Joe Canuck, formerly DW now ChuckM - WikiEN-l

26 Jun 2003

Regarding the following from someone purporting to be called Joe Canuck:

This public communication is filled with prevarications and libelous 
statements about me. I hereby demand that the person claiming to be someone 
named james duffy, working on Wikipedia.org using variations of the logged 
in User name Jtdirl, immediately retract these statements in a fomal (sic) 
public communication on this mailing list.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this will cheer up the user formerly known as Joe Canuck since it has 
more on the reality that he has kept hidden from ordinary wikipedians. The 
records may suggest that Joe Canuck joined on 11th June 2003, but he had in 
fact been a user since at least 2 August 2003. Since then he has been banned 
from wikipedia numerous times under at least three identities. Banned as Joe 
Canuck, he is now back on wikipedia as [[ChuckM]].

A trawl through the contributions made by him and his 'friends' throws up 
some quite interesting facts. So apologies in advance for the length of this 
mail. But I think many wikipedians will find what was discovered 
thought-provoking. It brings home just how easily wikipedia could be damaged 
or worse by a serious vandal.

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