In terms of the massive destruction of evidence on the Wikipedia tries to Wikimedia Germany eV with their agents, double agents and Wikipolizisten to disappear as quickly as possible additional evidence. But even here, the friends of the mole were faster because they have archived all. For example, within the Association discussed "Legal defense tactics for action", which is found currently only here.
Admin of Wikipedia called Alexander Klimke aka " Berlin-Jurist ," Ex-prosecutor Berlin, former State Office for State Protection and ex-employees of the Federal Interior Ministry, why probably only have this agent as many ex-designations carry with them? A super agent who has destroyed then why the history of Tron for free non-knowledge of an encyclopedia in order to impede the normal Recherieren for talented people to the courts or to make it impossible? A top agent with significant capabilities and a corresponding influence? Really? Safe? Then would the friends of the mole all geniuses and masterminds because it was created before the crack still back it.
trial tactics of the Wikimedia Germany eV for action
Defense - A legal advice from Alexander Klimke -
The Best tactic, if someone from the Wiki section, regardless of whether or Privatman institution is sued, in my view, to deny that sued to Spich be incorrect action opponents. In this regard, useful information for me I could not live out in the report, although I this area with the most important think.
extreme example, not recommended for imitation, just to clarify:
exclusively in a "Berlin-Jurist" written article is a clear copyright violation detected. On the user side of the applicants come to the real name Alexander Klimke and complains against me. Now I say very boldly in the process of having nothing to do with Wikipedia. Now, the plaintiff must prove that in fact I've become active in my name in the Wiki and have written the article. He could try to get some information about the application log files to the IP in question to determine which would be questionable again, against whom and where would complain. Now the applicant would have to take action against the provider to determine the then users of the static IP. By this time data will be deleted long ago. The applicant can prove my not be sued and lose the trial, no matter how clearly the copyright infringement was. If
about the association be sued, could be argued that the club does not exercise control over the server, nor is the responsibility of, etc. The plate hint in ruling that, in principle, any is liable, which has something to do with it, in my opinion reaches for any event, further ausurteilen as German courts would. All flavors of wiki in Germany would in any case do I think well to the actual organization officially to do Wiki-operation as few have. Then, because there are no suitable action opponents in Germany for potential applicants.
guarantees, would decide how German courts can give unfortunately no one.
This text is for a mailing list for my opinion really too long, I would like to ask him out make modifications reasons reluctant in the wiki. can
About This advice can only shake his head:
Alexander Klimke
FvMM is correct. The Wikimedia Germany eV with Wikipedia administrators very good access, Management rights, enforcement rights, extinguishing rights and other rights specifically for the creation, management and maintenance of content on the German Wikipedia as defined as a self-service services. For what else is there for Wikimedia Germany eV people who are members of the board, while also Wikipedia administrators? Therefore this association can be sued right now all the first - especially if he refuses to remedy a violation of the law on the German Wikipedia. More on this topic, see also the interview .
The opinion of the Iaal