Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia. Would someone with the appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this technically true.
As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further, and/or is invited to the mailing list.
Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same person or persons as DW, etc. I express no opinion on that matter, and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning. To the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person is grounds for a continuation of the ban.
--Jimbo
what has he done?
Just to clarify for those who don't know:
(1) He systematicaly downloaded a series of images to wikipedia, many of which may well have been copyright.
(2) When a number of users asked him to clarify their status, he became highly verbally abusive, issued legal threats and then deleted the questions from his talk page.
After a series of requests and after consulting with various users I removed the images from the pages and placed them on the Votes for Deletion page. A note was left with each image stressing the problems with copyright and stating that they were listed for deletion. (Given his history of deleting 'unwelcome' comments I thought it safer to protect the image pages, so that he could not delete the note and then claim he did not know of it.) All users without exception who commented said that in view of his refusal to give /any/ information on their original sources, the images should be deleted.
(3) Though asked not to, Canuck reinserted the images into the pages. When users removed them, he tried to reinsert them yet again. To stop these edit wars, I was forced to protect all the pages onto which he continually tried to reinsert the images /temporarily/.
(4) Canuck then verbally abused and threatened users on the Votes for Deletion page and on various talk pages.
(5) A close examination of his edit pattern, and the /manner/ in which he edited pages (eg, removing birth and death dates from after a person's name in the first line, the standard encyclopædic method of entry which is also used by wikipedia), coupled with the nature of his abuse left little doubt but that Joe Canuck was banned user DW, who was banned for among other reasons verbally abusing users and charging article structures to a version he wanted, even when users told him that his version was contrary to wiki style.
In view of the refusal to give details of the origins of images, the sheer scale of his abuse of users and the overwhelming evidence that he was a banned user, a number of users requested his immediate banning. Though not commenting on the issue of whether he was DW (which was academic in the circumstances), Jimbo agreed that Canuck's behaviour was so completely contrary to all wiki stands for as to warrant immediate banning. Following his banning I immediately removed all the protections placed on the pages.
Unfortunately the history of this user as DW, Black Widow and now as Joe Canuck suggests that he will return, will continue to download and install images the copyright status of which he will refuse to clarify, and when challenged will begin verbally abusing people again. While users like Michael and Adam have been banned for adding in textual inaccuracies to articles and for acting provocatively to other users, DW/Joe Canuck's behaviour is far more serious in so far as by blatently using potentially copyright images he endangers wiki itself, through the possibility of legal problems arising from his action. The fact that he is consistently abusive /in the extreme/ to anyone who gets in his way or simply politely asks as to the status of his images makes dealing with him a particularly unpleasant experience.
For evidence of his abuse, see [[User:Joe Canuck]] page, onto which his abuse has been transferred from other pages. Also [[Votes for Deletion]].
JT.
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail