know and do not use, but the quantity of unformatted text added in a single edit (per page) is a strong sign of the fact that it was "created" by copy&paste, thus constitutes a copyright infringement. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: IMHO, based on everything that I saw since joining the project, this is precisely the main motive, "the possibility for content to be mis-attributed due to the loss of revisions".
This is proved by the revision history of some articles, I have already given examples - betulo, ezoko who were restored from my last redaction with an offensive comment about theft.
And there is only one article in which my changes in history are restored - hordeo, but only after a long discussion and after an offensive post about "last indulgence" ...
Taylor's announced promise - "I promise not to use the PIRATAĴO-method again if I regain administrative rights" - appeared here
  • after a month of discussions in this RFC
  • after the ban war
  • after canceling local administration in the project in general and transferring control here, to Meta
That is, such a promise is worth nothing at all.
But no longer having administrative rights, Taylor continues to delete information. Unfortunately. Instead of removing content with unclear copyright status, all content is removed - Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2021-11#EoWiktionary requests and Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Please rate and restore.
Unfortunately, the main issue has not yet been resolved, regarding the security of the content of the project and solutions suitable for implementation regarding unclear copyright status, I see no reason to discuss insults, harassment and false accusations from Taylor against me.
Technical question: is it possible for further investigation of the copyright issue to restore pages Ŝekspiro and Antverpeno, and it is on these two examples to determine which problems are generally possible and the necessary procedure. Thanks, Va (🖋️) 17:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your technical question, as far as I know it is not, at least not with significant manual effort. The revisions that were previously on that page are scattered in the logs of PIRATAĴO. The only conceivable way, as I understand it, would be to identify each revision that corresponded to those pages, selectively restore them at PIRATAĴO, and move them back. Then repeat for other pages. I'm not sure if there's an easier way, as this is a method of deleting content that I have not come across before. Vermont (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this answer as: theoretically possible, but practically impossible, due to the amount of work that needs to be done manually and automate recovery is not possible, because intellectual (human) control and analysis is required.
That is, my definition of "unrecoverable deletion"/невосстановимое удаление ( )/nerestaŭrebla forigo ( ) is correct...
Outside of this RFC - does it make sense to notify technical service about this security issue? If a situation arises not with 150, but with a large number of pages. The action is easy to automate, and upon obtaining some rights, even with a set timeout for robots of 5 seconds between operations, this makes it possible to destroy more than 4000 pages in 12 hours. Va (🖋️) 19:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case "Ŝekspiro" was discussed above 4 weeks ago with the result "YES the text was copied from PIV". And there are still 100's of pirated pages left. Why don't you look into the pages easily available? facio facio It takes just a few seconds to insert pirated stuff into a wiki. Open other dictionary, select all CTL-A, copy CTL-C, go to eo wikt, paste CTL-V, click submit, done, a bold green size difference with 4 or 5 digits will award your "work". This has been done on several 1000 pages by Pablo. How much additional time does "Vami" want to invest into the page "Ŝekspiro" ?
BTW, why has no GS and no steward touched Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto so far? The "method of deleting content that I have not come across before" is mentioned there too. But nobody noticed ...
Please supply at least 2 cases where I insulted "Vami". Otherwise above complaints are pure lies.
Taylor 49 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original page ID of a page is still stored in the database after it is deleted, so it would be possible in theory disentangle the deleted history of eo:wikt:PIRATAĴO without manually reviewing each deleted edit, although I question whether it's a good idea to restore allegedly pirated material. * Pppery * it has begun 21:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I tried to analyze Shakespeare's case here.
If (part of) page eo:wikt:Ŝekspiro is a piracy from the PIV, and rightly completely removed, then why do pages en:wikt:Shakespeare and fr:wikt:Shakespeare still exist?
If articles en:wikt:Shakespeare and fr:wikt:Shakespeare do not violate anything, then the coincidence with the definition with the article in the PIV specifically for the word Shakespeare and similar goes beyond the legally protected parts of the PIV work.
Moreover, the user Taylor 49 is not an official representative of the international organization SAT, with legal registration in France, which is the publisher of the PIV dictionary. And from the SAT organization itself, there have been no formal complaints to Wikimedia about infringement of any rights.
It follows from this that there is only a variant of patent trolling from a private person, moreover, an anonymous person who cannot be held liable in court like any of the parties.
..."although I question whether it's a good idea to"... to delete en:wikt:Shakespeare and fr:wikt:Shakespeare too ..."allegedly pirated material".
For reference, under the general name "Complete Dictionary" (complete illustrated dictionary, new complete illustrated dictionary, etc.) PV, PIV, PIVS, NPIV are meant:
"Plena Vortaro Esperanto-Esperanta kaj Esperanto-Franca", aŭt. Boirac, Émile, eld. Hachette, Parizo kaj Darantière, Diĵono, 1909-1911 (3 v.)
"Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Parizo, 1930 (517 p.)
"Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Parizo, 1934 (512 p.)
"Plena Vortaro De Esperanto" (Kvina Eldono), eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 1956
"Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Parizo, 1960 (511+63 p.)
"Plena vortaro de esperanto kun suplemento", eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 1964 (511 + 63 p.)
"Plena vortaro de esperanto kun suplemento", eld. Esperanto League for North Amer, 1980, ISBN-10:0685716058/ISBN-13:978-0685716052
"Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto", eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 1970, Parizo (1299 p.) Google books
"Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto" (Dua eldono), eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 1977 (1303 p.) Google books
"Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto", eld. French & European Pubns, 1981 (1303 p.), ISBN-10:082884674X/ISBN-13:978-0828846745, Google books
"Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto kun Suplemento", Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 1987, Parizo (1350 p.), ISBN-10:2950243215/ISBN-13:978-2950243218, Google books
"La Nova Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto"/PIV2/PIV2002, eld. Sennacieca asocio tutmonda, 2002 (1265 p.), ISBN-10:2950243258/ISBN-13:978-2950243256, Google books
"Plena ilustrita vortaro de esperanto 2005"/PIV2005, Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 2005 (1265 p.), ISBN-10:2950243282/ISBN-13:978-2950243287, Google books
"Plena ilustrita vortaro de Esperanto 2020", Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, 2020, Parizo (1267 p.), ISBN-10:2952892237/ISBN-13:978-2952892230, Google books
 Va (🖋️) 05:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vami, it does not matter if Taylor is an official representative of the publishing entity. We cannot host content on Wikimedia projects that is not under the listed license. If content is copyrighted and the license is unclear or not compatible, we cannot use it. I will also request that you keep your comments in this RfC and elsewhere focused on the topic of the dispute, not the character of Taylor. Referring to Taylor as a patent troll is not civil, especially when their actions here are certainly in good faith. Vermont (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: "We cannot host content on Wikimedia projects that is not under the listed license" - is an obvious statement that no one disputes. Moreover, i refer everywhere to both the license and the terms of use. ( )
In relation to "content is copyrighted and the license is unclear or not compatible" - this is why a _request_ is created for a _comment_, to find out what is not compatible and clear the question itself. ( )
Specifically, according to the PIV dictionary, many questions have already been clarified:
  • without clear (precise, unambiguous ) definitions, there was a substitution of concepts, namely, that "a part of the article about a word on a page", for example, "definition", was replaced with the concept of "page", and this was evidence for the removal of all information that had nothing to do with the PIV dictionary; that the concept of "quotation" (citation) or "text similar to the content" of the PIV dictionary was replaced by the concept of "copy", which was also evidence for the removal of all information; ( )
  • it was found that the method of removal, which has been used for two years from a technical point of view, is feasible, but unacceptable for use; ( )
  • it was found that the deletion of information for two years was carried out without clarifying licensing relations, and then it was deleted without final decisions on the RfC and on the current RfC; ( )
  • it has been found that articles in the PIV dictionary may contain "definition" and "quotations from other sources", and then the use of the same citations in our projects does not in any way relate to legal relations with the PIV dictionary; moreover, all citations by Zamenhof have been in the public domain since 1905 (the Declaration of Boulogne-sur-Mer fulfills the same function as the GPL published in 1988); any doubts can only refer to "definitions" from the PIV dictionary; ( )
  • that for any text that may be in doubt, the following checks should be performed: if the definition matches (only the definition and only if it matches) with the definition from the PIV, then you should check whether this definition is taken in the PIV from other dictionaries, for example from PV, then check if such a definition does not coincide with a direct translation from another source, for example, with definitions in other language versions of the Wiktionary (the license), then you should make sure that this is not an obvious description for a materially existing object (sorry my en. - object, that "is" or "was" existing), and not a definition of an abstract concept (example, "Berlin is a city in Germany, the capital, big", with any word's order, such a definition cannot be protected by any copyright, you can check with a lawyer); ( )
  • The question of the possibility of citing the PIV dictionary itself is still open. ( )
I don’t care about Taylor’s character - i’m worried about his technical violations and violations of the license and terms of use, which he signed when registering an account. They are signed by me - that's why I'm raising these questions, and signed by Taylor...
PS: "Referring to Taylor as a patent troll is not civil". Please read this message (#Taylor 49-3) first, then read articles 18, 19 [here]. Maybe this whole RfC wasn’t civil either? Or Washington Post is not civil? And what about the article 7 of UDHR? Va (🖋️) 09:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use "he" "his" etc about me. You know why. More false accusations and rude insults published today. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Я уже несколько раз объяснял тебе, что я использую средства автоматического перевода и не всегда могу проконтролировать использованные местоимения в результирующем тексте. Кроме того, ты постоянно указываешь что я не должен использовать, но ты ни разу не указал какие местоимения тебя устраивают. ( ) == Mi jam kelkajn fojojn klarigis al vi, ke mi uzas rimedojn de aŭtomata traduko kaj ne ĉiam kapablas kontroli uzon de pronomoj en rezultaj tekstoj. Krom tio, vi konstante mencias kion mi ne devas uzi, sed vi neniam menciis kiuj pronomoj kontentigus vin. ( )
In my reply to Vermon all must read: "his technical violations" as "technical violations of this user/person"; "which he signed" as "which this user/person signed". Va (🖋️) 04:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague @Taylor 49! Your personal "gender identity" issue is very irrelevant for this topic (and for this space at all). English is not a native language for many participants (and for me too). Moreover, in my native language, there are no established means at all to somehow highlight your case (if I understand it correctly at all). When we mention "Taylor 49" here, across Meta-wiki, it refers to your inanimate wiki account, and not to you personally, as a living person. If this is such a painful question for you that you cannot focus on the topic of discussion because of it, I advise you to include the desired appeal in your signature, like this: "Taylor 49 mention me as "they"", or something like that.
And please stop terrorizing other participants with this issue. It is perceived as "gender-identical harassment". Kaganer (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As @Al Silonov wrote above, in the dictionaries case, authorship and copyright issues are not quite like that in ordinary texts. This is more like databases.
And if someone claims the copyright for a dictionary, this does not mean at all that he automatically becomes the owner of every phrase in this dictionary. Not at all.
Therefore, the zeal with which "Taylor 49" began to fight against textual coincidences looks insufficiently justified, and the method that he invented is categorically unacceptable. Kaganer (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: (and @Pppery:) If it is practically impossible to restore pages Ŝekspiro and Antverpeno for analysis (as you wrote in the message), then for further investigation of the copyright problem, I propose to consider at least two cases from the entire list of information destruction in recent times:
article in page eo:wikt:manio, protocol for the removal of all content, 23:54, 25 nov. 2021 - https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=manio&diff=next&oldid=1019501
article in page eo:wikt:vizaĝo, protocol for the removal of all content, 01:25, 26 nov. 2021 - https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&type=revision&diff=1019513&oldid=1018665
Moreover, the page eo:wikt:vizaĝo was deleted for the third time, the previous deletions:
20:14, 20 nov. 2021 - https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&diff=prev&oldid=1018494
05:09, 13 nov. 2021 - https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&diff=prev&oldid=1017870
Please note that all information has been deleted; that there is an open discussion on article (eo:wikt:Diskuto:vizaĝo), but at the same time deletions occur without discussion and any justification; that to delete this article, requests to the stewards were performed twice - here and here. The third deletion is definitely a war of edits (like the ban war started earlier by the eo:wikt:Uzanto:Taylor_49). And I don't want to get involved in the edit war. I just want to discuss the validity of every word in these two deleted articles with a third party authoritative expert for a full clarification of all possible questions.
I am ready to discuss every word used in these articles. I am expecting to receive the exact order of actions for the necessary changes that need to be made (or which parts of the articles need to be looked for and changed) in order to avoid further sudden deletions of information. Va (🖋️) 07:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vami: Re "I don't want to get involved in the edit war": you instructed User:Kaganer to continue your absurd war [12] [13]. @User:Kaganer, please read the hateful posts by Vami related to that template [14] [15] before engaging in the war being biased against me (you are Russian, Vami is Russian, whereas I am not ...). And thank you for wrongly using "he" and "his" too [16]. Taylor 49 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware, that if I do something on the wiki, this is not because someone instructed me. I currently see three open topics in talkpage, and none of your answers. As far as I know, creating hidden tracking categories is perfectly legal and permissible. If you personally do not need this, then you have no right to prohibit other users from doing so. And I (in this case) do not need to know what kind of module it is in order to understand which edits are correct and which are not. If you find it difficult to discuss your actions with other participants, I recommend engaging an uninvolved participant as a facilitator/mediator. Kaganer (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: About using "he" and "his" etc. I didn’t want to sound impolite, but I am (ike perhaps most of the other users) absolutely not interested in your gender identity. I am not interested in constantly remembering this, and I would not want to learn anything about you personally beyond what is visible in the revision history. If this is such a painful topic for you, then I again advise you to include the preferred form of mentioning in your signature so that it is always in plain sight. By constantly returning to this topic, you make the discussion uncomfortable for others, as you try to make them feel guilty. Kaganer (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kaganer Vami began the "discussion" about that template by:
> Mi vidas strangecon en viaj agoj I can see strangeness in you acts
> Vi malhelpas kaj ŝtelas tempon de aliaj You obstruct and steal time of others
> la plej terura problemo estas and the worst problem is
> malplena stulta ŝablono empty stupid template
Sorry but I refuse to invest even more time in harassment and trolling. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. You have repeatedly been harsh against me, and you deny everything not matching you expectations, most notably the piracy in Esperanto wiktionary, and Vami's rudeness (see below). Taylor 49 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two months of harassment, horrible incivility, trolling and false accusations edit

NOW 3+1/2 MONTHS

(to be gradually completed)

date diff / link content / action of Vami
2021-09-23 (begin of harassment) [17] crass incivility: "Mi vidas strangecon en viaj agoj" -> "I can see strangeness in your edits", "Vi malhelpas kaj ŝtelas tempon de aliaj" -> "You obstruct and steal other people's time", "la plej terura problemo estas", "malplena stulta ŝablono" -> "empty stupid template"
2021-09-23 diff link rude and false accusations of stupidity: "vi devas viziti lernejon" "you have to attend a school"
2021-09-23 [18] crass incivility: "I not not have time to check every day what you have broken"
2021-09-24 diff link crass incivility, unsigned post: "Vi denove ŝtelis mian tempon kaj detruis mian laboron. Bonvolu restaŭri ĉiujn viajn detruaĵojn!" "Vi postulas ke mi pardonpetu de vi pro vi estas stulta?" obfuscated way to say "you are stupid"
2021-09-28 [19] [20] [21] crass incivility: introduced language code "antinazi" in one template and several categories
2021-09-28 [22] crass incivility: created "Template:...nazi..." (deleted by a steward since then)
2021-10-09 diff link crass incivility and Vami's first post in the Beer Parlour: "Iu ajn tolero havas limon. Speciale al idiotoj" -> "Any tolerance has a limit. Particularly for idiots"
2021-10-18 [23] rude and false accusations of piracy: "ke "piratkopiado el aliaj vekivortaroj" estas malpermesita, do la ŝablono {livs} mem estas ŝtelita kaj ĝin devas tuj forigi" -> "the template {livs} itself is pirated and must be deleted immediately" (truth: no it is not pirated)
2021-10-20 [24] rude answer to polite request: "Iuj ajn demando pri via memidentigo ne koncernas la demandon, kiun mi anoncis per RfC. Kaj tute ne interesas min persone."
2021-10-20 (creation of this RFC) [25] false accusation: "in addition user Taylor has already participated in "ban wars" for 18-19 years" and persistent usage of "he" ("La pozicio de Taylor kaj liaj pruvoj) despite previous polite request (see above)
2021-11-20 [26] crass incivility and false accusations: "Por eviti tiun honton mi devas redakti ĉi paĝon" -> "in order to avoid that shame I have to edit that page", "eraran kaj falsan informon, do tio estas jam falsado pri la lingvo Esperanto mem" -> "wrong and incorrect information, this is already counterfeiting the language Esperanto itself"
2021-11-21 [27] absurd accusations of malicious faith by automated bot-powered mass destruction (only 8'000 pages per day)
2021-11-21 [28] insults: "kiam vi ĉesos malhelpi kaj noci?" -> "when will you stop obstructing and causing damage?"
2021-11-22 [29] false accusation of "patent trolling" (with link) and treats with legal action : "follows from this that there is only a variant of [[en:w:Patent_troll!patent trolling]] from a private person, moreover, an anonymous person who cannot be held liable in court like any of the parties"
2021-11-22 [30] crass incivility and various false accusations: "User:Taylor_49 reported that he banned user Pablo" "Thus, User:Taylor_49 initiated a ban war. And this is not the first time - User:Taylor_49 has been the initiator of previous ban wars"
2021-11-24 [31] crass incivility and false accusation of vandalism and of not understanding basic technical principles of wikis
2021-11-24 [32] absurd trolling with "UDHR" and persistent usage of "he" despite previous polite request (see above)
2021-11-25 [33] false accusation of vandalism and of not understanding basic technical principles of wikis
2021-12-04 [34] [35] trolling and mocking: "finfine decidis legi la permesilojn" -> "you finally decided to read the license" (written by Vami having denied the copyright infringements all the time), "antaŭ ion ĵeti en fenestron nepre kontrolu, ke sube neniu ĉeestas, ĉar vi povas rompi jam kriman kodon" -> "before throwing anything out through the window make sure that nobody is there below, because you could commit a crime"
2021-12-12 [36] accusation of "vandalism" and "crippeling": "Sed ne faru tion sen via vandalismo" -> "But do not do it without your vandalism. (incomprehensible broken sentence, accusing me of "vandalism" two or three times in the message is the primary objective of posting it)
2021-12-12 [37] accusation of "violation of the TOS", trolling about me buying the WMF, legal threat: "montras, ke Uzanto:Taylor_49 intence detruas laboron de aliaj kontribuantoj de la projekto. Ĉu Uzanto:Taylor_49 estas posedanto de la Vikivortaro? Se, tio estas fakto, do Uzanto:Taylor_49 devas pruvi, ke la projekto estas aĉetita. Mi volas vidi oficialajn dokumentojn pri la aĉeto por perkortume protesti la proprigon de komuna posedaĵo kaj rompon de ekzistanta permesilo" -> "shows that User:Taylor_49 deliberately destroys the work of other contributors of the project. Is User:Taylor_49 the owner of Wiktionary? If this is true then User:Taylor_49 must supply evidence that the project is bought. I want to see official documents about the acquisition in order to be able to protest in front of a tribunal against privatization of public assets and violation of the existing licence"
2021-12-17 [38] false accusations and trolling: "vi penis detrui tutan projekton" -> "you tried to destroy the complete project" and "vi penis eĉ ŝanĝi la permesilojn" -> "you even tried to change the licenses"
2021-12-19 [39] [40] false accusations, trolling, legal threats: "I personally do not want to be an accomplice in your crimes" now we know why Vami harasses me
