Re James' indictment...
This is a pretty damn good casefile. It's hard to argue with.
Next time Jim, please leave the comments, suggested course of action,
comparisons to other
users, etc for another email - and just stick to the straight facts. A
counter to a previous personal
attack is not relevant here.
A clean summary with the particularly incontrovertible evidence at the top
is not unreasonable. We want to reuse these compilations as much as needed
and hence,
some logical extensible structure is in order - this message comes closest
to that ideal.
Comments can go in a separate email, but for a report like this, its degree
of professionalism
(high as it is) is detracted slightly by any personal commentary - I'm sure
others would agree.
Respectfully,
-Stevertigo
====
THE CASE AGAINST USER JOE CANUCK
| Regarding the user formerly known as Joe Canuck, among his identities and
| dates between which edits were made by these 'characters' he played are:
|
| DW ( 9 Aug 02- 30 Jan 03 BANNED)
| Ron Davis (7 Feb - 28 Feb 03)
| Elliott (30 August 02 - 20 Dec 02; 03 March - 06 March 03)
| Black Widow (12 March 03 - 15 April 03 BANNED)
| Olga Bityerkokoff (15 April 03 - 17 April 03)
| Jacques Delson (28 April 03 - 26 May 03)
| 64.228.30.125 (05 Jan 03 - 10 June 03)
| ChuckM (10 June 03)
| Joe Canuck (11 June 03 - 20 June 03 BANNED)
| ChuckM (22 June O3 - )
|
| There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has also used
| other identities. A large number of IP numbers show evidence of usage
| patterns strikingly similar to these characters also. In Black Widow's own
| words "97% of the late DW's articles were never logged in".
|
| All the above share the following characteristics:
|
| 1. a unique shared editing style;
| 2. a preoccupation with editing and creating pages of lists, specifically
in
| the areas of sports, history, Canada, etc.;
| 3. personal abuse of other users, specifically including legal threats;
| 4. the downloading of images that in context, shape, colour and style are
| strikingly similar; indeed so similar are all the sports images that the
| suspicion is raised that not only are they the work of the one person but
| were taken possibly from the same source, practically all of them well
after
| 1923, the key copyright year;
| 5. an identical unusual captioning style, namely - caption - in which
all
| three elements were bold italicised;
| 6. the downloading of jpegs with distinctive and similar name
constructions;
| names of pictures of a person which always merge the first name and
surname
| together without use of an underscore between them, with the first letter
of
| the surname always distinctively capitalised, eg, JackPickford.jpg by Ron
| Davis on 19th February, BobbyHull.jpg by Joe Canuck on the 14th of June.
| Most of the users in the above list downloaded images, and most were in
the
| 'firstnameSurname.jpg form. It is worth mentioning that /very/ few other
| wiki users used that form when naming jpegs.
| 7. the absolute and frequently rude refusal to state the origins of the
| images;
| 8. the attacking of anyone who dares question the origins of the images;
| 9. a striking similarity in the nature of insults made against other
people,
| including accusations of (i) elites, (ii) vendettas, (iii) implicit or
| explicit claims of legal knowledge; and (iv) defence of Canada from all
| sorts of weird and non-existent imagined slights.
| 10. the pre-occupation of each 'new' user with their predecessor and a
| determination to defend them, in the process showing a surprising degree
of
| knowledge about wiki, how to use it and about other users who had been
| critical of their 'predecessor', to a degree that is almost incompatible
| with their supposed status as a 'new' user. Thus Black Widow defended DW,
| Olga defending Black Widow, ChuckM defended Joe Canuck; if and when ChuckM
| is banned another user will appear, possessing all the standard
| characteristics and defending him.
|
| CANUCK & CHUCKM: EDIT PATTERNS & DATES
|
| ChuckM 10 June
| Joe Canuck 11 June - 20 June
| ChuckM 22 June -
|
| Some of ChuckM's edits
| 19:25 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports
| 19:16 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports (added Akiyda )
| 19:08 10 Jun 2003 1982 in sports
| 19:06 10 Jun 2003 1975 in sports
| 19:05 10 Jun 2003 1970 in sports
| 19:03 10 Jun 2003 1972 in sports
| 19:00 10 Jun 2003 1951 in sports (date)
| 18:59 10 Jun 2003 1951 in sports
|
| Some of Joe Canuck's edits
| 15:28 20 Jun 2003 1960 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:27 20 Jun 2003 1960 in sports
| 15:25 20 Jun 2003 1959 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:23 20 Jun 2003 1958 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:22 20 Jun 2003 1957 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:20 20 Jun 2003 1956 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:20 20 Jun 2003 1956 in sports
| 15:16 20 Jun 2003 1955 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:14 20 Jun 2003 1954 in sports (top) [rollback]
| 15:14 20 Jun 2003 1954 in sports
|
| The degree of overlap between their edit histories is notable. Both focus
| almost exclusively on the year in sports pages. (Obviously DW by that
stage
| had either finished all the historical lists he had previously worked on
or
| lost the book!) In some cases entire pages of sports lists were
contributed
| by the same bunch of people, with Jacques Delson seemlessly picking
| something that Ron Davis had done, then being replaced by one or two
| constantly repeating IPs, then ChuckM for a change, then Canuck. Unlike
most
| wiki pages, in these these pages there were no edit wars, no disputes, no
| reversions, talk pages unused. [[1951 in sports]] has I think 36 edits by
| Jacques Delson. When he left wiki, an IP linked to DW took over, then
ChuckM
| for a day, then Joe Canuck.
