Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto

Other languages:

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


AnnouncementsEdit

RationalEdit

Robin van der Vliet reported in a discussion in the Kompetuko channel on Telegram that the Esperanto version of Wiktionary is full of material illegally imported from the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (PIV) and Reta Vortaro (ReVo).

Here is the original statement (in Esperanto):

Sed mi persone ne tre rekomendas, la kvalito de tiu projekto estas vere malbona, kaj en ĝi nun ankaŭ troviĝas multaj artikoloj kontraŭleĝe kopiitaj de PIV/ReVo. Mi mem jam plene rezignis pri ĝi, mi pensas, ke estas pli bone fokusiĝi je la plibonigado de ReVo

Additional information were also povided that confirm that they are issues of regular unlawful contributions.

Some action need to be performed, like:

  • removing corresponding material
  • evaluate possibility to regularize the situation through a demand to license the original works into a compatible license and update involved pages to bring proper credits

In any case, first steps can be:

  • list affected material of suspected infringement
  • involve the Esperanto Wikitionary community to
    • see what can be done together
    • asses the actual state of situation,
    • see what we should do if any action indeed need to be done

Indeed, so far this issue only goes by the suspected copyright infringement given the input of Robin. But it should also be taken into account that there are some material that ReVo used in it's initial release (1997) which is explicitely taken from Plena Vortaro (PV), which was already in public domain by then. ReVo itself is under GPL.

PIV also derives from PV, with a first release in 1970. It's released under full raw copyright for now.

Following is a list of of some examples of copyright infringements (at time of report), as opposed to something that was legally taken from PV and also appears in PIV and ReVo because they have this common ancestor. Thanks to Taylor who reported these examples, and already took care of many other of similar issues.

That said, even if there was no copyright infringment and that all copied material came from the public domain PV, the work should be properly credited on each page using it. Not only to comply with law, as PV was edited in France where the droit d'auteur includes attribution without duration limit even for public domain works. But a will to give credit to authors and ability to trace information sources for our audience should be enough of a reason to make that happen, as it all comes to respect of human dignity which is hopefully still a core value of our community.

DiscussionEdit

Making contributors more aware of Wikimedia exigencies or copyright respectEdit

Taylor reported in the Phabricator ticket:

Unfortunately, we have several contributors (many of them sysops or bureaucrats) involved in copying large amounts of content from copyrighted online dictionaries to wiktionaries. Most likely they are not aware that this is copyright infringement. Some of them argue with "free for educational use".

This is clearly something which should be fixed. No matter each individual opinion of copyright, our line of conduct within the Wikimedia project scope is not infringe it.

A first step we could engage is to list all people that were involved in unlawful contributions, and address them a clear message that their future contribution must never again include bare copy/paste of copyrighted material (expect in the conditions permitted by law of course). It would probably good to invite them all to contribute to this present RFC.

Detecting copyright infringement and get rid of it in the most parsimonious manner regarding human resourcesEdit

Here are some avenues for reflection on this point.

A first point is "when can it possibly be done". Ideally, the sooner, the better, of course. If at publishing time using some hook system we could trigger some checking system that unsure the content is not most likely a copy/paste from PIV/ReVo minus PV, and refuse to save the contribution if it seems positive. That seems "not impossible" but probably somewhat more complex to put in place. It also make the concern of false positive more critical, since it would implies that legitimate contributions would become impossible.

An other way to deal with that in a mostly automatic way would be to use bots to perform the bull of the work.

In any case, it seems difficult to prevent this regular copyright infringement without using the copyrighted material itself. For ReVo, it's less problematic as it's GPL, no legal issue would prevent from having a local copy to check against it the Vikitortaro material. For PIV, it's more tricky: I'm not aware of any possibility to legally acquire a full digital copy, even for keeping in a non-shared space in order to perform the necessary control steps discussed here.

I know the Wikimedia community already have many tool to help with patrolling, but I am insufficiently knowledgeable on this topic and feedback of people with more expertise on this point would be highly valuable.

