[WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

[james duffy]

Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a growing suspicion that 
the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling himself Joe Canuck.

-------------------------------
The following message was left on Camembert's talk page by 'Joe'. (Below it 
is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had asked!)

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. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very 
proud of it)

What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything 
about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a 
piece of cheese)

'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk page with the summary - 
(removing abuse )

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

Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to 'Joe'.

Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss images, copyright, and the 
DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright. In the 
meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as is good encyclopedic 
style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from his talk page with the 
summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question already answered)

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

When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding uploaded images he was 
responsible for, he received the following threats and diatribe. (I 
considered editing it but I think it is better read in full)

Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your 
concern or your authority?  The images I uploaded, contained no copyright 
declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable 
me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to 
protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with 
the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add 
the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question 
each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of 
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for 
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely 
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place 
this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds 
of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate 
against me.  Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law, 
but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos 
to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall 
under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner 
source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow 
it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their 
insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any 
copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is 
Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" 
should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and 
others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in 
quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes 
their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine. 
Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck 
14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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

Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages as DW and his past 
minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude, not to mention in true DW 
style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact an act of 
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for 
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely 
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place 
this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of all, as a brand new user, 
why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked whether he was DW. If 
he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW was to start off with.

So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple 
banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an 
arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who 
tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael 
is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?

JT

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail