[WikiEN-l] Joe Canuck, formerly DW now ChuckM
james duffy
jtdirl at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 26 09:20:16 UTC 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
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list