User talk:Jrogers (WMF)
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Case for possible use of the Office Action at Nazi page Janevistan
Dear Mr. Rogers, I would like to bring to your attention discussion of possible use of the Office Action at User_talk:Jalexander-WMF  "REQUEST FOR DELETION TEMPLATE OF A NAZI PAGE: BLP Violations at sh.wiki./Janevistan". If you think that you can initiate proper case at Wiki (WMF), by sending email at firstname.lastname@example.org. (Legal Office) as suggested by James Alexander (User:Jalexander) and if you agree, please do so. I cannot send email to : email@example.com , because I do not want to reveal my ID (by email). So in the previous discussion you have some elements strongly suggesting that Janevistan was a Nazi jokes page, and also it was protected to the highest possible level by local sh.wiki. administrators. Please, read comments of previous users (IMPP-Dragan and Macedonian Libertarian and IP: 22.214.171.124) to fill the request and/or use Google translate for Serbian or Croatian. My Best regards,Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- What James is suggesting is that if you have a legal reason why the Foundation must change the page, you should send it to legal@. Feel free to use a different or disposable email address to contact legal@ if you do not wish to reveal your identity. At present, this is not an issue where the Foundation would intervene, and should instead be resolved by the editor community, but if there's some particular law that you think would apply here, I can review and determine whether the Foundation would be required to act on it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. It may take us a few days to see it and review, but we'll let you know what we can do once we've looked it over. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jacob. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Jacob, let me remind you (under norm other laws, above, not only copyright) that US laws protects the dignity of Foreign States by signing a Diplomatic Convention (1961). Specific references to the relation between dignity of nation and national flags and representative sovereignty are found in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, signed and ratified by the United States, codified the 1961 (United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities). For example, the 4 Article 20 of the Vienna Convention grants a diplomatic mission the right to exhibit its national flag on the mission premises and on the head of mission's transport. Article 22, paragraph 1 ensures the inviolability of the mission. Article 22, paragraph 2 obliges the receiving State to prevent impairment of the mission's dignity: "The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. These provisions were designed to foster "the sovereign equality of states, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations." And so on.... The same case was were US took int. obligations is related to the Consular Convention of 1963 (that also become the Law of the Land/US). So the dignity of the foreign states is protected by US Law and constitute the part of the US Laws! See also other diplomatic legal instruments ratified by US.Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jacob. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. To conclude. National sovereignty and dignity are represented by Symbols of national identity. Insults to these symbols are insults to the states they represent. These principles further establish the legal obligation at international law for states to penalize (domestic) acts.Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- And more legal instruments: Rights and Duties of States-Convention Signed at Montevideo, December 26, 1933 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/rights.htm , http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/2_1_1949.pdf ,
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm , and for individual rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights and for collective or individual rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity , and related UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cpiun-cpisa/cpiun-cpisa.html http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cpiun-cpisa/cpiun-cpisa_e.pdf 126.96.36.199 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- See also : Dignity of States and/or people: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ and http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1776&context=facpubs 188.8.131.52 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You have a mail
Changing the non discrimination policy
Could you please explain this change since I fail to understand why you updated a policy that is approved by the board without referring to a new board resolution. (Couldn't find one.) Perhaps this was meant as an internal document? That said, it saddens me greatly that "you" (I realise that this is likely not a sole action but since I don't know a better phrase which I can use.) removed the group users. Does this mean that this policy no longer protects regular users who are not contractors or staff against discrimination? Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- A few thoughts. First, you're correct that I didn't just change the policy on my own. This was approved under the board's delegation policy. There's a post by Katherine explaining the changes on the blog. I would also note that the removal of users was done in keeping with how that policy has always been read. Luis had publicly commented a few years ago that this particular policy was something only for WMF staff. Other policies and the law mean that discrimination is not appropriate. That said, if there is an interest in a community policy to match the non-discrimination standards outlined in this policy update, please let us know. It's something that community members can craft themselves, but it's also potentially something that could be done in concert with the WMF via community consultation in order to craft a new policy with broader impact. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please, Opinion on Legal Matter
Dear J. Rogers, the file of Buddha (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leshan_Buddha_Statue_View.JPG) seems to be wrongfully attributed in art. Janevistan (https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korisnik:Orijentolog/Janevistan) with description as "Sitting Igor Janev in Prilep".This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. It seams that the use and attribution of a file were contrary to the prescribed conditions (see: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).Thanks.184.108.40.206 23:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposal with legal aspects
I am putting together a rough draft of a proposal en:User:Guy Macon/Proposals/CAPTCHA. I am letting you know so that you are aware of what I am doing. Would you be so kind as to let the other members of the legal team know?
No action is needed on your part, but of course I would welcome any advice, and especially any corrections if I got something wrong or suggestions for a better way to approach this issue. I suggest en:User talk:Guy Macon/Proposals/CAPTCHA as a good place for any such comments.
- I know that I said there was no hurry on this, but it has been a year without you answering. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Address change confirm
I changed the WMF postal address in Misdirected requests to movement organizations for user data and content takedown. Maybe some sort of template is in order (so there is just one template to update) or I don't know any existing one?
(PS: I got your email. Thanks!)
- Thanks for updating it! That one definitely fell through the cracks. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
sought over en:Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Open_mailing_list_to_edit_filter_helpers?. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Please check your mailbox
Dear Jacob Rogers,
On February 24 I've sent an email to legal at wikimedia.org, but since it contained some URLs and I never received confirmation of receipt I asked for, I believe it ended up in SPAM/Junk folder, unnoticed.
Can you please check legal at wikimedia.org SPAM folder, for this important message, sent on February 24, from address starting with whistleintheair and subject starting with "Important: Potential international ...". I believe it is important for Wikimedia Foundation.
Best regards, whistleintheair
CC-BY-SA on Facebook e.a.
You nonchalantly changed the content of Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media to ist complete opposite, but up to now never answered the question that occured there, and why suddenly facebook TOU are compatible with CC-BY-SA. Coulds you please elaborate, what new facts lead to the U-turn? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
An apology to Nathaniel White
Re. you latest diff blog, I'd be interested to know what, if anything, is stopping the WMF from issuing a simple apology to Nathaniel White? Assuming it hasn't happened yet. Also, please reconsider the jubilant tone of your post. Even if you are correct in everything you have written (and feedback on Wikipedia's Signpost suggests you aren't), that's not going to persuade anyone that the Foundation is mindful of the harm it can and sometimes does cause, even if it isn't liable for it. On that score, please can you confirm for interested parties that the IP editor who removed the image has, to the best of your knowledge, no connection with the Foundation. Mackabrillion (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)