2021-12-20 [41] false accusation of theft: "vi simple ŝtelis kontribuojn de alia kontribuanto" -> "you simply stole contributions of another user"
2021-12-20 [42] [43] [44] [45] same false accusation of destruction posted 4 times ie spamming
2021-12-22 [46] false accusations of destruction: "That is, you just destroyed the page. You can read the definition for your actions, for example, here - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism"
2021-12-22 [47] false accusations of destruction: "Kvara detruo de plena enteno okazis ... Protokolo ... Utila informo: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism ... Tiuj agoj sendube estas vandalismo." -> "Fourth destruction of complete content happened ... Log ... Useful information: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism ... Those acts are undoubtedly vandalism."
2021-12-25 diff rude denial of obvious piracy: "You lie and don't even blush." .. "take advantage of the fact that the eowikt project is small, and the administrators are very busy, so your activity remains unpunished"
2021-12-26 diff massive personal attacks: "Averto! Aŭtomata detruanto denove komencis ĉasadi." -> "Warning! The automatic destroyer began to hunt again." and "ĉar vi estas komunisto, kiel rinocero" -> "since you are a communist, like a rhinoceros" and "Ĉjanja kontribuantaro, bonvolu kontroli ĉiun laboron, kiun vi faris, - ĝi povas esti ŝanĝita neatendite, arbitre kaj sen via permeso." (note that the word "Ĉjanja" is not valid in Esperanto) -> "Ultimate contributors, plese check all your work that you have done, - it can be changed unexpectedly, arbitrarily and without your authorization." and "Vi detruas - mi ĝustigas. Vi detruas - mi restaŭras." -> "You destroy - I repair. You destroy - I recover."
2021-12-29 diff polling fraud, personal attacks, trolling, mocking, rude false accusations about "destruction" and more, obstruction of attempt to discuss and achieve consensus: (2x) "estas preskaŭ nula" -> "is almost zeroth" (maybe meant "is almost inexistent") absurd accusations against me about size of the project, "Vi kelkajn fojojn penis detrui mian laboron kaj uzi la ŝablonon fak kiel rimedo por tiu celo" -> "You repeatedly tried to destroy my work and use the template "fak" as a tool to achieve that objective", "mi povas fari tion memstare, rapide kaj kun plena kontrolo" -> "I can do it myslef in a controlled manner" (well-obfuscated accusation), "Redundaj estas same viaj provoj malhelpi al aliaj. Ĉefe, viaj provoj detrui la projekton mem aŭ fortaj detruaj ŝanĝoj en esperanta fako, kiu estas ĉefa parto ĉi tie. Via provo "ludi en demokration" per voĉdonado dum partopreno nur du-tri personoj estas moko pri demokratio." -> "Equally redundant are your attemps to obstruct others. Particularly your attempts to destroy the project itself or massive destructive changes in the Esperanto part, that is the core part here. Your attempt to "play democracy" by voting with a participation of two-three persons is mocking the democracy." the post ends with 3 (three) NO votes added by a single user
2021-12-31 page talk re-creation of a page (deleted 2 times before) with 2 counterfeit sources and false accusations: "Protokoloj de arbitra detruo" -> "Logs of arbitrary destruction"
2022-01-01 diff diff absurd accusations: "you have invented a way to legally destroy a project", "про снос 150++ статей, тянется больше двух месяцев, за которые снесены и сносятся статьи дальше ... найди что снесено за ночь" -(untrusted translation by Google)-> "about the demolition of 150 ++ articles, it lasts more than two months, during which the articles were demolished and demolished further ... find what was demolished overnight"
2022-01-01 diff diff Vami discovered the possibility to link harassing posts against me from the main page via the template "novaĵlisto" : "falsigo de publika informo" -> "counterfeiting public information"
2022-01-06 talk personal attacks: "Nocajn proponojn devas eviti ... La propono forigi la ŝablonon estas nur kaŝita formo de vandalismo." -> "Harmful proposals must be avoided ... The proposal to delete the template is only a clandestine form of vandalism."
2022-01-08 diff personal attacks: "la ripetadon mi uzas nur kiel kutima instrua metodo" -> "I use the reiteration only as a common teaching method" unfortunately, I had not ordered any lessons from Vami, particularly not in the form of daily accusations of vandalism and worse
2022-01-10 diff hist Vami adds a new absurd harsh (and usually false) accusation against me to the Beer Parlour every day: "sed ĝi povas malaperi pro silentaj agoj de Taylor 49 iam ajn" -> "but it can disappear at any time due to silent actions of Taylor 49" and tries aggresively to link those posts as "news" from the main page ie public slander
2022-01-12 diff trolling and false accusations: "Same kiel antaŭe vi komencis du forbaraj militoj." (possible error in the use of accusative, should be "du forbarajn militojn") -> "Same as you previously started two ban wars."
2022-01-12 diff trolling and false accusations: "Mi agas tute konforme al tiu dokumentoj. Legu ilin eĉ solan fojon - tio estas utile." (about TOU and CC-BY) -> "I act perfecty according to those documents. Read them at least one single time - this is useful."