Possible useful resources:

Psychoslave (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

RoadmapEdit

  • Deal with contributors who already committed copyright infringement
    • list them
    • prepare and send a message to inform them that copyright infringement is unwelcome in Wikimedia spaces, provide recommendations on what are welcome contributions, and recall what might be possible consequences if they fail to adopt a behavior which matches the Wikimedia policies.
    • invite them to participate in this RFC
  • Deal with existing copyright infringment
  • Deal with future attempt of copyright infringment
  • See what is the state of affair, especially regarding administrators and burocrats involved (ie. is Pablo still admin and abusing its privileges to enforce unlawful contributions)
    • Possibly, find a committee to seize and fill a request to remove technical privileges from people abusing them and banning those who are striving for acting according to Wikimedia principles (ie. acting legally)
  • Transcribe Plena Vortaro on Wikisource
    • upload a PDF on Commons
    • create the corresponding work on Wikisource
    • evaluate the mis. available OCR efficiency on the PDF on hand, possibly try to find on other digital copy of the work if that proves unsatisfying
    • proofread
    • integrate PV material that is relevant and not yet present into Vikivortaro
    • extract PV data in a way usable for dealing with false positive cases of copyright infringement (see next point)
  • Create an automation tool to deal with copyright infringement
    • state of the art: what are other projects doing to deal with this kind of issue?
    • specify more precisely requirements for an automated solution
    • implement something that meet the previous requirements (bot/hook)

MiscEdit

I do not oppose hanging of -eo- wiktionary if convicted of piracy (which is very likely to happen given that I know the case details better than anyone else, and they are not pleasing at all), but other wiktionaries with same problems must get same punishment. WMF has been reluctant to this problem for too long time. It should not have come so long. The involved sysops and bureaucras should have been warned, and if needed desysopped, debureaucratized or banned many years ago. I would welcome creating a bot detecting and labelling suspicious pages (on all problematic wiktionaries), but I lack resources to create it myself. As for the "PV" dictionary (specific to -eo- wiktionary), the problem is to get plain text. So far I have seen only a bloated pseudo-PDF serving as container for raster images, not readable by any bot. Note that almost same issue was discussed 2+1/2 years ago (Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the EO Wiktionary) with very little interest from the community and no result. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Taylor for all the effort you already have put on this issue.
If that prove the only practical way to deal with this issue, I won't be against a "let's reset it to blank slate", like Wikiquote went through at some point. But if that can be avoided, it would certainly be better. I see that Jimbo_Wales indeed never replied to your post. So we should possibly look at some of these numerous international committee we have by now, surely there is one which include to deal with that kind of situation in it's description.  
Regarding PV, we might try to pass it through some OCR. Actually, publishing it on Wikisource should be a good action to perform per se anyway.
Can you make a quick feedback on the state of the art: is Pablo still admin on the wiki?
Also as a side note, I wouldn't use "punishment" for any legitimate action in our community: I don't adhere with this kind of "teaching by hurting" philosophy. Some actions might hurt some people, but to my mind it should never be a voluntary specific aim, just a regrettable side effect of not being able to deal with the situation in a more staid way. Psychoslave (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, technically Pablo is still and permanently sysop, whereas my sysop right is limited to one year. 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)
To be clear, nuke the wiki is for a solution I would favor. I'm sure there is also plenty of legitimate content available mixed in the wiki, isn't it? We still have large room to find other less extreme solutions. So anyway it won't be something that should be call to put in action tomorrow, or in the coming weeks. Psychoslave (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Do we know if Pablo Escobar speaks English?
Pablo, ĉi tiu paĝo parolas pri vi kaj viaj agoj en la vikivortaro rilate al respekto de kopirajto. Ĉu vi interesas partopreni en la diskuto? Se jes, ĉu vi bezonas helpon por la traduko? Psychoslave (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Taylor 49 can you provide us a link to the PDF or upload it to Commons so we can start the Wikisource transcription? Psychoslave (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
PV can be downloaded here: " https://app.box.com/v/PlenaVortaro ". The file contains not only the original main part from 1930, but also the supplement from 1954. I do not know whether the supplement is public domain too. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this very informative feedback. Gaston Waringhien wrote the supplement, from what I read in the book, and he died in 1991. More importantly, he wrote the initial PV, from what I understand. So I am rather surprised that any part of the PV might be in public domain. Psychoslave (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, reading eo:Plena Vortaro it seems that Émile Boirac wrote the original edition, not Gaston. There seems to be some attribution confusion going on. Psychoslave (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The PDF file mentions 4 authors of the core part on page 3, and G.W. is one of them (not the boss). On page 3 and page 511 G.W. is claimed to be the only author of the supplement, and the year is 1953. Maybe we should contact SAT and ask. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a contact entry? Psychoslave (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. If the same rules as for the French Wikisource are applied, we need to wait 70 years after the death of the last author. So if it’s G. W., we need to wait 2062. I think it’s better not to expect something from this. I’m not admin anymore, so I suppose that Taylor is left alone with Pablo. But I know that Pablo is not really cooperative.
I think our two big problems are the massive copyright infringement and the lack of a community. I don’t know a way to identify which pages are not good, so I think the best solution is nuking them all. At least, it would let us to start on a blank page. Whatever the choice will be, if we want to become one of the reference dictionary in esperanto, we have a lot of work. Lepticed7 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
https://satesperanto.org/ scroll down for contact information. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think that the problems are so bad that the project should be closed/restarted, PCP is an option. Just throwing it out as a suggestion. --Rschen7754 00:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Por la demando rekte ligita al tiu ĉi diskuto estas kreita RfC: ( ) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project Va (🖋️) 12:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to desysop user "Pablo Escobar" at eo wiktionaryEdit