|
| Though DW as DW remained on wiki until banned on 30 January 2003, it
appears
| he simultanously used some IP numbers independently. (That BTW was why DW
| never in signed as ~~~ but always typed the letters DW; though with one IP
| number only once did he actually reveal his identity, possibly an
accident,
| forgetting he wa on an IP and not his own page while signing an outburst
on
| a Hemingway talk page.) The practice of using overlapping IPs and
identities
| appears to have continued for all of this year so far. ChuckM and Joe
Canuck
| on the evidence are probably just the latest in the queue.
|
| CANUCK, CHUCKM: PART OF A PATTERN
|
| More often than not, the scale of the their rudeness and their
| pre-occupation with the same things would lead someone (usually Camembert)
| to challenge them about being DW; the response was usually for them to go
| ballistic which was curious because as new members, they should not have
had
| a clue who DW was! When Camembert asked Canuck whether he was DW his
| response was bizzarre in the extreme. He told Cam:
|
| I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
| encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
| snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians
is
| out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
| whoever or whatever you are. [[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 17:08 15 Jun
| 2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
|
| Camembert's /exact/ question was'' I think you are DW. Are you? '
| [User:Camembert|Camembert]]
|
| 2. ABUSE OF USERS
|
| When he 'returned', ChuckM spent ALL his time 'defending' JC, (curious
as
| Canuck was on wiki during ChuckM's supposed holiday and gone when he came
| back!) ChuckM left this on Martin's (MyRedDice's) talk page:
| "Your conduct is disrepectful and childish. Grow up and do something
useful
| besides playing games. ChuckM 23:04 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)"
|
| He told Wapcaplet on the talk page on Image Use Policy/Copyright:
|
| "Note above from the list, many others including you, Wapcaplet conduct
| themselves in the same manner as Joe Canuck did and not a word is said. Do
| you have special privlidges here that the rest of us don't? And just so
you
| understand the law: this site is the property of Wikipedia.org."
|
| This comment hits on two classic DWisms: law and of special privlidges
| (sic). For comparisons with other members of the DW family, note:
|
| Law:
|
| ''To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any
| further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or
| elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies
| available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO
| GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff''
|
| It is people such as [[User:Maveric149|mav]], who are totally and
completely
| ignorant of the law but take charge of Wikipedia and force their views on
| others, that makes people leave. After being away for months, I regret
| coming back today. -- Elliot.
|
| Special Privileges:
|
| Perhaps you missed my question above. Why does JHK get to deface Jacques
| Delson's page with stereotypical comments about Canadians and not be
accused
| of a breach of Wikiquette? [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
|
| :Cat's got your tongue, eh? No matter -- your silence speaks volumes. It
| seems Wikiquette only applies to certain people. If you're one of the cool
| kids you can be as obnoxious as you want. And that's why I'm posting
| anonymously. Don't need JHK slagging me off at the length she likes to
| ramble on and having no recourse. [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
|
| CHUCKM DEFENDING CANUCK
|
| Though the nature of the verbal abuse by Canuck is a matter beyond dispute
| and can be read in all its glory on his talk page (onto which his abusive
| comments were transferred after his banning), ChuckM asserted:
|
| "I read all of User Joe Canuck's staements and this statement by
User:Jtdirl
| appears to be a complete falsehood as I found no such abuse or threats of
| any kind. What I saw was repeated harassment that User:Joe Canuch (sic)
| complained about."
|
| Though no-one suggested he was Canuck (let alone Canuch!), and not a
| solitary person on wikipedia suggested he was anyone else on wiki, he
rather
| bizarrely stated in the debate on that page that:
|
| "no, I am not Joe Canuck or any other person in the history of Wikipedia
and
| he was the only guy interested in doing the big job to include sports
| highlights in Wikipedia. And, in my opinion, something smells. ChuckM
20:06
| 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)"
|
| Curiously, elsewhere ChuckM explained his absence from wiki for a month by
| saying he was on holidays. But given that Canuck appeared after he 'went
on
| holidays' and left two days before he returned from his hols, how come he
| seemed to know so much about Canuck's work in his absence? Yes he could
have
| checked through the user contributions, but how many /new/ users on their
| second day on wiki know enough about how wiki works to check user
| contributions? I know it took me longer than two days to find my way
around,
| let alone to be able to find that a user had been banned and use their
user
| contributions to check on their edit history in detail, then place a
defence
| of them on a variety of pages including the Votes for Deletion page.
|
| Because of the strong suspicion that Canuck was DW (and 64.228.30.125 and
| 64.228.30.174) and so had a long history of trying to circumvent banning,
I
| left a note on the Votes for Deletion page urging that if it was decided
to
| delete the unsourced images the origins of which Canuck had got abusive
over
| (and everyone but ChuckM said the should indeed be deleted) I suggested
| deleting them as soon as the one week waiting period was over (ie, this
| coming Thursday). ChuckM removed the request and buried it in the page
| discussing copyright issues.
|
| In the aftermath of Canuck's banning, JeLuf placed an initial ban notice
on
| Canuck's page. ChuckM left a message in response on JeLuf's page
criticising
| that action and informing him that he would be reverting the page. (In the
| meantime, Martin had added in a stronger note on the ban on the page
| (provoking the response stating '"Your conduct is disrepectful and
childish.
| Grow up and do something useful besides playing games.') Interestingly
| ChuckM did not revert the Canuck page to its pre-ban state. He rewrote it,
| keeping the word 'and' from the ban notice and tagging on the three words
| "proud of it'' the four words that Canuck had constantly put on his first
| page. DId he check back to know the words? If so, why not then revert? Or
| did he already know the wording of Canuck's page for the simple reason
that
| he is Canuck?
|
| In a second add-on, he added:
|
| ''This user was banned by Mr. Jimbo Wales late Friday based on allegations
| by User:Jtdirl who stated that User:Joe Canuck has the right to appeal.
This
| matter, in my opinion, remains unresolved and respect for that right of
| appeal should be shown. ChuckM 22:49 22 Jun 2003 (UTC) '' (Canuck,
| coincidentially has 'followed' ChuckM's advice and appealed.)
|
| Stan Shebs has since reverted to the hard ban notice. To prevent further
| removal of the note I have now protected it and listed it on the required
| page as protected.
|
| WHAT SHOULD WIKI DO?
|
| Compared to the sheer number of 'followers' DW has (and remember I have
not
| included the names of others who have been suspected by some users of DW,
or
| the list of IPs with similar behavioural patterns; according to Black
Widow
| (DW's . . . em . . 'defender' "97% of the late DW's articles were
never
| logged in"!) the Adam family (Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary
Fiber/Shino
| Baku/Pizza Puzzle et al) looks tiny by comparison. While Adam and Michael
| are annoying tantrum throwers, DW on the evidence seems like something
more
| worrying and dangerous. A review of image downloads by Canuck's
'ancestors'
| showed few if any of those were authenticated as being copyright free.
While
| individual mistakes can be made by anyone, wiki currently has quite a few
| images added onto wiki by DW, almost all of which could cause copyright
| problems at any time. Every DW family member has behaved in the same
abusive
| matter, threatened legal consequences if they don't get their own way, etc
| etc. In the circumstances, the question has to be asked: what should wiki
do
| about ChuckM? And what will it do about the next DW visitor? and the next?
| and the next? Unless wiki deals ruthlessly with this multiple banned user,
| thrice-hardbannedas far as I could count, with many more members leaving
| before they could be banned, its position could be endangered by the
| copyright-questionable downloadings of this individual. And beyond this
user
| as he has already done, could drive away good users in droves through his
| boorish bullying behaviour.
|
| JT
|
| EPILOGUE: SOME HEART-WARMING DW FAMILY QUOTES
|
| "Perhaps, instead of imposing this small group's ''community
norm'' on
| contributors whose work is clearly from someone wishing to see Wikipedia
| succeed, you and other sincere contributors might use your valuable time
| more constructively by improving the content of my articles and fix the
| thousands of other incomplete and very poorly done articles that already
| exist on Wikipedia." User:Ron Davis
|
| ''To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any
| further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or
| elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies
| available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO
| GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff''
|
| Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the
| spirit of creating something valuable.[[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques
Delson]]
| 22:31 25 May 2003 (UTC) (comment to J. Hoffman Kemp)
|
| Perhaps you missed my question above. Why does JHK get to deface Jacques
| Delson's page with stereotypical comments about Canadians and not be
accused
| of a breach of Wikiquette? [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
|
| :Cat's got your tongue, eh? No matter -- your silence speaks volumes. It
| seems Wikiquette only applies to certain people. If you're one of the cool
| kids you can be as obnoxious as you want. And that's why I'm posting
| anonymously. Don't need JHK slagging me off at the length she likes to
| ramble on and having no recourse. [[User:Jacques Delson|Jacques Delson]]
|
| Do you have special privlidges here that the rest of us don't? ChuckM to
| Wapcaplet
|
| :I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
| encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
| snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians
is
| out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
| whoever or whatever you are. [[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 17:08 15 Jun
| 2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
|
| I am removing the offensive and threatening statements for the second
time.
| The conduct of the person placing this here and reinstating with the
| addition of the words: ''# of times removed and un-answered: 1'' after
I
| have deleted it, contravenes [[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles]],
| and constitutes harassment. Any further harassment will result in this
| matter being e-mailed to the site owner for immediate remedial action.
| [[User:Joe Canuck|Joe Canuck]] 12:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
|
| _________________________________________________________________
| MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
|
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
|
| _______________________________________________
| WikiEN-l mailing list
| WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
|
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l