Mr. Wales: Thank you for your reply, I am pleased to see you have the courage to deal with
all issues on this matter openly and not hide behind theblocking of my communication by
the moderator. I regret the delay in responding, but it has taken me time to read and
gather information from searching Wikipedia references so that I state facts.
Unfortunately, the paranoia by some is so great that checking out the pages of all the
aliases I�m accused of being, takes some time but they proved most valuable as you will
see herein. I have inserted my most approropiate responses possible in italics and
inserted the writers name.
J.WALES: First, don't be so formal and legalistic. This isn't a court of law,
it's a private website where editing is a privilege generously extended, and a
friendly community of people trying to work on something we believe in. It doesn't
help your cause to be so formal.
Just speak plainly.
Joe Canuck: A person's writing style is a product of their education and lifelong
environment. As such, it would be very difficult to comply with your request. As to
Wikipedia being a "friendly community," I discern something quite different from
reading many of the messages on this list plus you might want to review your own recent
outburst against J. Hoffman Kemp regarding Ayn Rand calling her remarks a "bizarre
and ill-educated slur." That is my definition of offensive. Then, your own words of
advice to all on how to behave after announcing the Wikimedia Foundation.
Joe Canuck: In response to my request for the reasons you banned me you stated:
J.WALES: Please look at this concise summary:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html
Mr. Wales, this is not an answer. The statement here is AFTER you issued your ban and is
therefore immaterial to the actions you stated as the facts that I had committed
warranting your ban. And, unless you are waiving DMCA protection, you cannot step in to
ban me but must be requested to do so by a third party. Please provide the complete
details of the request for my banning.
J.WALES: 1. Are you the same person who was formerly logged in as 'DW' or
'Black Widow'? Do you know DW and Black Widow? Are you associated with them in
any way?
Joe Canuck: As to me being either of the above, in your banning announcement you said
"I express no opinion on that matter." If it is a non-issue, why the sudden
reversal once I question your ban? You did invite me challenge your ban as part of it
being a non issue, did you not? And, as to do I "know" someone who, as best I
can discern was previously banned, or am I "associated" with someone who may
have been previously banned, are you stating that if you ban someone their father, mother,
sister, brother, aunt, uncle, children, friends, employers, priest, accountant, or any
other party "associated" with them is banned too? As I do not understand, please
clarify this important question so that I can and will answer all three questions fully.
J.WALES: 2. As an example of the rude behavior in question, please re-read what you
wrote:
The above photos were placed in Wikipedia by me in FULL
compliance
with the legal requirements set forth by the owners of
Wikipedia.org. Arbitrary removal of these photos by any
person here
constitutes a violation of my rights to use
Wikipedia.org in
accordance with the owners regulations and the licenses
under which it
operates. I am not legally bound to answer any
questions about photos
I place here from other Users who show up here to use
this site under
the same equal terms and conditions as I. I am obliged
only to obey
the regulations set down by the owners under an open
website
license. Any person who disagrees with my position is
welcome to take
up the matter with the owners of
Wikipedia.org. and I
will obey their
ruling without question. But, any individual who,
without the express
written authority of the owners of this website,
violates my right to
free and equal use and enjoyment of this open website
will be held
liable for their actions. Joe Canuck 03:36 20 Jun 2003
(UTC)
This sort of quasi-legalistic nonsense is extremely rude, and completely misunderstands
all of our policies. The people who acted to remove those photos did so under my
"express written authority".
You *had* the right to edit wikipedia, and others *still have* the right to make further
edits, including removing the images that you uploaded.
Joe Canuck: My words are a statement of fact and are in no way rude or disrespectful, or
threatening whatsoever. Your calling them "nonsense" is an opinion being tossed
out not accompanied by proofs of any kind. Editing is one thing, but unwarranted
interference is another. Text can be edited, and the reasons for it debated. Photos
cannot. Therefore one cannot justify the arbitrary removal of a photo on any grounds. It
is what it is. User�s are required to obey the rules set down by
Wikipedia.org, not the
rules created by others as I will demonstrate further on. If I, or any User at Wikipedia,
were to obey what others on this OPEN site say, then some of us would be dead, others
would be trying to have sex with themselves and others trying to go to hell etc. On your
website Mr. Wales, I am not obliged to obey the whims of other users.
J.WALES: Accusing them of violating your rights is preposterous.
Joe Canuck: When I (or any person) arrives at Wikipedia they are granted the right to use
this site in accordance with the rules built into the software which in turn operates
under the licenses under which the website is given the right to operate. Similarly, I
nor anyone else has the right to abuse this site nor do I have the right to deny another
person the right to enjoy this site. For the site owner/operator to intervene and ban
anyone, they must do so based on credible facts, not innuendo. In the United States, it
is a right to carry on business, not a privilege, and using an Open website has inherent
rights under the DMCA because the owner must be passive and cannot interfere. Therefore,
it is not a privilege, but an equal right. The first principle is equality of all Users.
When another User demands I perform certain things over and above the built in software
requirements, that is in fact a violation of my right to freely use this website. When
they continue to demand of
me the same thing, that is harassment. When others join in and together begin demanding I
obey them, that is an organized or spontaneous cabal, something you declared as
unacceptable in your statemnent of principles. The DMCA law states that you, being an
owner-operator, must remain passive: the conduct of the site Users are neither your
responsibility or under your control unless you refute DMCA protection and choose to
intervene. And I checked this morning, you have not cancelled your DMCA registration for
copyright infringement protection. The issue over the photos I uploaded had nothing to do
with fair use. It was solely my clear request that I not be discriminated against but that
I be treated exactly as prior usewrs had, and users after me who had uploaded photos. What
happened to meis clear, deliberate and targeted discrimination. I uploaded photos and
followed the rules created by the
Wikipedia.org software. And, being new (but one who
read a great deal before opening my
mouth) I uploaded images consistent with the way ALL OTHER users had been doing. If you,
Mr. Wales, had taken the time to investigate before banning me, you would have seen that I
alone was being told I MUST supply information others were not being asked to do. Despite
my clear enunciation of the facts that out of the past 500+ to possibly 5,000 photos
uploaded to Wikipedia, mine were the '''ONLY''' ones on which
copyright proof was demanded yet a great many uploaded by others had no statement of
copyright given. I suggest, Mr. Wales, that you read the record of the facts about
discrimination against me at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright. Check the image
list as well as the facts on the Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright page Mr. Wales
and you will see someone posted samples of the multitudes of images uploaded where the
only explanation is the name of the image or other meaningless wording that was never
challenged, questioned or deleted. Others uploaded images
have an unfounded claim that they were "taken by the User. " Accepting user
claims of having taken a photo is an invitation to unlimited abuse yet it is in fact
tolerated. However, even so if they do abuse this, there is no risk of any kind to
Wikipedia because of your registration under the DMCA. Note however that UserMaverick
posted a photo claiming it was in the ''public domain'' which was an
outright lie. No one questioned this, not even after the lie was pointed out. But, the
only ones questioned as to copyright for as far back as the list takes a user were mine
--- and my photos were deleted. That Mr. Wales, is blatant discrimination. And if I
advise another User not to discriminate against me, that sir is not a threat. It is merely
a proper desire that everty citizen wants and is what democracy and human rights is all
about.
But, beyond the fact that no user is obliged to answer someone�s question, tolerance of
that kind of conduct on an open site always escalates. And, at Wikipedia, tolerance of
those making their demands on users has in fact been escalating. Here is an example on the
[[Wikipedia:Bans and blocks]], written by the user and your sysop, MyRedDice:
If you are the victim of a mistaken identity, please provide some evidence of who you are.
This evidence might include a photograph of yourself (holding a sign saying "Hi,
Wikipedia!"), or a non-disposable email address, or a work address or telephone
number, or a link to your off-Wikipedia home page. Your evidence needs only be sufficient
to convince the community that there is some reasonable doubt -- it need not be
conclusive.