@User:Lepticed7 @User:Kotavusik @User:KuboF Hromoslav @User:Psychoslave @User:Robin van der Vliet: One week ago I got blocked at eo wiktionary by user "Pablo Escobar" with following justification:

Forviŝas entenon el paĝoj: Mi rezigne lasis vin detrui chion ajn lastatempe sed nun mi scias, ke estas eblo vin senadministrantigi kaj forigi. Kiel esperantisto, mi esperos. Nun ankau Vami provas halti vian redaktadachon kaj detruemon.
Removes content from pages: Resigning I let you destroy everything during recent time but now I know that there is a possibility to desysop and destroy you. As an esperantist, I hope. Now also Vami tries to stop your crappy editing and obsession by destroying.

The real reason for the block is to prevent me from continuing with removing pirated content that just this Pablo introduced in a huge "project" between 2010 and 2020. Deliberate large-scale copyright infringement is already a severe misconduct on its own, blocking others in order to "protect" one's "creation" is even more stupid and malicious.

Pablo was crowned as a permanent sysop year 2010 with just 2 votes, absurdly after having been banned permanently from Spanish wiktionary and German wiktionary. One user expressed some criticism in the "comments" section complaining about "destruction" (compare with Pablo's later accusations against me), but renounced to give a NO vote. A local bureaucrat gave Pablo permanent sysop rights and resigned and subsequently vanished short time later. Retroactively this must be considered as a blunder that must be repaired now 11 years later.

I indeed do "remove content from pages", in following cases:

  • lack of content, only empty tamplate calls (apparently Pablo got banned from Spanish wiktionary just for this method of "contributing"), frequently "supported" by faked references and faked intewiki links (target gives "404", "not found" or similar)
  • huge texts written in German found in Esperanto wiktionary (no other wiktionary would tolerate large-scale submitting of text in a foreign language outside of examples in that language)
  • translations for non-Esperanto words (subsequent damage of copying whole pages from other wiktionaries, no other wiktionary does like this, and there is a recent local consensus NOT to have translations for non-Esperanto words)
  • PIRACY AKA copyright infringement

All my "destructions" follow common sense, wiki rules & TOS and consensus. It is Pablo who is wrong, and abusing the power of a sysop.

Pablo lacks not only the ability to behave in an acceptable way, the ability to distinguish German from Esperanto, the ability to distinguish between creating content and piracy, the ability to distinguish between useful content and empty stuff, but also technical skills. A few examples of bad edits between 2010 and 2020:

  • Pablo changed the content of the template "be" (former language code template) from "belorusa" to "[[blankrusa]]". One part of the change is absurd purism, the other part is adding rectangular brackets at this occasion. Unfortunately the former template "t" did not appreciate the rectangular brackets. The result was that all translations to Belarussian were broken for several years. The problem is fixed now. It was me who created a central table with languages, reworked the template "t" from scratch and attached it to that table, and decommissioned and deleted the broken template "be" as well as a broken duplicate template "by" with same purpose.
  • Several times Pablo moved template A to template B (with or without redirect, decided randomly), and subsequently reused template A for a different purpose, that according to Pablo had a "stronger right" to the name A, by recreating it, or editing the redirect. The result was that several 1000 pages still transcluded template A expecting it to do work A, but the template did work C instead. Pablo broke many 1000 of pages this way. This would result in at least desysopping on any ordinary wiki.
  • By lousy and puristic editing Pablo broke many templates between 2010 and 2020. Most of them have been either repaired, or replaced and deleted by me since then. One of many examples (resulting damage - the intact boxes are due to my repair work, before 2019 all were broken). This would result in at least desysopping on any ordinary wiki.
  • Pablo "created" (by pirating from elsewhere) many instances of same template that cannot be found because lack of a category structure (this seems to be mostly fixed now, and again it was me ... sorry).
  • Most pages, both lemma articles and templates created by Pablo were impossible to find, placed in invisible redirected categories or in another way outside of categories, due to Pablo's lack of understadning how wiki categorization works, and random incompetent and purisic changes. Many pages created by Pablo had neither language nor word class defined, making them uncategorized (all this seems to be mostly fixed now, and again it was the big villain Taylor ... sorry).

But the worst thing with Pablo is fanatical piracy AKA copyrigt infringement. Almost everything submitted by Pablo between 2010 and 2020 is copied from somewhere else with very little to no change. Sources affected include:

  • PIV "vortaro.net" (without giving attribution, PIV is copyrighted work)
  • ReVo (without giving attribution, the license of ReVo is GPL, admittedly free but probably not good enough to allow mass copying into a public wiki)
  • German wiktionary (without giving attribution)
  • other wiktionary (without giving attribution)
  • some Spanish dictionary (probably copyrighted)

By deliberately and massively submitting legally inelligible content Pablo caused harm to other users, the Esperanto wiktionary, WMF, and the language Esperanto itself.

Evidence of massive piracy and deep technical incompetence:

Another bad habit of Pablo is counteracting community consensus such as here and here.

Pablo copied lemma articles, templates and modules (with exactly ZERO understanding how they work), and even "help" pages from German wiktionary (absurdly a place that Pablo was banned from). I suspect that Pablo's underlying principle is "if I can't get the people at German wiktionary follow my rules, I will instead copy the complete German wiktionary into Esperanto wiktionary where I am the only emperor, and where my rules ultimately will be followed". Help pages written in German located at Esperanto wiktionary are useless, thus YES, I deleted them, and NO, I do not feel shamed for having done so. If Pablo behaved in a such way (mass submitting "help" pages in a foreign language) in any ordinary wiki, this would result in a deletion at first offence, deletion plus warning at second offence, deletion plus short block at third offence, and deletion plus long block at fourth offence.

Pablo's behaviour shows that Pablo does not understand the base principle of a wiki: gradual collaborative effort to create free valuable content. The latest block against me shows that Pablo continues to refuse learing from faults, and this after ca 14 years career on several wiki projects. In the light of facts outlined above, it is strongly indicated to desysop user "Pablo Escobar" now.

Vote (CLOSED, but feel free to comment far below)Edit

  •   Support As the proposer. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I also think that it is not OK that Pablo is administrator of the Esperanto Wiktionary. Firstly, other administrators should repost a candidature every 6 months. Secondly, Pablo imported without respecting licenses. That is not ok for a contributor, even less for an administrator. I fully support this request. Lepticed7 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough have been said. Pablo need a deep change of behavior to bring any positive contribution to our community. Letting this can of behavior being performed is detrimental to all. --Psychoslave (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

ResultEdit

  Done per this discussion. Pablo is desysopped. A large part of the pirated content is left. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Taylor 49. This will possibly a long road for us with the few human resources we have to achieve a sane state regarding copyright, but at least now the path is no longer paved with the severe hindrance of an improper behavior at adminstration level. Psychoslave (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

I updated the above text a bit. The vote is closed anyway. Taylor 49 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Crucial discussion (later vote) at eo wiktEdit

@ User:Psychoslave, User:Lepticed7, User:Robin van der Vliet Arrival of a new user at eo wikt and subsequent strange events resulted in the deletion work stopped. As people continue failing to understand the WMF TOS or to consider it as relevant for eo wiki, I created a proposal for a local policy. If the piracy and harassment cannot be resolved I probably will request a deletion (Proposals for closing projects). Taylor 49 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it a lie or not yet? (later vote somewhere)Edit

If anybody tell only half of the truth - is it a lie or not yet? ( )

@Psychoslave, Lepticed7, and Robin van der Vliet:

User:Taylor_49 reported that he banned user Pablo ( ) - https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Speciala%C4%B5o:Protokolo?type=block&user=Pablo+Escobar But that's only half the truth because ( )

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. Hence it is "half the truth". Who doubts - review the protocols and compare the dates of the events. ( )