Taylor 49 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC) updated Taylor 49 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Taylor 49: That is horrible. I think such cases of systematic harassment and abuse should be reported straight to the Trust and Safety. I didn’t find any analogues of WP:CIVILITY, WP:HARASS & WP:NPA in the Esperanto Wiktionary (wikt:eo:Kategorio:Projekta paĝaro). It would be good to write a Wiktionary policy (draft proposal) to forbid any form of harassment, personal attacks, insults, intentional misgendering, and threats. Users who have no respect for the gender identity of fellow editors should be blocked. According to the Universal Code of Conduct, “We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others. <…> Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible. Examples include: People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns.” The WMF already announced that the Universal Code of Conduct will apply to all wiki-projects, by the way. – Mrakia 19:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above. Vami's conduct has been unacceptable. Vermont (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid answering twice - see my answer about the substitution of the RFC topic from a technical issue to personal dislike, which was a direct warning at the very beginning of the RFC Va (🖋️) 10:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

project eo.wikt has no other administrators than Meta administrators edit

@Vermont, Billinghurst, Martin Urbanec, Tks4Fish, and Kaganer: you are administrators (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and project eo.wikt has no other administrators than Meta administrators. And You are already partially familiar with the essence of the question.

Here is some example of the definition of a concept - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism

And these are a few examples that (imho) fully fulfill the conditions of this definition

And in this example, there is no complete deletion, but the citation section is completely deleted.

And in this example, there is no complete deletion, but the template {{Fontoj}} is deleted, this template put tag <references/>

Such deletions take place regularly. I believe that a block for references should be present even if there are no such quotes on the page at the moment - quotes may appear in the process of further development of articles.

This is even if you do not remember the previous deletions (#Several examples obtained by analyzing the protocols available at the user level) recorded from 11:19, 23 nov. 2019 at 16:14, 16 okt. 2021

Are my assumptions really an example of "false accusations" as stated in paragraph #Two months of harassment, horrible incivility, trolling and false accusations?

While we are discussing here whether the quotes are copies, whether the sections of the articles are pages, whether it is possible to use the phrase "Shakespeare is an English poet and playwright" if someone thinks that the translation of such a definition is patented by someone ... they (as pronoun singular) continue to delete information.

I urgently ask you all to take time and objectively understand all the existing problems raised by this RfC. Thank you in advance, Va (🖋️) 18:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vami Several (actually most) of those pages were exactly or mostly copied from PIV. It is fine to write "Shakespeare is an English poet and playwright" but IMHO NOT to copy (many) complete articles from PIV. I will be happy to hear from some authority (stewards, WMF) where exactly the border between "coincidence" and piracy is located, and how to address huge-scale copyright infringements committed by sysops correctly. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing an unused "References" section AKA {Fontoj} is certainly NOT vandalism, at least as long as there is no hard policy requiring the opposite. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant bias and the link between "Vami" and "Kaganer" edit