That this kind of demand is tolerated by you, Mr. Wales, through the supposed Wikipedia
Administrators, is not only absurd, it is frightening. Keep in mind, I recognize you must
be passive, but equally passive. So, now you have notice on this matter. Worse though, is
that you already received a written warning as to this Sysop�s conduct. Look back in this
mailing list of May 8. You had a complaint from a User named sonyalebrun stating as fact
that sysop MyRedDice had used Wikipedia to launch a hacker's attack against her. In
your reply Mr. Wales, you were grossly rude, making unfounded accusations (that set an
example for others), and belittled this person by stating that: "I find the claim
about MyRedDice placing a photo of himself into this person's cookie folder wildly
implausible." Following thisunacceptable conduct on your part, another user named
koyaanis qatsi, who I believe is a long time and respected Wikipedia User, was so
concerned that the next day he e-mailed you, with
the following comment directed specifically to you:
Jimmy writes:
I find the claim about MyRedDice placing a photo
of himself into this person's cookie folder
wildly implausible, but nonetheless, I'm duty
bound to say don't do that. :-)
Hm, you don't think Martin could have hacked the
server and changed it to assign an ASCII-art
self-portrait cookie to DW and pals, but no one else?
I thought that's what Martin did for a living.
Kq
Mr. Wales, User:MyRedDice is a sysop and one who acts, as you stated above: " under
my "express written authority" ."Not only were you rude and dismissive of a
serious charge against a person under your "express written authority," you
ignored a warning from another credible user and did nothing but insult the complainant.
That Mr. Wales is beyond rude, it is disgraceful and a dereliction of your duty under the
laws which allows you to operate this site. And this statement by me is not
"quasi-legalistic nonsense" as you called it above, but is an absolute fact of
law. You can quote me on that.
In addition, I found where User: J. Hoffman Kemp made racists statements about Canadians
that User:MyRedDice moved to another page and rewrote them so as to deliberately obfuscate
the racists statements. Question, Mr. Wales, why are the sysops and you tolerating this
conduct? Intimidation works when others recognize that User:MyRedDice has hacker skills
and as Kq said above that is: "what Martin did for a living." .
J.WALES: Questions about what you are, or are not, "legally bound" to do are
completely irrelevant in this context -- you are bound to treat others with respect (this
is a formal policy of Wikipedia!) as a matter of courtesy and as a matter of achieving
valid goals.
Joe Canuck: I treated everyone with respect at all times. In fact, had you taken the time
to read the communications on this matter before banning me, you would see that I went out
of my way to politely explain my position to several people even though I am not obliged
to answer those questions. And, if you wish to waive your DMCA protection and abandon the
passive requirement placed on you, then please do so and as an active owner/operator make
all the rules you wish and I will, as I said I would, obey them.
J.WALES: The question of "fair use" of images is a thorny one, and one which we
struggle with constantly. It is therefore important that those who are involved in
controversies related to fair use of images stand ready to work in a friendly manner with
others to reach a consensus. Making quasi-legalistic arguments like the one outlined above
is wrong, and will not be tolerated.
Joe Canuck: Here, Mr. Wales, I will do as you requested and try to be less formal. Your
statement that "The question of "fair use" of images is a thorny one, and
one which we struggle with constantly," is purely self-serving bull.
Wikipedia.org
has no stated goal for its future or that of its contents beyond the operational use of
this website as it exists.
Wikipedia.org through the DMCA license of Bomis Inc. has no
risk of any kind with respect to a Wikipedia User uploading photos. You cannot be held
liable so long as you remove them after your appointed DMCA agent receives a written legal
notification of a violation from the copyright owner. And, you are not required to
monitor the photos uploaded to Wikipedia in any way shape of form. And, ewhen a user
makjes a statement to you that I endangered Wikipedia with my photos and you ban me, then
you have misrepresented this website to its users. And you did point to USER:Jtdirl�s
statement to that effect. Where your supposed
"struggle" comes in, is when Bomis Inc. uses Wikipedia�s uploaded images on
their "For Profit" website. Second, we now move back to your statements at the
beginning of this discussion as to the software you created in compliance with your
operating licenses. You do not have to "struggle" because you have control over
the software and can prevent the uploading of images at anytime had you chosen to do so.
J. WALES: If you are unable to agree, then we should just part company now. I can give
you some recommendations of hosting services for you to start your own website, as well as
to give you the names of other "open editing" websites where your behavior may
be more tolerated.
Joe Canuck: No, thank you. My behaviour if you looked at it, was to put many hours of
work on Wikipedia. And, from this mailing list have to know that someone called my
contributions excellent. Logic, Mr. Wales, says someone who works quietly doing a great
deal of work didn�t come to Wikipedia to cause harm. In fact, had you not exhibited
prejudice as you did in your statement in response to sonyalebrun, you would have
understood that.
J. WALES: But behavior like this, which directly undermines our community spirit of
friendly co-operation, is not allowed at Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Joe Canuck: First, my words and actions never once undermined your so-called community
spirit. In fact, I tried to give off the message as politely as possible that Users who
discriminate, harass, libel or take certain other actions against another User could
trigger a lawsuit that is a real threat to Wikipedia while pointing out that uploaded
images are no threat whatsoever. My effort to enlighten others of the dangers has proven
factual with yesterday�s announcement that the Recording Industry, who can do nothing
about anything uploaded by Users on a DMCA registered site including songs and photos, are
proceeding with legal actions against hundreds of users. As you, Mr. Wales, are aware, it
is the website operator who is automatically drawn into these legal battles first, and
secondly always as a co-respondent. If an individual has been the victim of harassment
etc. at Wikipedia and sues the User for damages, Wikipedia will be named as was Kazaa in
order to obtain the User�s true
identity and you can well be forced to be part of lengthy and costly multiple legal
proceedings. I was trying to help your website Mr. Wales, not harm it. However, I find
your statement unacceptable and will list an example of your claim that Wikipedia is a
" friendly community":
From: User talk:172
Adam's family is trying to garble the opening paragraph of the history of the SU
article. They seem intend on chopping up the opening paragraph so that it says something
else to what it was meant to say. *sigh*. What a monumental asshole Adam and his minions
is!!! [[User:Jtdirl|ST�D/��RE]] 04:23 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Also from: User talk:172
You not had a threat yet from that fuckwit 'Olga' yet? Darn it. You must be
feeling left out. I've come across some piles of horse manure in my time but this
crackpot really stands out. If only the nutter's intelligence was even half as well
developed as his arrogance, he might be able to contribute something to wiki. But about
all this fuckwit does is give everyone a laugh as they count down to his next banning. A
prize asshole of the highest order who thinks we all don't know who he really is.
[[User:Jtdirl|��REman]] 02:43 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Following these "friendly Wikipedia community remarks" calling people horse
manure, crackpots, fuckwit, monumental asshole. User:Jtdirl|ST�D/��RE was accepted by you
as an Administrator of Wikipedia where he could as you said, act under your "express
written authority." Note please, the following clear and precise statement
accompanying Jtdirl�s appointment and can be found on: [[User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6)]]:
As per Jimbo's agreement, you have just been made a sysop! Sysops basically can't
do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like
"jklasdfl,�asdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are
involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it
appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion
for more than a week, protect pages when asked to, and help keep the few protected pages
there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.
Eloquence 01:10 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Note Mr. Wales, the very clear warning about protecting pages when personally involved in
an edit war. Note, Mr. Wales, had you checked before banning me, you would see that while
acting under your "express written authority" Sysop Jtdirl did precisely that
to me, violating your trust by using his sysop powers to protect several pages in an edit
war with me. Following this, and your banning me came User:Jtdirl�s lies and libelous
statement about me that you not only accepted but used to provide a link to as your answer
for banning me. After this, your Sysop Jtdirl received this warning on [[User talk:Jtdirl
(Archive 6)]]:
01:26 24 Jun 2003 . . Maveric149
You said in an edit summary reverting another user: "moved to correct spelling after
some idiot screwed it up"
JT, you're an Admin now and the user in question is not an "idiot." You know
the rest. --mav
However, Mr. Wales, this warning did neither either to stop Jtdirl because this
followed:
User talk:Evercat
18:03 25 Jun 2003 . . Jtdirl
With Michael running riot, Adam and DW back after the umpteenth banning, and a small bunch
of arrogant idiots screwing up articles because of their own agendas (and blind to their
own ignorance about most of the topics they insist on editing
Your "friendly" community has been clearly defined by the actions and words, and
racist slurs under your "express written authority" of Administrators, Jtdirl,
MyRedDice, J. Hoffman Kemp and others who I can document, along with your own rude and
dismissive comments to sonyalebrun.
Finally, I request that you examine the facts and remove the ban on me and that you
permnanently ban your Administrators, Jtdirl and MyRedDice for their conduct.
Thank you. I await your reply.
D.C. Baltzer (User:Joe Canuck)
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals