Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

의견 요청/에스페란토에서 위키낱말사전의 대규모 저작권 침해 해결

< Requests for comment
This page is a translated version of the page Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto and the translation is 100% complete.
Other languages:

The following request for comments is closed. Closing as inactive; no human edits since August 20, 2022. --SHB2000 (t • c) 05:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

공지사항

이유

로빈 반 데어 블리에은 텔레그램의 콤페투코 채널 토론에서 위키낱말사전의 에스페란토 버전이 플레나 일루스트리타 보르타로 데 에스페란토(PIV) 및 레타 볼타로(ReVo)에서 불법적으로 가져 온 자료로 가득 차 있다고 보고했습니다.

다음은 에스페란토의 원문입니다:

하지만 저는 개인적으로 별로 추천하지 않습니다. 이 프로젝트의 품질이 정말 나쁩니다. 그리고 현재 PIV/ReVo에서 불법적으로 복사한 문서도 많이 있습니다. 스스로 포기했는데 ReVo 개선에 집중하는게 좋을 것 같아요

정기적인 불법 기부 문제임을 확인하는 추가 정보도 제공되었습니다.

다음과 같은 몇 가지 작업을 수행해야 합니다:

  • 해당 재료 제거
  • 원본 저작물을 호환 가능한 라이선스로 라이선스하고 관련 페이지를 업데이트하여 적절한 크레딧을 가져오도록 요구하여 상황을 정규화할 가능성을 평가합니다.

어쨌든 첫 번째 단계는 다음과 같습니다:

  • 침해가 의심되는 영향을 받는 자료 나열
  • 에스페란토 위키 사전 커뮤니티 참여
    • 함께 할 수 있는 일 보기
    • 상황의 실제 상태를 평가하고,
    • 실제로 수행해야 하는 조치가 있는 경우 수행해야 하는 조치를 참조하세요.

실제로, 지금까지 이 문제는 로빈의 의견을 고려할 때 의심되는 저작권 침해에 의해서만 진행됩니다. 그러나 ReVo가 초기 릴리스(1997)에 사용한 일부 자료가 있다는 점도 고려해야 합니다. 이 자료는 그 당시 이미 공개된 플레나 볼타로(PV)에서 명시적으로 가져온 것입니다. ReVo 자체는 GPL 하에 있습니다.

PIV는 또한 1970년에 첫 번째 릴리스와 함께 PV에서 파생되었습니다. 현재로서는 완전한 원시 저작권으로 릴리스되었습니다.

다음은 PV에서 법적으로 가져왔고 PIV 및 ReVo에도 표시되는 것과는 대조적으로 저작권 침해(보고 당시)의 몇 가지 예 목록입니다. 이러한 예를 보고하고 이미 유사한 다른 많은 문제를 처리한 테일러에게 감사합니다.

즉, 저작권 침해가 없고 복사된 모든 자료가 퍼블릭 도메인 PV에서 가져온 경우에도 작업을 사용하는 각 페이지에 적절하게 저작물을 표시해야 합니다. 저작권이 공개 저작물에 대해서도 기간 제한 없이 저작자 표시를 포함하는 프랑스에서 PV가 편집되었기 때문에 법을 준수할 뿐만 아니라. 그러나 저자를 인정하려는 의지와 청중을 위해 정보 출처를 추적할 수 있는 능력이 그러한 일이 일어나도록 하는 충분한 이유가 되어야 합니다. 이 모든 것이 여전히 우리 커뮤니티의 핵심 가치인 인간 존엄성을 존중하기 때문입니다.

토론

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.

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)[reply]

Roadmap

  • 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)

Misc

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you have a contact entry? Psychoslave (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
https://satesperanto.org/ scroll down for contact information. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Por la demando rekte ligita al tiu ĉi diskuto estas kreita RfC: (translate) 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)[reply]

에스페란토 위키낱말사전에서 사용자 "Pablo Escobar"의 관리자 권한을 박탈하는 제안

@User:Lepticed7 @User:Kotavusik @User:KuboF Hromoslav @User:Psychoslave @User:Robin van der Vliet: 일주일 전에 다음과 같은 근거로 "Pablo Escobar"라는 사용자에 의해 저는 에스페란토 위키낱말사전에서 차단되었습니다.

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.
페이지에서 콘텐츠 제거: 사임하면 최근에 모든 것을 파괴할 수 있지만, 이제 당신으로부터 관리자 권한을 회수하고 파괴할 가능성이 있다는 것을 압니다. 에스페란티스토로서 희망합니다. 이제 Vami는 파괴함으로써 당신의 형편없는 편집과 집착을 멈추려고 합니다.

차단의 진짜 이유는 바로 이 파블로가 2010년부터 2020년 사이의 거대한 "프로젝트"에서 도입한 불법 복제된 콘텐츠를 계속 제거하는 것을 방지하기 위함입니다. 고의적인 대규모 저작권 침해는 이미 그 자체로 심각한 위법 행위이며, 자신의 "창조물"을 "보호"하기 위한 명령은 훨씬 더 어리석고 악의적입니다.

파블로는 스페인어 위키낱말사전과 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 영구적으로 금지된 후 터무니없이 2010년 단 2표로 영구 시스템관리자 연도로 선정되었습니다. 한 사용자는 "훼손"(저에 대한 파블로의 이후 비난과 비교)에 대해 불평하는 "의견" 섹션에서 일부 비판을 표명했지만 반대 투표를 포기했습니다. 지역 사무관이 파블로에게 영구적인 시스템관리자 권한을 부여하고 사임했고 얼마 지나지 않아 사라졌습니다. 소급하여 이것은 11년 후에 지금 수리해야 하는 실수로 간주되어야 합니다.

다음과 같은 경우 실제로 "페이지에서 콘텐츠 제거"를 수행합니다:

  • 콘텐츠 부족, 빈 틀 호출(분명히 파블로는 이 "기여" 방법에 대해 스페인어 위키 사전에서 금지됨)만, 가짜 참조 및 가짜 인터위키 링크에 의해 자주 "지원"됨(대상은 "404", "찾을 수 없음" 또는 이와 유사한 것을 제공함)
  • 에스페란토 위키낱말사전에서 발견된 독일어로 작성된 거대한 텍스트(다른 어떤 위키낱말사전도 해당 언어의 예 외에 외국어로 된 대규모 텍스트 제출을 용납하지 않을 것입니다)
  • 에스페란토가 아닌 단어에 대한 번역(다른 위키낱말사전에서 전체 페이지를 복사하는 데 따른 후속 손상, 다른 위키낱말사전에서는 이를 좋아하지 않으며, 최근 지역에서 에스페란토어가 아닌 단어에 대한 번역이 없다는 합의가 있습니다)
  • PIRACY 일명 저작권 침해

제 모든 "파괴"는 상식, 위키 규칙 및 TOS 및 합의를 따릅니다. 잘못된 것은 파블로이며, 시그템관리자의 권력을 남용합니다.

파블로는 수용 가능한 방식으로 행동하는 능력, 독일어와 에스페란토를 구별하는 능력, 콘텐츠 제작과 불법 복제를 구별하는 능력, 유용한 콘텐츠와 빈 것을 구별하는 능력뿐만 아니라 기술적 능력도 부족합니다. 2010년과 2020년 사이의 잘못된 편집의 몇 가지 예:

  • 파블로는 틀 "be"(이전 언어 코드 틀)의 내용을 "belorusa"에서 "[[blankrusa]]"로 변경했습니다. 변화의 한 부분은 터무니없는 순수주의이고 다른 부분은 이 경우에 대괄호를 추가하는 것입니다. 불행히도 이전 틀 "t"는 사각 괄호를 인식하지 못했습니다. 그 결과 벨로루시어로 된 모든 번역이 몇 년 동안 중단되었습니다. 이제 문제가 해결되었습니다. 언어가 포함된 중앙 테이블을 만들고 처음부터 "t" 틀을 다시 작업하여 해당 테이블에 첨부하고 동일한 목적으로 깨진 틀 "be"와 깨진 중복 틀 "by"를 폐기하고 삭제한 사람이 바로 저였습니다.
  • 파블로는 여러 번 틀 A를 틀 B로 옮겼고(넘겨주기 여부는 무작위로 결정), 이후 다른 목적으로 틀 A를 재사용했습니다. 파블로에 따르면 틀 A는 이름을 다시 만들거나 넘겨주기를 편집하여 "더 강력한 권한"을 가졌습니다. 그 결과, 여러 1000페이지가 여전히 틀 A를 트랜스클루전하여 틀 A가 작동할 것으로 기대했지만, 틀은 대신 C를 작동했습니다. 파블로는 이런 식으로 1000페이지를 여러 개 망쳤습니다. 이렇게 되면 일반적인 위키에서는 최소한 관리자 권한 회수가 발생할 것입니다.
  • 형편없고 순수한 편집으로 파블로는 2010년과 2020년 사이에 많은 틀을 깨뜨렸습니다. 그 중 대부분은 그 이후로 제가 수리하거나 교체 및 삭제했습니다. 많은 예 중 하나(결과적인 손상 - 손상되지 않은 상자는 2019년 이전에 모두 파손된 수리 작업으로 인한 것입니다). 이것은 모든 일반 위키에서 최소한 관리자 권한 회수를 초래할 것입니다.
  • 파블로는 분류 구조가 없기 때문에 찾을 수 없는 동일한 틀의 많은 인스턴스를 (다른 곳에서 불법 복제하여) "생성"했습니다(이것은 현재 대부분 수정된 것 같습니다. 다시 한 번... 죄송합니다).
  • 파블로가 생성한 표제어 문서와 틀을 포함한 대부분의 페이지는 위키 분류가 작동하는 방식에 대한 파블로의 이해 부족과 무작위의 무능하고 순수한 변경으로 인해 보이지 않는 넘겨주기된 범주 또는 범주 외부의 다른 방식으로 배치하는 것이 불가능했습니다. 파블로가 만든 많은 페이지에는 언어나 단어 클래스가 정의되어 있지 않아 분류되지 않았습니다(이 모든 것이 지금은 대부분 수정된 것으로 보이며 다시 큰 악당 테일러였습니다... 죄송합니다).

그러나 파블로의 가장 나쁜 점은 광적인 불법 복제 일명 저작권 침해입니다. 2010년에서 2020년 사이에 파블로가 제출한 거의 모든 것은 거의 변경되지 않은 채 다른 곳에서 복사되었습니다. 영향을 받는 출처는 다음과 같습니다:

  • PIV "vortaro.net"(저작자 표시 없이 PIV는 저작물입니다)
  • ReVo(저작자 표시 없이 ReVo의 라이선스는 GPL이며, 분명히 무료지만 공개 위키에 대량 복사를 허용하기에 충분하지 않을 수 있음)
  • 독일어 위키낱말사전(저작자표시 없음)
  • 기타 위키낱말사전 (저작자표시 없음)
  • 일부 스페인어 사전(아마도 저작권이 있음)

파블로는 법적으로 부적격한 콘텐츠를 고의적으로 대량으로 제출함으로써 다른 사용자, 에스페란토 위키, WMF 및 에스페란토 언어 자체에 피해를 입혔습니다.

대규모 불법 복제 및 심각한 기술적 무능력의 증거:

  • Kategorio:Kapvortaj paĝoj kun problemoj, 대부분 파블로의 "창조물"
  • Kategorio:Dubinda(Esperanto), 대부분 파블로의 "창조물"
  • acida" acida&oldid=288452 vs vortaro.net/#acida_kd (번역 차단은 -de-wiktionary에서 복사되었으며 제공된 번역은 "[1] 신맛; [3] 짜증이 난 화난 화난; [4] 산성"과 정의와 일치하지 않으며 정의가 전혀 없습니다 [4], 페이지는 가치 있는 것처럼 보이지만 본질적으로 가치가 없습니다)
  • "kalko" kalko&oldid=268490 vs https://vortaro.net/#kalko_kd
  • "modalo"https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=modalo&oldid=221355 vs https://vortaro.net/#modalo_kd
  • "nobela"https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/nobela https://vortaro.net/#nobelo_kd (PIV에서 찾을 수 있음, PV에서 찾을 수 없음)
  • "ricino"https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ricino&oldid=221575 vs https://vortaro.net/#ricino_kd
  • "subjekto"https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjekto https://vortaro.net/#subjekto_kd(PIV에서 복사, PV에서 찾을 수 있지만 다른
  • "Ŝekspiro" (삭제됨, 아래 참조) vs vortaro.net/#%C5%9Cekspiro_kd
  • "teknologio"https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/teknologio https://vortaro.net/#teknologio_kd (PIV에서 찾을 수 있음, PV에서 찾을 수 없음)
  • "vivologio" (존재하지 않는 단어) (삭제됨, 아래 참조) vs vortaro.net/#biologio_kd
  • "muziko" [1]에서 불법 복제된 [2] 정의 및 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 불법 복제된 번역 테이블 추가, 독일어 틀로 가득 차 있을 뿐만 아니라 5가지 의미를 참조하는 반면 상단에는 2개만 있습니다... 번역이 정의를 놓치고 있습니다.
  • "kabano" [3] 불법 복제 [4]
  • [5]
  • 영어 위키낱말사전에서 복사한 [6]
  • "kutima" [7] 비어 있음
  • 언뜻보기에는 [8] 많은 물건이지만 모든 틀 호출은 비어 있습니다. 파블로는 이에 대해 스페인어 위키낱말사전에서 금지되었습니다.
  • [9] 저작자 표시 없이 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 30 KiO 복사, 독일어 틀 및 독일어 텍스트로 가득
  • [10]에서 [11] 불법 복제 파블로는 단어를 발명했지만 정의하지 못하여 다른 단어의 정의를 불법 복제했습니다(이 유형의 경우가 30개 이상 있거나 있었던 것 같습니다)
  • "antauxderivilo" [12]에서 불법 복제된 [13] 파블로가 단어를 발명했지만 정의하지 못하여 다른 단어의 정의를 불법 복제했습니다(이 유형의 경우가 30개 이상 있거나 있었던 것 같습니다)
  • 영어 위키낱말사전의 [14] 불법 복제 페이지, "m" 및 "lb"와 같은 일부 틀이 두 위키에 모두 존재하지만 다른 목적으로 인해 쓰레기가 발생함)
  • 틀을 깨고 그로 인한 손상 - 손상되지 않은 상자는 제 수리 작업으로 인해 2019년 이전에 모두 파손되었습니다.
  • "mensogi" [15]이(가) 사실상 빈 페이지를 만들었습니다.
  • "ĉiumaniere" [16]는 사실상의 빈 페이지 accusations 비난을 만들었습니다.
  • "aglo" 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 번역 블록을 복사하는 [17], 넌센스의 8 KiO, 번역 테이블은 3개의 정의를 참조하며 위에서 하나만 사용할 수 있습니다.
  • "bati" [18] 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 번역 블록 복사, 번역 테이블은 8개(8!!!) 정의를 참조하고 위에서 하나만 사용할 수 있으며 추가는 본질적으로 쓸모가 없습니다.
  • "Badeno-Vurtembergo" Badeno-Vurtembergo&action=edit&oldid=787980 파블로는 독일어 틀로 빈 페이지를 만들었습니다.
  • [19] 파블로는 존재하지 않는 단어에 대한 페이지를 만들고 위키백과에도 추가했습니다(파블로의 신조어 "kroĉaĵo"는 Corpus에서 0 조회수, 전통적인 단어 "afikso"는 69 조회수).
  • "Dortmund" [20]는 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입했습니다.
  • "Hund" [21]는 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입했습니다.
  • "Mutter" [22]는 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입했습니다.
  • "Block" [23] 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지 삽입했습니다.
  • "Cluster" [24]는 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입했습니다.
  • "Vogel" [25]은 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입했습니다.
  • "Nachtigall"은 독일어 위키낱말사전에서 복사하여 거대한 페이지를 삽입하고 2년 후 PIV에서 복사한 내용을 추가하여 "개선"했습니다.
  • "pozitivo" PIV에서 불법 복제된 eowikt, "콘텐츠"의 나머지 부분은 빈 틀 호출입니다.
  • "anáfora" eowikt는 PIV 스페인어 단어에서 불법 복제되었지만 불법 복제 콘텐츠는 PIV에서 가져온 것입니다.
  • "crank up" "wordreference.com"에서 불법 복제된 eowikt 영어 단어이지만 "wordreference.com"에서 불법 복제된 스페인어 횡설수설
  • "surge" eowikt 영어 단어이지만 "wordreference.com"에서 불법 복제된 스페인어 횡설수설, "중요한 것이 누락되었습니까? 오류를 보고하거나 개선 사항을 제안하세요. WordReference 영-한 사전 © 2016"

파블로의 또 다른 나쁜 습관은 여기 그리고 여기와 같은 커뮤니티 합의에 반대하는 것입니다.

파블로는 표제어 문서, 틀 및 모듈(작동 방식을 정확히 0으로 이해함), 그리고 독일 위키낱말사전의 "도움말" 페이지(어처구니 없이 파블로가 금지된 곳)를 복사했습니다. 저는 파블로의 기본 원칙이 "독일어 위키낱말사전의 사람들이 내 규칙을 따르도록 할 수 없다면 대신 내가 유일한 황제이고 내 규칙이 궁극적으로 적용되는 완전한 독일어 위키낱말사전을 에스페란토 워키낱말사전으로 복사할 것입니다. 따르세요". 에스페란토 위키낱말사전에 있는 독일어 도움말 페이지는 쓸모가 없으므로 예, 삭제하고 아니요, 그렇게 해서 부끄럽지 않습니다. 파블로가 일반 위키에서 이러한 방식으로 행동했다면(외국어로 "도움말" 페이지 대량 제출) 첫 번째 위반 시 삭제, 두 번째 위반 시 삭제 및 경고, 세 번째 위반 시 삭제 및 짧은 차단, 그리고 네 번째 위반 시 삭제 및 장기 차단.

파블로의 행동은 파블로가 위키의 기본 원칙인 가치 있는 무료 콘텐츠를 만들기 위한 점진적인 협력 노력을 이해하지 못한다는 것을 보여줍니다. 나에 대한 가장 최근의 차단은 파블로가 결점에서 배우는 것을 계속 거부하고 있음을 보여줍니다. 이는 여러 위키 프로젝트에서 약 14년의 경력을 쌓은 이후입니다. 위에 요약된 사실에 비추어, 지금 관리자 권한 회수 사용자 "Pablo Escobar"에게 강력하게 표시됩니다.

투표 (폐쇄되었지만 아래에서 자유롭게 의견을 말하세요)

Comments

Result

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

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)[reply]

Update

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

Crucial discussion (later vote) at eo wikt

@ 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)[reply]

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

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

@Psychoslave, Lepticed7, and Robin van der Vliet:

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

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. (translate)

Further, User:Taylor_49 wrote that Pablo's desysop is complete. And gives the link (translate) - 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 (translate)

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

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

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. (translate)

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. (translate)

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 (translate) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and completely, as described in the paragraph "Crucial discussion (later vote) at eo wikt"? (translate)

Va (🖋️) 16:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) (translate)[reply]
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. (translate)
Ok, I will not ping you for any question as you are busy. Cheers, Va (🖋️) 10:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 (translate) - 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. (translate) Va (🖋️) 04:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. (translate)
However, problems with "respecting pronouns" have nothing to do with copyright problems. Are you sure you need to discuss them here? (translate)
BTW, what gender is "user" according to the official English grammar? Va (🖋️) 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

참고 및 참조

More notes and references

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

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

In relation to Wikimedia works (translate)

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. (translate) However, we can compare the laws of various states. For example, the period when copyright is limited (translate) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

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

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 (translate) - 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: (translate)

  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nuke all pages created by "Pablo Escobar"

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)[reply]

I think it is a big problem to assert without proof that someone has committed "breaking the law". (translate) 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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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. (translate) Va (🖋️) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@SHB2000:: For reference, under the general name "Complete Dictionary" (complete illustrated dictionary, new complete illustrated dictionary, etc.) PV, PIV, PIVS, NPIV are meant: (translate)
  • "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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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. (translate)
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? (translate)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. (translate) 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"impossible to bring you, Anonymous, to any responsibility" legal threat. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...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)[reply]
NOT interested in your $200 million in punitive damages. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your natural right. You have the right not to be interested in anything. Va (🖋️) 04:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 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)[reply]

Thoughts from Rschen7754

I have shared some thoughts on this situation at Requests for comment/I need to solve the problem that I consider important in the eo.wiktionary.org project#Thoughts from Rschen7754. --Rschen7754 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rschen7754 Thanks for your thoughts. What I miss however are ideas about what should be done in order to get rid of the piracy (on this wiki and on other affected wikis), rather than arguments against nuking and other imaginable full or partial solutions. And again, a wiki where over 90% of content is pirated is no longer a "usual wiki", and a user inserting during 10 years stuff that is pirated to over 99% is not an "ordinaty user" anymore. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Resolve_massive_copyright_infringement_on_Wiktionary_in_Esperanto/ko&oldid=27758918"