User:Kaganer is one of the most active contributors to this valuable discussion. When looking more closely, "Kaganer" is very harsh against me in every single comment (example: [48]), and same "Kaganer" has so far not dropped a single word related to the massive copyright violations committed by Pablo, nor Vami's persistent incivility since 2021-09-23. Kaganer also joined an edit war at eo wikt (where Kaganer never had edited before) fully supporting Vami. Vami, Kaganer, together with 2 other Russians gave 4 votes with very similar arguments (deny copyright infringements by means of personal attacks) within less than 2 days, whereas only one independent user commented within 5 days. There are further links between them, including usage of deliberate misgendering (example: [49]) as a harassment weapon. Can this all have happened without some sort of "organization", ie the accounts "Vami" and "Kaganer" controlled by same person, or 2 close friends at least? Taylor 49 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offended by me? This is in vain. This is exactly what I should be offended by since you didn’t answer my original question. With your amazing activity on this page, such ignoring of the main question looks like a deliberate diversion of the discussion from the main topic.
I will repeat my question: About cycling renaming/deletion. ... I don’t understand for what purpose @Taylor 49 chose such an algorithm, and on what basis was decided that they have the right to do so? I am asking @Taylor 49 to explain this. If this method is described in the rules of the project, then please provide a link to this and the author of this. Kaganer (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About "Blatant bias" and "link between". I had not met with Vami prior to this discussion. The users @Al Silonov and @Amikeco are known to me for their long-term wiki activity. It would be rather difficult to be unfamiliar with them for so many years. However, I did not discuss this request with any of them in advance and did not coordinate on the position in any way. I certainly rely on their experience, and I was glad that our positions, if not completely coincided, did not diverge much. Kaganer (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know Kaganer (a real person with such surname, no need to use quotation marks), a very active (most?) member of Wikipedian movement in my country. I also have a history of corresponding with Va, who is interested in the language (Ossetic) for which I am an expert, easiest to contact. I don't think those two facts make my point less feasible. BTW, I was surprised to meet the two in this discussion, but that only tells me something weird is going on. "Let us restart something that other people did" is not a solution that I would like to see present in Wikimedia projects, based normally on mutual respect and cooperation. Amikeco (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately did not speak in any way on topics that I consider insignificant for this discussion. I'm sorry if this sounds like a bias, but it reflects the difference between us. I consider not very significant (in the context of this discussion) the issues of the so-called. "copyright violations" and also mutual insults and grievances of two or three participants against each other. If the someone is, in principle, sane, this person should be able to step over such a conflict for the sake of a common cause (and for the sake of discussing significant issues). If not, communication with this person (and about this person) is useless and only takes everyone's time and energy.
What I thought was important, I commented. For the rest, I am either incompetent or I don’t think that I should somehow participate. My "Meta-wiki admin" flag does not give me any additional authority to resolve this conflict. Who said what to whom and when - finding out this, I consider the most useless of all useless activities in the world. I cannot prevent this. But I will not participate of my own free will. Kaganer (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: I am still reviewing this RFC, but what you have posted here is highly inappropriate and is casting aspersions. If you believe sockpuppetry is going on, there are places to make this accusation, with proper proof. But do not throw out accusations without proof. And just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are all working together. Please also review Meta:Urbanity. --Rschen7754 19:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new incident edit

@Vermont, Billinghurst, Martin Urbanec, Tks4Fish, and Kaganer: you are administrators (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and project eo.wikt has no other administrators than Meta administrators. And You are already partially familiar with the essence of the question.

BTW, in the eowikt project there is a new incident directly related to this RfC.

The essence of the incident was that information was deleted again:

In this case, it is not just the destruction of information that occurs, but a preliminary renaming is applied, which complicates the recovery of information. This issue, with the deleting of information using renaming, has been discussed for several months. And throughout the entire discussion, such deletions of information continue to occur.

I am trying to figure out what is causing these new actions. And I compare these two answers, made on behalf of a person who has administrative rights at the Meta level:

As you can see, these are two mutually exclusive answers to the same question. From the administrator. I can understand that someone does not have enough time to study all the circumstances, but I expect Meta administrators to be responsible. But it is precisely these conflicting responses that allow the continued deletion of information.

I am engaged in meaningless activity - I write requests to administrators and stewards about mass deletions, I opened thise RfC. Deletions and falsification of personal messages continue without hindrance, and instead of solving the problem, I only read requests to destroy the project, proposals to change the project license, and conversations about pronouns that I cannot find in any dictionary. I read fights against administrators - like "Vami"_and_"Kaganer" this or this. And I can understand the busyness of the administrators. But I cannot understand why there are still no definite answers. During the few months that I have been participating in the project, while I am trying to solve purely technical issues, I have already been slandered and insulted so many times that under any other conditions this would be enough for an defamation lawsuit. All that happened to me was a violation of every line of the license and every line of the terms of use in relation to me. Why are these two documents written if they are completely ignored?

I ask all (administrators), please make final conclusions on the questions asked in this RFC. If for some reason no one has time to investigate incidents, then I supplement the list of questions:

  • Is it permissible to delete information through a preliminary renaming and which section of the rules regulates this technical issue?
  • Who, how and in what time frame can restore information deleted by the preliminary renaming method?
  • Is it permissible to delete the entire "page" if there are claims to one "line" in one of the "articles" contained on this page?
  • Is it permissible to delete on the basis of an assumption, and not a proven violation (of rules, licenses, etc.)?
  • How many times can the action of deleting and canceling this action occur, and which section of the rules regulates this, and who should make the final decision on controversial issues so that the "editorial war" does not continue indefinitely?
  • on copyright: if something is public property, and as public property has been freely quoted or used in intellectual property protected by patent, license or general copyright laws - does this public property become private/copyright and its use is no longer allowed?

Thanks in advance for your time and any answer. Va (🖋️) 10:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page eo.wiktionary.org: "abio" was "created" by copying from PIV: "abio" (more precisely, PIV 2005 at that time). This is an act of blatant piracy by Pablo. Note that the translation block (pirated from German wiktionary) refers to 3 meanings but only 2 are defined above (pirated from PIV). All I did was to replace the pirated and broken page by a clean one. I did NOT STEAL anything from anyone. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the definition "Abio. Arbo konifera (abies). Kp. piceio, pino, lariko, cedro." ("Kp" = copamare, "abies" from latin) from a dictionary "Plena Vortaro" published in 1980.
You have removed the definition "[1] (biologio, planto) genro el la familio pinacoj (Abies) de pinglarboj, frukto de abio estas strobiloj/konusoj; [2] (vastasence) komuna nomo por abio kaj parencaj genroj (ekzemple, cugo, pseŭdocugo, piceo), ofte kiel komuna nomo por arboj uzataj en pluraj landoj kiel ornamaĵo ĉe Kristnaska festo (abio, kristarbo, cedro, lariko, pino)."
Even when compared with the definition published on the Net https://vortaro.net/#abio_kd then these are generally different definitions.
In addition, all other parts of the abio article on this deleted page - translations, links, synonyms, links to other dictionary entries - are not even provided for in the PIV 2005 dictionary.
That is, you just destroyed the page. You can read the definition for your actions, for example, here - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism
Your words are an example of an unsubstantiated accusation. But the problem is not in words, but in your actions.
. Va (🖋️) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fragment of text inserted by Pablo: 