Further, User:Taylor_49 wrote that Pablo's desysop is complete. And gives the link ( ) - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=22333253#eo.wiktionary Have any of you who voted read this thread? If you have not read it, then I inform you that ( )

  • User:Taylor_49 had no part in this decision ( )
  • this decision is not about Pablo's desysop, but about the complete transfer of management in the project to Meta ( )
  • the reason for the termination of local administration in the project is another ban war started by User:Taylor_49. ( )

This is also "half the truth" as reported by User:Taylor_49. Who doubts - review the protocols and compare the dates of the events. ( )

For some reason, User:Taylor_49 forgot to inform you that all local discussions are now just a discussion, and the decision on each issue will be made by the leadership of a higher level, on Meta. ( )

Personally, it also seems strange to me that all who voted are the people to whom I sent personal messages of invitation to get acquainted with the RfC about a possible violation of technical regulations (which has already been repeatedly confirmed by the administrations) and about the necessary exact definitions of terms, conditions and procedures. Without precise definitions, all words about "pirataĵo" is just speculation. ( )

Nobody expressed their opinion in the RfC about the violations. Should I understand that all participants in the useless #Vote support the destruction of the project, both in parts ( ) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and completely, as described in the paragraph "Crucial discussion (later vote) at eo wikt"? ( )

Va (🖋️) 16:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I must say that I am not interested anymore in the Esperanto Wiktionary: the continuous battles are tiring. I think that neither Taylor nor Pablo deserve to be administrator on the project. I think that before allowing contributions on the Wiktionary, we should think about the project: establish rules, guidelines, examples, etc. Maybe it is a good idea to send the Wiktionary back to Incubator? And maybe we need to nuke the project? If you wish to go this way, do not hesitate to ping. Otherwise, please do not. I am currently really busy on the Esperanto Wikisource. Cheers, Lepticed7 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC) ( )
I suspect that neither nuke nor incubator will help solve the problem of continuous battles. Not much time has passed since I decided to participate in the project. But in the first month of my participation, so many obstacles were created for me, and I saw so many problematic actions that I had to open an RFC. ( )
Ok, I will not ping you for any question as you are busy. Cheers, Va (🖋️) 10:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@User:Vami Vami, please stop immediately both lying and claiming wrong sex about me ("Taylor_49 reported that he banned" "Thus, User:Taylor_49 initiated a ban war"). I will request deletion of the wiki now. It's enough, really. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In half of the cases, this is the result of the work of automatic translators - You can write a complaint to Google or Yandex. On the second half of the cases - I have already answered you on this question several times ( ) - here and here. You answered me with the phrase "f ** k off" in this edition .
If you do not always read the answers, then I will repeat. As a "user", "person", "account or bot owner", etc., it does not matter who you are or how you identify yourself, but all these concepts are defined by the pronoun he. Your gender issues do not interest me and do not bother me. ( ) Va (🖋️) 04:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you use a translator doesn’t justify misgendering people. The first time, it can be a mistake. After being told about it, it’s an intentional harmful behaviour. Please respect the pronouns of everyone. It doesn’t help at all to calm down the discussions. I understand why Taylor reacted this way and I support them. Lepticed7 (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, let the User:Taylor 49 write on his page a complete list of pronouns in Esperanto and English, Spanish, French and Russian that the User:Taylor 49 would like to apply to himself. I will check if other personal pronouns appear in the received texts after automatic translation. ( )
However, problems with "respecting pronouns" have nothing to do with copyright problems. Are you sure you need to discuss them here? ( )
BTW, what gender is "user" according to the official English grammar? Va (🖋️) 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It surely has to do with the copyright problems. We cannot discuss about the problems if you’re disrespecting the people on the other side. I’m a 100% sure that we need to discuss this. If you don’t respect the people you’re talking with, how can you expect something else that an invitation to "fuck off"? Anyway, English has no grammatical genders, so your question is a non-sense. But I think I know what you meant. If you want to know what pronoun you should use, don’t look at the work "user". It would have no sense to call "he" a woman, even though she is a user. I don’t know if there grammatical genders in your language (Russian if I understood well), but for exemple, in French, we have a word for "user" that depends on the gender of the person. "Utilisateur" for a man, "Utilisatrice" for a women and (but it is a neologism) "Utilisataire" for genderless or non-binary people. Taylor doesn’t have to give a list in all the languages. (By the way, it is not "himself", but "themself".) I really think that this point need to be ok before we continue to discuss. Lepticed7 (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Should i understand your statements that the "f**k off" used by User:Taylor 49 is a good answer, and that what i just copied from the automatic translator is a terrible insult? Should i understand that i have to learn English in order to control what the automatic translator suggested there?
From your "it is not "himself", but "themself"" - "это не "он сам", а "они сами"", "no es "él mismo", sino "ellas mismas"", "ce n'est pas "lui-même", mais "eux-mêmes"", "není to "on sám", ale "oni sami"" - it follows that there are some special people who always need to be called only in the plural. I doubt User:Taylor 49 is any special. And User:Taylor 49 himself has never reached out to other users in this way. I see no reason to do otherwise than User:Taylor 49 do. Va (🖋️) 12:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It’s not about the plurality of people, but their gender. If the person is a man, we use "he", if the person is a woman, it’s "she". If we don’t know or the person is genderless or non-binary, it’s "they". You can look at the definitions c and d of the Merriam Webster. And you should know that automatic translators are not perfect. By the way, I suggest you to use DeepL, which is way more efficient than Google Translate. Lepticed7 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you telling me about everything that has been invented over the past 10 years? Maybe in 50-100 years these innovations will become the norm, but now I just don't understand you. ( )
A user is not a gender, but a position, or a function, or a set of rights and responsibilities. This word obeys only the grammatical norms of the language in which it is used. If there is a special pronoun in Swedish for these cases, then in Swedish it is used. But using a grammatically reasonable pronoun for some kind of newly invented non-binary genders is also not correct, because it violates the grammar and semantics of languages. ( )
And to publicly show everyone your gender-specific body parts, whether binary or not-binary, is just indecent behavior. And in some states it is generally a crime described in the criminal codes as exhibitionism. ( )
About DeepL - for the first time i hear. I will try it in my free time. But the first impression is that this is a new project that lags behind Google translator by 15 years, and from Yandex translator by 10 years. In terms of the number of languages ​​offered, this is more like a graduation thesis project of a group of five students at some university. Completely useless to me in its current state. ( )
But all this talk again has nothing to do with copyright. Moreover - you know my contact in the Telegram, if you just want to talk, it is better there, not here. Va (🖋️) 13:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so I red the thread, I will simply join @Lepticed7 on the "I currently don't have time to dig into continuous war ban details". If the project is to be reset, it should be clear that we also should previously plane at least one admin, excluding anyone which had previously given this role when the project was conducted in such an extremity. Psychoslave (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Anything you say can be used against you... as a result, your answer "Yes, I currently don't have time to dig" is now used as evidence of massive approval for the closure of the eo.wiktionary project - suggestion.
Ok, your position has become clear. Thanks, Va (🖋️) 05:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes and referencesEdit

More notes and referencesEdit

It seems that it would be useful to slightly adjust the definitions. ( ) Regarding the language Esperanto itself and about Zamenhof's work. There are at least two documents: ( )

which commonly serve as a license for materials related to the language. ( )

In relation to Wikimedia works ( )

Each state has its own copyright laws. And they differ, something forbidden in one state may be allowed in another. Therefore, for each particular object whose authorial restrictions are considered, it is necessary to mention the state to which the author belongs and where the object was published. ( ) However, we can compare the laws of various states. For example, the period when copyright is limited ( ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

The Wikimedia project with all parts operates under US law. ( )

The PIV dictionary in PIV2002 edition (ISBN:2950243258) exists under the laws of France. This only applies to parts that do not belong to other editions ( ) - https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plena_Ilustrita_Vortaro_de_Esperanto

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, Paris kaj Darantière, Dijon, 1909-1911 (3 v.)
  • "Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Paris, 1930 (517 p.)
  • "Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Paris, 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, Paris, 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, Paris (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, Paris (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, Paris (1267 p.), ISBN-10:2952892237/ISBN-13:978-2952892230, Google books

Va (🖋️) 16:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The list above is inherently useless. User "Vami" previously had posted this on at least 4 other places. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This means that everyone who wanted to get acquainted with the history of inheritance, and therefore, with the definition of unique non-inherited parts (which falls under the license restrictions). In all 4 locations.
Facts are just facts, they exist independently of anyone's opinion of uselessness. Va (🖋️) 10:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nuke all pages created by "Pablo Escobar"Edit

On top of the description given by Taylor 49 which is very concerning, was thinking of nuking all pages created by this user. Given that a), they haven't even bothered to comment in this thread in the first place when they were the one who added copyvios thruout eo.wikt b) abused their sysop tools, and c) adding content in a completely different language. It seems that the idea of reseting eo.wikt was rejected by LangCom, so it seems this seems the only way to go forward, which "hopefully" reduces the amount of copyvios on eo.wikt.

And when I mean "nuke", I mean all mainspace pages, projectspace pages, or really, all pages except talk pages + their userpage. I'd also propose an indef ban on Pablo Escobar as for breaking the law + the ToS. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a big problem to assert without proof that someone has committed "breaking the law". ( ) I have already cited Shakespeare's case as an example. After destroying articles like Ŝekspiro or Antverpeno, should we now to nuke the French and English wiktionaries too? It all looks very strange to me. And without the answers of a professional lawyer who knows at least the laws of France (since we are talking about a specific reprint of a certain cited book in Paris, France), all such conversations are unsubstantiated. ( )
It should also be borne in mind that we are talking about a reprint of a book, that is, as a reprint, it inherits a large amount of material that is already in the public domain. I have already given the history of PIV here. This does not even take into account the fact that the definitions of words make up no more than 9% -12% of the total volume of the text, and the rest of the volume is made up of quotations given as examples - all these quotations are taken from the public domain. ( )
And any talk about the impossibility of translating or citing materials from other subprojects within Wikimedia is already a direct violation of the license of Wikimedia itself. ( )
It should also be noted that "all pages created by this user" have not remained in their original state at the moment, even if at the time of creation they could have been claimed. Deleting articles that have long been changed (moreover, because of development, and not because there were any claims to them) will already be the destruction of the work of other people.

That is, the question is not so simple that it can be solved by simply deleting something. ( ) Va (🖋️) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your claims related to "Ŝekspiro" have been debunked long ago, and I have better things to do than answering to your repetitive denial all the time. The page "Ŝekspiro" was provably copied from PIV, and that's why I deleted it. We do NOT need a "professional lawyer who knows at least the laws of France", and we do NOT have to nuke French and English wiktionaries. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear Taylor, I am here to hear from everyone with experience and knowledge. And your attempt to prove your own statements on the basis of... what you yourself wrote sometime before is "idem per idem".
Let other people speak up. Va (🖋️) 14:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The difference between en/fr and eo, is that one [eo] was copied off elsewhere, making it a copyvio, while the other [en/fr] was not copied off somewhere and therefore as Taylor 49 mentioned, it does not need to be nuked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000:: 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, Paris kaj Darantière, Dijon, 1909-1911 (3 v.)
  • "Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Paris, 1930 (517 p.)
  • "Plena vortaro de esperanto", aŭt. E. Grosjean-Maupin kaj aliaj, eld. Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, Paris, 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, Paris, 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, Paris (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, Paris (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, Paris (1267 p.), ISBN-10:2952892237/ISBN-13:978-2952892230, Google books
And the person, whose surname gave us the word and many more words obtained through word formation, lived not even 100 years ago, but much earlier. I can boldly assert, and if necessary, then documentarily confirm that the source about which the copivio is claimed to have made the copivio himself from earlier works, and it is even possible that the definition has been copied since the very first edition from 1909. Just because Shakespeare is well-known and even in 1909 it was no longer news ... The obvious definition for the word Shakespeare is public property, the establishment of any copyright and prohibitions to write on such a definition is obvious - this is a violation of copyright, rights to public domain. ( )
In addition, you do not take into account that instead of removing only the definition, only about which we can conduct a discussion, all information was destroyed, that is, the page that contained other sections. And in the list of destroyed articles, I found example pages that contained several articles about words with identical spellings from other languages. That is, several articles were destroyed at the same time, which did not have a direct bearing on the issue at all. ( )
I already suggested - let's restore some of the deleted articles and calmly and legally analyze them as examples, finding out what sources refer to and what has long been public property, and what can really cause copyright infringement. ( )
Forgive me, but I will fight for the preservation of public property from those encroaching on the appropriation of public property. As far as I understand, the goals of the entire Wikimedia project (or GPL, or others) are precisely the protection of public property. In this sense, I fully support both the project's license and the terms of use. I am just fighting a violation of these two documents. Am I wrong about something? ( )
PS: this is an automatically translated text - I am not responsible for the inconsistency of pronouns used by the automatic system. But I can apologize in advance for the automatic system if it was wrong somewhere.
. Va (🖋️) 14:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're hestitating to think copyvios are against the law. In Simple English
copyvios = copyright violation
copyright violation = taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own
taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own = stealing
stealing = breaking the law
It's different on Commons where there's cases of Freedom of Panorama or Threshold of Originality. However, this is neither of that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Kindly give a concession: I'm not "hestitating to think", but "the automatic translation system is not always accurate." I do not speak all the versions of Englishs that you use and cannot keep track of all the nuances. But at the same time I try to understand you and try to express my thoughts in different ways so that you can understand me even with the limitations of translation systems.
So copivio = violation, without considering all other adjectives. If there is at least some state law that describes this violation, then we are talking about "against the law", in any other case we can only talk about etiquette. There is a principle: everything that is not prohibited is allowed.
As soon as we start talking about state laws and violations, we immediately have the concept of proof. Any statement about copyvio without proof already automatically becomes another type of crime - false accusation, defamation etc. Therefore, we must be very careful in such statements. A death sentence on the basis of a false accusation is already murder. A careless statement can cost a lot of money - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB858891007123079000
Your evidence "In Simple English" is just an example by which you will lose in court right away. And here there is a principle: the presumption of innocence.
Quote = copy, but not copyvio
Public property = allows copy that won't copyvio
And there is a very important point. Suppose "A" is public intellectual property. Then "A" can be used freely for any purpose, including use in commercial and copyrighted intellectual product "B". By your reasoning, after the publication of "B"... "A" ceases to be public property, because your statement - the use of "A" will be copivio relative to "B". Stealing.
Only there is a problem. Stealing in this case is not the use of "A", but restrictions on "A" from the side of "B".
I hope the automatic translation will cope with these simple statements. Aŭ mi povas esprimi tion en vere logika, simpla kaj internacia lingvo, kreita same por tiuj celoj. ( ) If I do not understand something - try to express it in other words or consult a lawyer which expressions are correct.
. Va (🖋️) 12:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@User:Vami: You posted the same irrelevant list again (see ca 2 screens above, the very same list), and you posted it previosuly on several places on eowikt too, ie you are spamming in order to ilustrate your (incomprehensible) point. Nobody will consult a lawyer for your sake. The "wsj.com" article is inaccessible. And please stop making legal threats. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Tell me, dear Taylor, what rules did I break when I re-quoted the text? Please provide a link.
And the reason for the repetition is simply my concern about your fate. I am ready to repeat the quotation until you understand that the charge of breaking the law, where only your opinion is given instead of proof, is a separate crime - a false accusation or defamation. We can discuss other topics, but your crimes can definitely bring you to justice. And it's not just about your actions in this project. If you think and act the same way in your real life, then you may be sued for reasons unrelated to Wikimedia.
I'm not an expert, but there are some examples you should pay attention to w:en:United_States_defamation_law. This point saves you the trouble here - "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally immunizes from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of precluding all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined." But not all of your life happens here. My repetitions are a cheap price to keep you from getting in big trouble in life, right?
And I personally do not want to be an accomplice in your crimes, "who by his action or inaction (indifferent observation) contributed to your actions." Inaction the laws of different countries are interpreted in different ways. In my legal field, inaction is considered a crime too, so I just follow the laws.
. Va (🖋️) 19:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
By re-quoting you did not break any law, you just act against common sense. And "your crimes can definitely bring you to justice" is both a false accusation and a legal threat. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Section 230 ... you missed something, right? It is impossible to bring you, Anonymous, to any responsibility, so you again substitute “my concern” for “false accusation”. But the fact that you are constantly engaged in substitutions is a reality. Moreover, this fact is confirmed by the protocols. When will you recover your fakes of my private messages? Va (🖋️) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"impossible to bring you, Anonymous, to any responsibility" legal threat. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"...article made false statements... The jury set $200 million in punitive damages and $22.7 million in compensation..." - here is an article on the same topic, but at a different agency - https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/21/business/firm-awarded-222.7-million-in-a-libel-suit-vs-dow-jones.html
This is the second line in the article title search. If you don't know how to read the article... Va (🖋️) 20:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
NOT interested in your $200 million in punitive damages. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is your natural right. You have the right not to be interested in anything. Va (🖋️) 04:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Perhaps it's worth noting the reason I dropped out of this thread is because I was tired of hearing things similar to "a source is needed to prove the copyvio", especially when @Taylor 49: has already explained it multiple times. A copyvio = legal issue. Full stop. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)