RE: Notice of Appeal of BAN
I refer to the following:
Jimmy Wales - Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:40:58 -0700
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
- - - -
Sir:
Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter when the only accusation made known to me is �that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning.�
I have done nothing but be a conscientious contributor to Wikipedia.org of a very sizeable amount of encyclopedic information and have conducted myself in the most appropriate and proper manner possible. Accordingly I must ask that you post to this mailing list the specific details of the �actions� you claim were justification for banning me in order that I be allowed to make a proper response. Thank you.
D.C. Baltzer (User:Joe Canuck)
--------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
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.
Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban stated above in accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious matter when the only accusation made known to me is "that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning."
Please look at this concise summary: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html
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?
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.
Accusing them of violating your rights is preposterous.
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.
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.
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.
But behavior like this, which directly undermines our community spirit of friendly co-operation, is not allowed at Wikipedia.
--Jimbo