User:Thogo/Alte Diskussionen1

Das ist ein Archiv abgeschlossener Diskussionen. Bearbeitungen auf dieser Seite werden grundsätzlich revertiert.

---

Thank you

Just fly and go the right way In this Image you can see me! Thanks for your Vote (oppose) at my stopped RFA. Even if it is stopped, it was a nice experience for me and I learned from it. Perhaps I´ll try it again in a few month, and I would be happy if you would give your vote (best a support;)) again. Thank you again, __ ABF __ 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Schauma moi. --Thogo (Disk.) 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Thogo. I deeply appreciate your support in my recent nomination. Finally, I've been appointed and I'm ready to go on working (this time with some extra buttons). If you need anything from me, don't hesitate to contact me. I'll be glad to help. Best regards and thank you again. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Thogo (Disk.) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing image

Hi. You deleted Special:Undelete/Image:BSicon_WBRÜCKE GRENZE.svg as duplicate. That's fine, BUT: if you do things like this, please do never forget to notify all pages, where this image was used. It's very hard to track down such deletions and deleting of these icons breaks lots of article layouts like this. Please always remember that Commons contents are transcluded to other wikis! If you deleted more of these icons please work through them and notify all wikis using them on the appropriate article talk pages, same for the mentioned one, of course. Thanks. --Thogo (Disk.) 15:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just learned that the tool showing including of images across wikis doesn't work properly and showed these images as delinked (which wasn't the case). So, not your fault. I fixed all transclusions on dewiki, but probably other wikis used these icons too, I know enwiki and nlwiki use some of them at least. Maybe better make an image redirect instead of deleting. --Thogo (Disk.) 16:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an image redirect is technically possible. :( Perhaps, one day, it will be possible to rename directly a picture !

I use the tool http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commons_dupes.php?category=Duplicate which said that there was no inclusion a the duplicate file I wanted to delete :(

Sorry for the work, but as you said, it isn't really my fault. :)

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, look where we are now, two years later. ;) --Thogo (Disk.) 12:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

US law

---

1.  Oppose US laws mean nothing to me (and I think the mentioned laws on "obscenity" are just funny and outdated), and the proposed policy is too vague and can easily be misused in either way. --Thogo (Disk.) 14:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

   as m:Steward you should be the last person to say US laws means nothing, The Foundation is a US organisation, the servers are in the US they are subject to US law. Gnangarra 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

   Don't tell me what I should and what not. Stewards have to abide by the Foundation policies and by nothing else. I'm not subject to US laws unless I'm currently in that country. --Thogo (Disk.) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

   Foundation policies abide by US law, you know. Your identity is verified as a Steward so and if you break US laws regarding privacy you will be held responsible. By using US servers you are on US sovereign soil. That is how it works. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

   The privacy policy of the Foundation is not based on US law, just so you know, it's much stronger than US law. But that's none of your business, and it definitely doesn't belong here, so every further off-topic comment will be removed. --Thogo (Disk.) 23:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

   It is my business as it is the business of every user here. We have an Ombudsman just to investigate those who would -dare- make such claims as the above, as it is a threat to our privacy, our safety, and a violation of US law. If you hate US law so much, keep it off Commons as -that- has no reason here. Commons is not for you to make a point. You can be sure your actions and words will come up during the next discussion of confidence regarding you, as you have a long history of actions regarding Commons that makes it seem that your actions might not line up with what is best for the Foundation and its projects as they can put us into serious legal jeopardy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   This could be the beginning of an ugly controversy, as Ottava Rima is prone to try things like that. The problem is, if it is crucial for a Wikimedia steward to respect the nuances of U.S. law, how can any non-American stand for election as a steward? But such a motion would be a huge kick in the face for the international Wikimedia community. One reconciliation for this is what we set out to do here: make the specific policy closely follow the U.S. law, so that as long as people follow the policy they follow the law. And if the policy becomes consensus, stewards are required to follow it. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Especially in this case we could have not much worse reference as the US law. It's nearly offensive against the users from other countries, that in general don't life after this forsaken rules. Someone should move the servers out of this desert and bring it into the lands of the free. Would definitely help and ensure that Wikipedia will stay free from censorship. --Niabot (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Foreigners who come to the US are expected to follow our laws, so it isn't hard. Look at child porn - it wont be acceptable here regardless of a person being in a country it is. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Believe it or not, not the whole world belongs to the US, and there are indeed (about 6.5 billion) people who are neither US citizens nor currently in the US and are therefore not subject to US law but to the law of their respective countries which might differ (believe it or not). --Thogo (Disk.) 22:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   As long as Wikimedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, the content on this server has to abide by Florida state laws and by U.S. federal laws. While not everyone around the world is a US citizen or resident, Wikimedia would be held legally responsible if its content violated Florida or US laws. Until the day Wikimedia content is hosted in another country, we have to follow US laws. A dislike of US laws and a dislike of a US focus in the legal considerations of "Sexual content" are not reasonable factors in opposition of Commons:Sexual content. However I believe that residents of other countries can be acceptable stewards. All they need to do is study the relevant US and Florida laws, and they will be good to go. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

   Believe it or not, the whole WMF belongs to the US. You knew this before starting. You don't like US laws, so who cares? You still have to abide by them while here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

   They're right, Thogo. Give it a think. --JaGa (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

   We wouldn't have this discussion if it was just about 'abiding the law' in the US. --MSGrabia (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

   A large component of this policy is making it clear to Commons users that US and Florida laws must be followed when posting sexual images. Some of the objections to this policy are saying that the Commons shouldn't be beholden to US law. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

   This policy proposal was rejected by the community despite of y'all trying to influence it with comments on nearly any opposing vote. (Your behaviour makes a real bad impression and it damages the reputation of the US, as it makes a lot of people laugh about you guys. Just so you know.) Btw., WTM, I answered to your post on my tp and I would be pleased to continue this there, not here. --Thogo (Disk.) 12:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(copied from the page so that everyone can re-read it. --Thogo (Disk.) 12:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

---

Hi! I watched the discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content... You said: "Believe it or not, not the whole world belongs to the US, and there are indeed (about 6.5 billion) people who are neither US citizens nor currently in the US and are therefore not subject to US law but to the law of their respective countries which might differ (believe it or not)."

Kindly see the reply that I posted in response to this. I am giving you a notification here because it is important for you to read my post. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation, and only them, are responsible for what happens on their servers. I as a user can post anything on Foundation servers that is following the laws of my country of citizenship and of the country where I am at the time of posting. The Foundation themselves must set up policies to make sure everything follows US laws. Gee, 99% of the users of Wikimedia projects don't even know where the damned servers stand nor do they know about any US laws or would even expect them to be so much more restrictive with respect to sexual content than the laws of other countries. (Btw., I usually access the servers in Amsterdam anyway, so am I now also subject to Dutch law? ;) ) Not I have to think about what follows US laws and what not, the Foundation has to. If the Foundation as a body decides to remove this and that picture or to impose this and that policy, we'll all have to abide by it and we'll all do. And for that reason, I would plead to move the servers out of the US, to make sure that any type of educational content is allowed to be hosted on Foundation servers. --Thogo (Disk.) 12:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) (to summarize this: I only follow Foundation policies and the laws of my country. Nothing else matters.)

Firstly, consider the following posts (with my underlining):

"With all due respect to those participants, I think following the law is a decision that has already been made for us by the Foundation - we do not have a say in it, no matter how strongly we disagree." - Dcoetzee

"I think the crux of what those participants are saying is that "If US laws truly conflicted with our mission, it'd be valid to consider relocating". It's a rhetorical point-- reminding us that US values aren't necessarily and automatically the Wikimedia movement's values. But I think we're all on board with the idea that we're currently US-flagged, our servers are in the US, we obey US laws." - Alec McConroy

I agree that US values are not automatically Wikimedia values; but Wikimedia needs to follow US law.

"The Foundation, and only them, are responsible for what happens on their servers. I as a user can post anything on Foundation servers that is following the laws of my country of citizenship and of the country where I am at the time of posting." - I find this concept blatantly unacceptable and irresponsible.

If a user posts copyrighted material on Wikimedia servers, Wikimedia can be held legally liable and Wikimedia will have to pay legal fees. For that reason administrators remove copyright violations, and users are held accountable for posting copyrighted material.

If a user posts material illegal in the US and Florida on Wikimedia servers, Wikimedia can be held legally liable and Wikimedia will have to pay legal fees. For that reason administrators remove material illegal in the US and Florida, and users are held accountable for illegal material.

Users need to have accountability; they need to make sure that their content is not illegal under US law. This saves the WMF Foundation time and money. If there is a truly debatable point, Wikimedia legal counsel can help with that.

"The Foundation themselves must set up policies to make sure everything follows US laws" - This is partly the reason why the Sexuality policy has been proposed; to make it clear what legal codes bind sexual imagery.

"Gee, 99% of the users of Wikimedia projects don't even know where the damned servers stand nor do they know about any US laws or would even expect them to be so much more restrictive with respect to sexual content than the laws of other countries." - Well, I think it's time that they learn this.

"(Btw., I usually access the servers in Amsterdam anyway, so am I now also subject to Dutch law? ;) )"

You bring up a valid point - what complications do the Dutch servers have?

However... as stated by LPfi, "The foundation is bound by US laws. It is not enough to move illegal content out of USA, but that content should be administrated by some other entity, for the actions of which WMF cannot have any responsibility."

I haven't made a decision over whether I am overall in favor or opposed to the Sexuality proposal. But I absolutely understand that Wikimedia has to be in compliance with US law, and that is the consensus on all sides. Even non-US users agree to that particular point.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've got better things to do than to read whole novels. Learn to keep yourself short or be ignored. --Thogo (Disk.) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you want short, Thogo, then this is it: Wikimedia is going to be in compliance with US laws. It is not okay to say "I don't want to comply with US laws, make WMF do all the legal work."
• Agree to be in compliance with US law when you contribute. The Wikimedia community has this as a consensus, and the WMF board will ensure that contributors to projects follow US law; the WMF board will not accept users disregarding US law when they contribute.
• You should have written "Sorry, the post is a little long, please summarize what you wrote above" - Next time, please say it that way.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)