🍁
(striktasense) genro el la familio pinacoj (''Abies'')
de pinglarboj sen ŝosetoj, kun plataj pingloj, kiuj defalinte postlasas rondajn, ne elstarajn cikatrojn, k kun staraj konusoj, kies skvamoj iom post iom defalas; 49 sp-oj, N-hemisferaj, i.a.: balzama abio (A. balsamea), el Kanado, kun ruĝaj, rezinkovritaj burĝonoj k kun pingloj similaj al tiuj de la blanka abio, sed karakterize aromaj k oblikve suprendirektaj;

Fragment of text from PIV: 

🍁
G. (Abies el pinacoj)
de pinglarboj sen ŝosetoj, kun plataj pingloj, kiuj defalinte postlasas rondajn, ne elstarajn cikatrojn, k kun staraj konusoj, kies skvamoj iom post iom defalas; 49 sp-oj, N-hemisferaj, i.a.: balzama abio (A. balsamea), el Kanado, kun ruĝaj, rezinkovritaj burĝonoj k kun pingloj similaj al tiuj de la blanka abio, sed karakterize aromaj k oblikve suprendirektaj;

The abbreviation "G." was expanded to "genro", but "sp-oj" and many others are left. The piracy is obvious. Why do you continue denying and lying? Taylor 49 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You lie and don't even blush. You have deleted the edition in which as of 13:19, 19 dec. 2021 definitions were given:
  • [1] (biologio, planto) genro el la familio pinacoj (Abies) de pinglarboj, frukto de abio estas strobiloj / konusoj
  • [2] (vastasence) komuna nomo por abio kaj parencaj genroj (ekzemple, cugo, pseŭdocugo, piceo), ofte kiel komuna nomo por arboj uzataj en pluraj landoj kiel ornamaĵo ĉe Kristnaska fesarto, abio, larikino ...
In addition, at least 75% of significant information was removed, which was unique - it was not present in any PIV. Once again - you destroyed the version in the edition https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=abio-PIRATA%C4%B4O&diff=prev&oldid=1023920
Why all these tales about Pablo and about PIV, if this is banal vandalism, exactly as described here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Vandalism
You just take advantage of the fact that the eowikt project is small, and the administrators are very busy, so your activity remains unpunished all this time.
. Va (🖋️) 09:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The piracy (from PIV and dewikt) was committed here by Pablo 2013-04-08 22:26. Your recent edits are irrelevant. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piracy from dewikt? Please read.
And this whole RFC is devoted to the issue of copyright regarding such works as dictionaries. You have already shown that you are not a specialist. Neither in matters of law nor in matters of copyright. Your statements, if not false, then very dubious. And always without proof. Copying public property is not a violation. Until you can prove that it is indeed copyrighted property. Public property can form part of copyright property.
In addition, experts have already spoken out here. As I understand, you are not interested in their opinion. Therefore, you ignore it. Va (🖋️) 18:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There is a new incident of a massive deletion of information edit

  • Today there was a massive deletion of information. In the German section of the project, information on dialects has been destroyed. The bot operation log.
  • And also the content of the template was destroyed, with the help of which the information on the dialects of the German language was described. Log.

The description of the dialectal features of languages is not a unique phenomenon only for the German language and the mention of dealect information does not make the description of the language privileged in the project. The link provided as evidence is on a completely different topic, although it does mention the German language.

This mass destruction of information is beyond the scope of this RFC on copyright, the procedure for proving copyright infringement and acceptable actions in accordance with the technical regulations for proven cases of copyright infringement.

But this action is part of a general trend - attempts to destroy the Esperanto Wiktionary project, both in parts and in full.

Va (🖋️) 10:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vami Nonsense again. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Rschen7754 edit

I have spent some time reading through both RFCs and came up with these thoughts:

  1. There are unquestionably some copyright violations on eo.wiktionary.
  2. Attribution is important; it is part of our licensing agreements.
  3. Avoiding plagiarism is important as such can bring our projects into disrepute as well as being a moral issue.
  4. Deletion is not the only solution to copyvio issues; in fact, en.wikipedia only allows for revision deletion when such can be cleanly done without removing attribution for non-infringing edits.
  5. "Nuking the wiki" is probably not practical, however - a lot of productive work could be lost in the process, and contributors would (rightly) find this demoralizing, which I believe has contributed to the harsher level of rhetoric exhibited
  6. Wheel warring resulted in desysops of both admins (Pablo Escobar and Taylor 49) which was justified.
  7. Vami
    Has been uncivil to the level of violating the UCoC, here and on eo.wiktionary
    Has engaged in wikilawyering by saying in essence (on the earlier RFC) that nobody can know anything about copyright except lawyers, and that to make such definitive statements is defamation. This is nonsense, especially when we have admins on Commons making such judgement calls every day.
    Has called removal of copyright violations "vandalism" using [50] the Wikidata vandalism page as justification. Having been involved in the creation of said page back from my days as an active Wikidata admin - that page should not be used to defend or justify anything.
  8. Taylor 49
    Taylor 49 was misleading in the first RFC about the circumstances of the desysop of Pablo Escobar
    Taylor 49 has made a convoluted mess of many page histories
    Some of Taylor's comments have not been even-tempered [51] and many possibly controversial decisions (page moves, user blocks) have been unilateral and at best not subject to appropriate review, and at worst vengeful. I am concerned that there is a battleground mentality underlying some of the blocks.
    The only block I have ever made (besides one ordinary vandal and two cases of emergency defense against Pablo) was against Vami and only 24 hours. Please don't describe me as a dictator who blocks everybody who disagrees. Taylor 49 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will generally not block any user solely for incivility towards myself or that I am in a good-faith dispute with. Such a block can too easily be called into question. (Now if they attack other users, or do something else like vandalism, then I will block). I can understand how that is more difficult to avoid, however, on a smaller wiki. Just my thoughts. --Rschen7754 06:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hesitated during a long time and finally blocked for a short time of 24 hours. It is just one short block. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing Kaganer and Vami of being socks without evidence and in the wrong venue (forum shopping) is highly inappropriate
  9. Pablo Escobar
    Pablo Escobar has done at least some of the copyright violations.
    There is a cross-wiki pattern which is concerning - indefinite block on es.wikt as well as a block history on de.wikt.
    Some of Pablo's cited "mistakes" sound more like technical incompetence rather than malice
    Pablo Escobar did not participate on Meta
  10. Bots: bots and scripts should not be used to win edit wars. It appears that Taylorbot was blocked at one point last year, by a global sysop [52]
    Mass-marking pages for deletion by a bot seems like a bad idea.
    Taylorbot was used to evade a block on Taylor 49. [53][54]
    This is inherently true. The reason is that I consider Pablo's sysop role and thus the block as inherently illegitimate. Pablo was permanently blocked on es wiktionary and de wiktionary for inserting garbage. Ey should not have done the same damage at eo wiktionary at all, even less with sysop privileges. And the fact that the large-scale piracy was ongoing during 10 years is a strong sign of a systemic failure. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed solutions:

  1. Given the conclusions I came to, I am personally uncomfortable with Taylor 49 being regranted admin privileges.
    1. It seems that Taylorbot seems to be running noncontroversial tasks now, but were that to change the bot should be deflagged and/or blocked.
    2. Maybe just a suggestion, but I am not sure that Taylor 49 should be the one leading the cleanup of the wiki, and that it would be best for someone else to lead this.
  2. Vami has gone inactive, however upon any return they should not be able to participate without consequences.
    1. If incivility continues, a local ban should be considered...
      1. ...as much as stewards and global sysops can perform one. I know it is difficult when there are no local admins to do this. Consensus from any local community would heavily weigh into the practicality of doing this.
    2. A WMF ban through T&S could be considered by contacting them privately for an investigation
    3. Their participation on Meta in this RFCs was disruptive and a ban from the RFCs per Requests for comment/Policy should have been considered, or a ban from Meta entirely
  3. Pablo Escobar has also gone inactive, however upon any return he should not be able to participate without consequences.
    1. He should not be reinstated as admin, obviously.
    2. Continued copyright violations should result in a local ban (same disclaimer as above)
    3. A WMF ban through T&S could be considered (by contacting them privately for an investigation) given the crosswiki nature of the copyvios, or a community global ban should the local block go through on eo.wiktionary (2+ wikis)
  4. Someone needs to clean up eo.wiktionary.
    1. Has there been thought to recruiting a new local adminship team? On both RFCs I have seen thoughtful comments from experienced sysops on other wikis with presumable knowledge of the language - @Lepticed7, Psychoslave, KuboF Hromoslav, and Blahma:. And since it is a small wiki, the admin terms are short (3-6 months), giving an natural transition point if desired.
    2. Maybe there could be some assistance from the usergroup Esperanto kaj Libera Scio?
    3. Failing that, requests should be referred to global sysops and stewards, but each page should be clearly tagged with a rationale written so that anyone without an understanding of Esperanto can understand why the page needs to be deleted.
      1. I personally find the existing template wikt:eo:Ŝablono:forigo very difficult to understand. Maybe some line breaks to make clear what the reason is?
        Let me know how it can be improved. I see that you created a template "Delete" ... note that "delete" has been around all the time. Taylor 49 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        When I look at the template I look for the bolded text to figure out what the reason is. However, I see multiple things bolded, and since I don't know Esperanto so I have to copy and paste the entire template into Google Translate to try and figure out what the reason is. Not to mention that some of the pages you tagged just have one word without explanation (i.e. the URL where it was taken from). I would also strongly consider putting the rationales in English since unless any of these people take us up on running for admin, the wiki will be patrolled by global sysops and stewards, all of whom understand English. --Rschen7754 20:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Existing deletion requests should be vetted given the bot issues and other issues above.
    4. A really good guide on handling widespread copyright issues: w:en:User:Moneytrees/CCI guide There are more resources on both Commons and English Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 23:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont and Superpes15: Interested to know if your read on the situation matches mine. --Rschen7754 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a good summary of the situation here. Given my previous involvement and that I worked with Taylor 49 on the UCOC Phase 2 Drafting Committee, I won't be pressing any adminy buttons myself. My main concern would be whether any of this is necessary at this point. I don't see much in the way of ongoing disruption, but there certainly is a lot of cleanup to be done. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if Vami or Pablo Escobar never edit again, I would prefer to just leave them unblocked at this point. --Rschen7754 01:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your summary, when I had to deal with the project I saw a truly unmanageable climate. I have seen absolutely unacceptable personal attacks and I noticed that the discussions were not about content but about users. Routine maintenance has also become a problem! I agree that cleaning needs to be done but, actually, I agree with you that at present these measures are not necessary, as there are no ongoing emergencies, but all this could be useful in the future of course. Superpes15 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you @Rschen7754 for sharing your thoughts. I still agree that something should be done to clean all copyright issues, but currently I won't have time for this. Maybe in 6 months I might consider to step in as sysop, but as of now, I would probably not have the time to correctly fulfill this role. Psychoslave (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project&oldid=24950564"