[WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

Yes, he probably is DW.

I have a soft spot for DW. Aside from the fact that he
gives empty threats of legal action, he's a great
contributer. He's also somewhat nice when not accused
of something. One time he complimented my knowledge of
Jackquard looms after I made a minor NPOV edit
(terrible article there right now). I think, for him,
we should use the soft-security removal of pictures
from his articles, and besides that, ignore him. 

But I guess we shouldn't be inconsistant. I don't
really know what we should do. I'll go talk to him.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com