Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Manila 7

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld

Can we hold off adding someone/a party was disqualified until the judgment has become executory? For COMELEC purposes, a decision by the division is not executory not until 5 days after judgement, and if there's no motion for reconsideration to en banc. Most aggrieved parties avail the motion, so it's improper to present these people/parties as "disqualified". If COMELEC en banc dismisses the motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party can still go to the Supreme Court, but usually the COMELEC doesn't wait for the TRO; this is the time we can declare that the decision is executory.

For example, 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections and in 2025 Pasig local elections, the infamous Ian Sia was denoted as "disqualified" a few days before the election. What happened was a COMELEC division disqualified him, but on election day, the judgment was not yet executory, so he can still be voted upon. He lost so it is moot. This also happened now for Duterte Youth and Joel Uy (vs. Benny Abante)

FYR, {{u|Rizalninoynapoleon}}, {{u|Hariboneagle927}}, {{u|Patrick Cristiano}}. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:This [https://www.inquirer.net/447169/comelec-2nd-division-cancels-duterte-youth-party-lists-registration/ is explained] by George Garcia:

:

The decision of the division is not final, and therefore, there are many times when the decision of one member changes during the en banc, especially if there will be an explanation on why the division’s decision was wrong.

:The Inquirer story also details this on the part after that quote.

:In articles, it's best to say that "COMELEC x division disqualified person/party; person/party can appeal". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Developing countries award - gold.svg

Tambayan Philippines, the Developing Countries WikiContest will be returning for a second year, and sign-ups are now open! The contest will run from 1{{nbsp}}July to 30{{nbsp}}September, and the objective remains the same: improve as many articles relating to developing countries as you can to help fight systemic bias on Wikipedia.

In other news, we have a new face on the coordinator team this year: last year's sixth-place finisher, {{user|Arconning}}! The coordinators would like to extend a sincere thanks to {{user|Ixtal}}, who is leaving the team, without whom the contest would not exist. After feedback from contestants last year, the scoring rules are undergoing some modifications; the new rules and a summary of the changes made will be posted to the contest talk page shortly.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page, use the {{tl|@DCWC coordinators}} template, or contact one of the coordinators: {{user|Arconning}}, {{user|sawyer777}}, or {{user|TechnoSquirrel69}}. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove this talk page from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

Please join the discussion if interested. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I had them reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Junie Yu and WP:NOTHERE by 1bisdak for WP:NOTHERE behavior there and in the article itself. However, there is a more disturbing pattern of LLM that has just been discovered. All their articles, including this one need to be scrutinized again if not wiped on grounds of serious breach of integrity, namely

:*Pangangan Island

:*Amay Bisaya

:*Draft:Bitcoin treasury companies

:Borgenland (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::You can argue Amay Bisaya's acting career alone can save that article from deletion; no comment on other articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They reverted draftification of Pangangan on grounds that they live there, no strong opinions on whether it affects things. Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can anyone here access IA web link (web.archive.org)? I can't access it in my case unless I try to redirect using "wayback.machine.org". Though sometimes the redirect doesn't work. On some rare occasions the redirect or (very rarely) the mother site (IA site itself) leads to a warning page similar to this. Generally, though, the IA web link doesn't work. I dunno if this is confined only to my ISP. See also [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=1048394369 my post on Wikimedia Commons]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Actual topic link: c:Commons:Village pump#Commons:500px licensing data and Internet Archive link (not in permalink). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have also been unable to access web.archive.org for a couple of days, but www.archive.org works to some extent. CMD (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Same. [https://archive.org/ The mother site] is OK, yet the web.archive.org isn't. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems working fine on my end. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Same. I just archived a website today. D-Flo27 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@AstrooKai@Chipmunkdavis@D-Flo27

:::CONFIRMED. w:en:Converge ICT (Pampanga province-based ISP) has recently blocked IA's web.archive.org without clear explanation (as of this writing). See [https://www.facebook.com/ikawalonieli/posts/-internet-access-in-ph-namecheap-returns-but-web-archive-now-blocked-on-converge/1434697764441156/ this Facebook post]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Or, the reasons for block are vague: the foreign, US-hosted site is allegedly violating various Philippine laws (like anti-p*rno laws, regulations on investments, and laws combating online fraud and scams), as claimed by the warning page that resembles this one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If Converge has indeed blocked web.archive.org due to such violations, there’s little doubt that other ISPs in the Philippines may follow suit.

::::Are we now facing the prospect of a broader crackdown on all archiving websites accessible in the country? Could this move against IA be just the beginning? After all, if IA did violate those laws, it stands to reason that other web archives have likely done so as well. AstrooKai (Talk) 15:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If filters blocking access to particular websites or web pages are put in place by individual ISPs or by countries controlling internet access gateways, I don't think that WP should consider that an operational concern or that WP editors should consider that an editorial concern. Also, I think that shorthand terminology above might lead to confusion. AFAICS, the Internet Archive (IA) did not "violate" any of the various RP laws listed on the warning page linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Censorship_on_the_web_in_the_Philippines_(2024).png]). I have not read those individual laws, but I doubt that the RP government has jurisdiction over the IA. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::While the Philippine government may not have jurisdiction over the IA, the government can order ISPs to have certain webpages blocked... or even the IA themselves can prevent Philippine ISPs from accessing their website (see some American websites geoblocking the rest of the world due to GDPR). Howard the Duck (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Howard the Duck IA remains accessible to a certain PH internet users, as long as their ISP isn't Converge. Converge users are having a hard time accessing IA.

:::::::@Wtmitchell kindly read the Facebook post of a concerned netizen, which includes the actual screenshot of a warning screen claiming that "web.archive.org" is violating certain PH laws. That screen was shown to me once on my phone browser after repeatedly trying to reload both "web.archive.org" as well as "wayback.archive.org" last Tuesday (which prompted me to post the matter here as well as on Commons Village Pump). Most of the time though, error message screen claiming domain was not found (e.g. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN on my laptop browser). While PH government does not have any control on US-hosted websites, let alone IA, it is expected that any foreign-hosted platform or website must adhere to PH laws, as long as those are being used/enjoyed/consumed here. The [https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/economy/950355/bir-extends-deadline-for-tax-registration-of-foreign-digital-service-providers/story/ VAT on foreign digital services that made news recently] is one example of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hi. If you linked that FB post above, I missed it; I'm not going to search Facebook trying to locate that post -- if you'll post a link here, I'll look at it and comment. You say that it is expected (by whom?) that if someone in the Philippines looks at a web page, the website sourcing that page must adhere to PH laws even if it is located in some other country (my paraphrase). Right? Would that apply for all other countries as well? Can you provide a reliable source supporting that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Re: FB post, [https://www.facebook.com/ikawalonieli/posts/-internet-access-in-ph-namecheap-returns-but-web-archive-now-blocked-on-converge/1434697764441156/ here it is].

:::::::::Re: PH laws in relation to foreign sites and platforms, such laws are being introduced one by one, in light of increasing online usage here, especially after the pandemic period. One relates to foreign digital services (like Netflix, Nintendo Switch, etc.), as said in the article I shared (see the link just above your latest comment). Another one, in relation to e-commerce sites, is [https://fma.ph/digital-laws-reshaping-ph-cyberspace-the-internet-transactions-act/ the Internet Transactions Act]. Perhaps the copyright law (RA 8293) hasn't yet been amended by site-blocking legislation, but some of the pending site-blocking bills from the 19th Congress, like [https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=19&q=SBN-2150 Senate Bill 2150] and [https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/first_19/CR00443.pdf House Bill 7600], grant the copyright office (IPOPHL) the power to authorize the ISPs to block websites hosting infringing content, "unless otherwise ordered by the appropriate court of law." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hell, even sites hosted by Blogger have been hit by censorship bureau allegedly due to porn violations, even though there's a bazillion sites under that service that have otherwise innocuous content. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The relevance of Converge block vs. IA's wayback machine, on my part, is that it's harder to verify some images on Commons that are unambiguously taken from external sources, which their uploaders claimed to be under free license but are now unfree. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cephalopholis sonnerati, the tomato hind.jpg (BTW, I used "wayback.archive.org" while looking for older versions of the description page of the externally-sourced image). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll stop commenting on Converge ICT's blocking of IA (web.archive.org), from now on (I won't disclose the off-wiki reason). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, all.

It appears that an enthusiastic editor has created a WikiProject task force as part of your group, without telling you about it. The subject is a television show called Pinoy Big Brother. His prior message said that it would be a task force of a different WikiProject, but that other group rejected it. Do you all want this task force? WikiProjects are allowed to have as many or as few task forces as the group wants.

If you want this task force, then you don't need to do anything else right now. If you don't want this one, then please ping me or leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, and we'll get it cleaned up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:We need help on Philippine-related articles, but not Pinoy Big Brother crap. I just got a housemate article deleted the other day LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:It seems that the task force was created without prior consensus from either WikiProject. Personally, I don't think we need a separate task force dedicated solely to Pinoy Big Brother at this time.

:There are already many areas within this WikiProject that require more urgent attention, and the current task forces still have existing backlogs. While there has been some progress, it's been relatively slow, and adding another narrowly focused task force could further stretch our limited manpower. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Royiswariii, pinging you since you have not replied to the relevant discussions in the past few days but continued to work on this task force, hoping you could explain your thoughts regarding this matter. AstrooKai (Talk) 04:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources to this article. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)