Jump to content

User talk:Domitori

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Domitori in topic Your question

Removal of pics of scientists[edit]

Hello! Will you look, please, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ This seems to be destructive bot. What do you think about it? How to deal with it? Domitori (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it seems so. But the pictures are not accurate in the license. I believe that admins will consider it: [1]. --►Cekli829 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Cekli829, for the quick reply. The licenses were provided few years ago, and those licenses were carefully revised by the users and administrators, who wanted to remove them, but they did not find any error there. The wish of the copyright owners to keep the images in wikimedia resources had been detected and documented. No doubt in their wishes had been expressed. I qualify activity of that bot as trolling, and existence of such bots I consider as indicator of poor administration of the resource. Domitori (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015[edit]

Hi , Domitori . thank you for your question , and my answers is that if I elected in the board I will help to improve the Arbitration Committee to look at all those issues and keep eye on al the admins actions --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC).Reply

Thank you for the quick reply, Mohamed. Let you try. The soviet veterans already have occupied many internet resources with their trolling; it will be interesting to see, if wikimedia can resist against this. Domitori (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your question[edit]

Добрый день, Домитори, спасибо за Баш вопрос. I have worked many years in the former Soviet Union. I take a very dim view of the work of editors carrying out the work of the Russian state in warping records on the internet. As I am presently working in Ukraine I see a lot of this. I believe the Foundation needs to take a stand against all and any attempts to inhibit Wikipedia's tasks of conveying accurate and neutral-point-of-view information. Russia is not the only villain here - you may not have noticed (on a more trivial level) recent reports that British MPs are trying to 'doctor' their Wikipedia articles of embarrassing information. The Foundation should be at the forefront of making internet, and especially Wikipedia information reliable, and we should investigate the creation of tough sanctions against those who seek to violate these principles. Brest regards, --Smerus (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. As you used to work in the USSR, then, perhaps, you can read Russian. Several descriptions of things, that happen in projects of Wikimedia, are available also in Russian:
These are only 3 examples; the same refer also the texts by other authors, who already consider Wikimedia as pro–soviet, pro–KGB project, and have no hope to defend themselves here, and did not wrote the similar letters.
The promoters of pro–soviet censorship use misinformation, vandalism and trolling. The most dangerous is, that they are supported by some administrators and bureaucrats.
I think, the Foundation of Wikimedia should reconsider the policy with respect to bureaucrats, who abuse their privileges.
I think, some of their actions should be qualified as not only trolling, but also fraud.
After the end of the USSR, the Soviet veterans were not punished, were not jailed into the same concentration camps of GULAG, where they killed the most of population of the USSR. I think, this was severe error. As the result, the Soviet veterans have recovered their power in Russia, forcing to Designate Russia as state sponsor of terrorism. I think, Wikimedia still can avoid this error. I mean, to avoid bolshevism. I mean, to look for the true, not for the majority. If Putin had stolen some 10^11 dollars and spends some part of them, supporting his supporters, he gets absolute majority at any public site, and projects of Wikimedia are not exception. The result will be abundance of the pro–soviet, pro–KGB propagandist texts, and suppression of any objection. (Any deviation from the Soveit concept of history is qualified as anti–Sovietism and is suppressed by the Soviet veterans.)
Can you do anything about the problem mentioned at Wikimedia? Domitori (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for delayed reply, I have been out of internet range. As I said, we should seek tough sanctions against those who try to pervert the truth, and I would support moves to achieve them.--Smerus (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your question[edit]

Dear Mr., I thank you very much for your question. I have saw the references you brought. In general, sources and photos are accepted in WMF wikis only when they are under CC Licence or when they are aged more than 150 years or when their author died more than 70 years ago. Accepting sources and photos not meeting to these two criteria would require exceptional performances. This problem is common and is not only for Russian Personalities. I also had suffered from the underestimation of special permissions when uploading documents to Commons. For my personal experience, if you would like to upload a document to Commons, you should contact the owner of the website publishing the document and apply to include "This document can be published in WMF Wikis" under the document if you want the document to be published. If you cannot do this, even if you bring a special permission for use, the document would not be practically accepted. However, I agree that users from Global South and East Europe are the most people who are suffering from that. For the Russian Situation, I saw the Kouznetsov query in the japanese website... There is an objective reason and a subjective reason for what happened to Kouznetsov. Objectively, The problem is that he included the permissions in his book and not in the form within Commons... and this is a problem because as I explained before if the special permission is not mentioned in the page in which the document is existing, it would be a problem for admins to prove that the permission is accurate... For example, if the permission is given by email, the admin will ask himself if the email is not falsified... Subjectively, when I saw the pages within English Wikipedia about Soviet Dissidents, I had the impression that the works about them were brief and not well organized... I saw how most of these works are not involving a photo and that is very worrying for me... I think that there are some problems... The Russian civil law is very long and is not very flexible... It cannot be understood by users and that is why you asked the question to us... If elected, I will try first to promote the acceptation of Signed and Legalized Paper Based Special Permissions within WMF wikis and working projects. I will try after that with the cooperation of the Russian Wikimedia User Group to negociate with the government to let the legislation more flexible and intelligible to users... However, this is not sufficient... As users from Russia, you have to work more in Russian WikiProjects in wikipedias to find trusted references that can be used to ameliorate the output about Russia and try to give more interest in uploading documents you have created by yourself and documents aged more than 150 years.

For problem related to vandalism and some important similar issues, I will try to insure more equal representation of countries inside the Arbitration Committee that controls such matters and supports the neutrality, the notority, the quality and the objectivity of Wikipedia and other projects like Commons because most of the details you had given are about the manners of admins about uploading data into commons and more particularly the data related to the Soviet Union and History.

Thank you for your exceptional interest for WMF Board Elections.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Csisc. I followed the rules of Mediawiki. I got the permission. Then the administrators changed the rules, and removed the images, and I had to communicate the copyright owners again. Again, they sent their permissions. But I see, this does not work. I seems, that those, who make decisions, are completely un-coupled from those, who makes demagogy around it pretending to protect the rights of owners of the copyrights. I am not sure, if you read well, what is happening. Perhaps, I should copy past, that I see:


Commons:Deletion requests/File:GrigorenkoAndKallistratova1977.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository < Commons:Deletion requests This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted. File:GrigorenkoAndKallistratova1977.jpg[edit] Copyright violation, no OTRS. 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep Look the permission field. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep seems to be a troll–bot. Look at its contribution. It does not look for the license, it just places the deletion mark. Domitori (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The distributes misinformation about the violation of copyritht. It acts as a Soviet veteran, as a censor, terrorist, bolshevik, who tries to eliminate all the memory about the past. I think, the nomination is ideologically motivated. The soviet veterans try to hide the evidence of their crimes, and delete as much as they can about their crimes. In particular the soviet dissidents are under attack. The copypast is below. It is a little bit in Russian, but I confirm, that it corresponds to the free licenses, specified at the image. Domitori (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Заявление. Я звляюсь владелицей авторских прав на книгу "Заступница" (Звенья, 2003) и на фотографии, использованные в этой книге. Настоящим сообщением я подтверждаю, что я разрешаю свободное использоване текста и фотографий из этой книги при условии, что указывается источник. В частности, это относится к фотографиям, которые в настоящий момент помещены на http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:GrigorenkoAndKallistratova1977.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KallistratovaPortrait1941.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KalllistratovaV_Moskovskoj_Tribune.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KallistratovaV_kollegii_advokatov195xrr.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kallistratova_V_univere1928.jpg Каллистратова Маргарита Александровна, 24 апреля 2008 года. Kept: Seems to be permission Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand, bot–vandal nominates many files for deletion, ignoring the permission.
I had indicated the fact of vandalism and trolling.
The people agreed.
Then some administrator–vandal removes the file, together with the permission.
This is just one example.
This is way as the trolls and vandals do.
Domitori (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Mr.,
I had some ideas in order to solve such problems... is an IP Address User and he cannot do such actions... If it had done so, this is a harmful infraction of the policy of commons... However, the IP Address proves that this bot is Russian... So, this soviet veteran is located in Moscow... and this is a problem... If major Soviet veteran are Russians, Wikimedia Community cannot unfortunately do anything for any of them.
As for the changes of policy that are occuring suddently in order to refuse a work, I had proposed to do a Commons Council if elected. Any change to the policy of Commons would not be finally merged until it will be approuved by the council of the admins of Commons...By that, such changes would not be done suddently... I think that this fact will solve this problem because I think that a country like the Russian Federation has a sufficient number of admins that let its positions within Wikimedia Commons important...
Thank you very much.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Csisc. I do not understand, what "change to the policy of Commons" are you talking about.
I had suggested the explicit examples, where the administrators and bureaucrats support vandalism and trolling, commit sabotage. This refers not only to Commons, but also to Wikisource. I still observe not a "policy, that should be changed", but just corruption, fraud at very high level of administration. If the top managers do nothing, then, soon the same will be in other Wikimedia projects.
If suppression of texts and images of the Soviet dissidents is a policy, then, the admins have no need to use the pretext of the "copyright violation", they may just say: "This author does not follow Socialistic Realism; for this reason we remove all texts and images related to this author by bot, and we ban those who dislike this."
But yet, the administrators do not declare this; instead, use fraud as justification of the removals.
For this reason, I think, no "change of policy" should be suggested.
I think, the phenomenon should be qualified as "sabotage", "fraud" and "corruption".
I cannot change it, but I can qualify this phenomenon with words I found to be most adequate to the case.
I think, no change of policy is necessary, but just elimination of corrupted administrators, who commit the sabotage and the fraud.
I have no idea, how can the council of the admins of Commons resolve this. If the soviet veterans already count with the majority there, then, perhaps, nothing can be done, and the project becomes a branch of the Russian KGB.
Sincerely, Domitori (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Mr.,
I thank you for your reply. The changes to the policy of commons for your works should include some exceptions. For example, all documents about soviet leaders are aged less than 150 years... So, changes to the policy could include that documents about the soviet leaders could be involved if aged more than 50 years... However, I agree on the fact that the council could not change a lot the facts. Wikimedia Russia should be very active on this issue. I think that the Board of Trustees should collaborate with Wikimedia Russia to solve absolutely the issue by releasing tutorials in Russian, discuss with Russian users about how to write about Russia as most of Soviet veterans are from Russian Federation... You have to create a WikiProject Russia in most of the wikis and try to let a neutral admin responsible of it. Personally, I will try to do my best about this issue if elected.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Csisc. I do not understand your point. How the age of the Soviet leaders may affect the corruption among administrators and bureaucrats of projects of Wikimedia? While such a corruption, I think, any project will be converted to the socialistic realism, sovietism and apology of the Soviet/Russian terror. Domitori (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Domitori, if the Soviet Leaders is dead less than 70 years ago, most of the data about him is still protected by copyright... So, even if you get some licences from some important organizations to publish some data, admins would not be sure about the certainty of the information provided about the Soviet personalities you talked about... However, if the Russian government edits a circular in which allows to people to use freely some chosen important data related to the Soviet Union personalities, Wikimedia Admins can get an overview about the person and eliminate all false information... Moreover, the corruption you have talked about is not caused by people outside Russia as the IP Address proves that the location of who is a recognized Soviet Veteran is Moscow... I think that solving these important problems could be done by Wikimedia Russia... So, I think that Russian Users should do a Wikimedia National Meeting soon to solve all problems. --Csisc (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Csisc. Your statement is doubtful, but it is not relevant to the case, because the images of Leonard Ternovsky, Sofia Kallistratova, Yury Orlov and many others are not properties of the Russian Government. Nor their texts are properties of the Russian government. Servers of Wikimedia are not at territory controlled by the Russian government. May be, they prepare the occupendum in Florida and annexation of Florida? Could you look, please, at the examples I had suggested? Until now, the corrupted admins do not refer to the orders of the Russian government; their claim is, that since 2014, the remaining of the files in Wikimedia projects violate the copyright. This is wrong. I investigated the case; this is trolling, vandalism and fraud. Domitori (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Domitori, you had not understood the point. I am talking about Russian GLAM. Some important documents for your work are existing in the famous Museum of Contemporary Russian History in Moscow known also as the State Central Museum of Moscow or Central Historical Museum of Moscow... These documents are exposed to public and does not harm the stability of Russian Government. Many other places contain such important resources for your work... What I meant is that Wikimedia Russia can obtain a convention with the Russian Government to make some photos for these documents in order to use them in Wikipedia works about USSR... By that, you will not find anyone who can refuse your photos. Even the Soviet Veterans would not do anything to you because you are supported by Russian Government. As for fraud and vandalism done by Soviet Veterans in Russia and abroad, the admins of the Wikiproject can protect the works that cause controversies between Soviet Supporters and Soviet Veterans after creating a neutral and mostly excellent version of these works. --Csisc (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, now you are right: I do not understand your point. I do not understand the meaning of term CLAM in this context. Could you explain me please? For example, what is relation between the "Russian GLAM" and the first example in my list,
14:57, 2 April 2015 Rubin16 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:GrigorenkoAndKallistratova1977.jpg (OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons) (global usage; delinker log)
Why do you consider the "Russian GLAM" as justification of vandalism at the level of the administrator?
The ability of vandal bots to suggest photos for the deletion and the ability of the corrupted admin to remove them with another bot greatly exceed our abilities to defend them, do not you think so?
Sincerely, Domitori (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Domitori, GLAM is the set of institutions that saves historical sources for a country. It includes libraries and museums. GLAM institutions are generally a property of the state and contains the historical main proofs of a neutral history of the country. As these institutions have the scientific and social authority to give a neutral overview of the History of a country, justifying works about Soviet Dissidents from data existing in GLAM will not face any offense by veterans because GLAM are owned and regulated by the government and because you had a permission for that by the government or GLAM. Andy Mabbett for UK worked for that in London for 6 years and proved that such actions are successful to eliminate vandals and veterans and that is why Wikimania had been interested on this fact since 2012.
If data from GLAM does not exist in Wikipedia, any person will have the opportunity to explain facts according to his thoughts and not according to the neutral version of it. That is why Wikimedia Russia should negociate with the government to get a circular allowing them to use the data and sources exposed in GLAM whatever their ages was. --Csisc (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand your argumentation. It seems to violate the basic rules of Wikimedia, and also the basic concept about Hunan rights. You seem to justify the censorship. Domitori (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am agaist vandalism and censorship. This is very clear. I have to explain clearly my ideas and this is not the first time when I got offensive reactions for something I had not said.
Let's try to be practical. You are right when you said that this is vandalism. However, this does not solve the situation.
So, please try to do this procedure
1. As the Soviet Veterans are many, Try to find Wikimedia Users from Russia who have the same knowledge as yours and who are willing to contribute to works about Soviet Dissidents and this could be done in Wikimedia Russia National Meeting.
2. Try to find an institutional recognition, the Museum of Contemporary Russian History holds a number of highly qualified researchers who can help you and support all the issue. They can provide you with sources from the Museum which can be uploaded to Commons and can submit a review of your works about Soviet Dissidents to Scientific Journals which will give more trustworthiness to your work
3. Try to apply from the admins of Wikipedia to protect the page as soon as you finish modifying it so that Soviet Veterans cannot have the opportunity to do their vandalism
4. Try to allocate sources for the work from books and works. Try to use first party sources which are books with ISBN and Journals with ISSN. The most important fact is to write the work in Wikipedia in an excellent way including all the facts about the Soviet Dissidents. By that, you will get the overview you need without being obliged to use Commons. There are some works in Wikipedia that got GA Status without including any file from Commons
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Csisc. Will you explain your point, please. You suggest some kind of "protection". I have presented the evidence, that some administrators, in particular, Rubin16 and Loman, commit vandalism and fraud. Whom should I address to recover some files and protect them against the corruption at very high level of the administration? Domitori (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

After modifying a page and when you see clearly that the page is endangered of fraud and significant vandalism, you can apply for page protection here for Wikipedia and here for Commons. --Csisc (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some of vandals are bureaucrats, so, I think, this is vain. Well, if you can recover the images removed by bot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ , I shall consider seriously your suggestion. This bot has support at the level of administration of Common. Domitori (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC).Reply

Dear Domitori, As I had seen, not all the trials of the bots had been accepted as only seven files had been deleted from all the files you have already uploaded. File:KallistratovaPortrait1988.jpg, File:KallistratovaV kollegii advokatov195xrr.png, File:Velikan.jpg, File:Yuri Nesterenko.jpg, File:05YuMShirokov.jpg, File:BonnerAndSakharovAndKallistratova1986.jpg and File:GrigorenkoAndKallistratova1977.jpg are these files. Velikan.jpg is deleted because it was already existing as VelikanovaTatMi.jpg. For all the remaining files, they were deleted because of copyright issues. So, I will try to reestablish these six files for you. --Csisc (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is different from the your one. The files were deleted with the copyright pretext. The permissions had been arranged according to the rules of Wikimedia. The corrupted administrators commit fraud, pretending that the copyright owners had withdrawn their permissions. As for the duplicates - if the administrators would have goal to improve the content of wikimedia, they would left redirects, or run a bot to replace names in the articles. As I see, this did not happen. For these two reasons I remain in my opinion that the administration of Wikimedia is corrupted, removing the content of wikimedia with inconsistent pretexts. Up to my knowledge, neither Rubin16 nor Loman tried to resolve the problem. Domitori (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Domitori, I found an explanation for all the documents by discussing with Wikimedia Commons Admins. I talked to the admins you have mentioned and they had explained to me how the documents had been refused.
They said to me that you didn't contact ORTS before uploading the documents to Commons which is a serious fault.
For further information, please click here.
So, please upload the six documents again after submitting ORTS.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Csisc. It seems to me, that the trolls had misinformed you. Up to my knowledge, the copyright owners had sent their permissions through the ORTS. It seems to me, that the ORTS just does not work. It is hidden, and we cannot see, what is happening inside. Up to my knowledge at least Lozman never had tested that system by himself. Some copies of the permissions had been loaded to


Do you understand Russian? Domitori (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) P.S.: If you understand the "explanations" (I found them inconsistent), could you answer my questions about them? Domitori (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had consulted a person who knows Russian. It seems to me that the copyright owners had sent their permissions through the ORTS. However, the admins had unfortunately misconsidered it. That is why copyright owners had posted their permissions ar mizugadro.mydns.jp. You should contact Wikimedia Russia soon at info@wikimedia.ru. --Csisc (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think, one message sent through ORTS could be "unfortunately misconsidered" but is seems to me, that all messages sent through ORTS are ignored. ORTS seems to be a trump to distract attention of readers of Mediawiki from the fraud, from the sabotage at the high level of administration. Please, note, that the texts and the images were loaded according to the rules of Mediawiki, and during several years nobody had complained about storing of those texts and images at Mediawiki. Neither the copyright owners, nor the censors. Since past year, the censors become more active and more aggressive. I think, namely these censors get the message sent to ORTS; so, it is vain to send them more similar messages. In order to verify my statement, you may send them, for example, the text http://mizugadro.mydns.jp/t/index.php/Между_Геббельсом_и_Геростратом .. I expect, it will be just ignored. Frauders know, that they are frauders, and it is vain to say them the same again and again. The only, we can inform the readers of Mediawiki, the sponsors of Mediawiki and, may be, the legal court at Florida about this fraud. Domitori (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply