[WikiEN-l] RE: Notice of Appeal of Ban

[David Baltzer]

Mr. Wales: Thank you for your reply, I am pleased to see you have the courage to deal with all issues on this matter openly and not hide behind theblocking of my communication by the moderator. I regret the delay in responding, but  it has taken me time to read and gather information from searching Wikipedia references so that I state facts. Unfortunately, the paranoia by some is so great that checking out the pages of all the aliases I’m accused of being, takes some time but they proved most valuable as you will see herein. I have inserted my most approropiate responses possible in italics and inserted the writers name. 

J.WALES: 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.

Joe Canuck: A person's writing style is a product of their education and lifelong environment. As such, it would be very difficult to comply with your request.  As to Wikipedia being a "friendly community," I discern something quite different from reading many of the messages on this list plus you might want to review your own recent outburst against J. Hoffman Kemp regarding Ayn Rand calling her remarks a "bizarre and ill-educated slur."  That is my definition of offensive. Then, your own words of advice to all on how to behave after announcing the Wikimedia Foundation.

 Joe Canuck: In response to my request for the reasons you banned me you stated:

 J.WALES: Please look at this concise summary:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html

Mr. Wales, this is not an answer. The statement here is AFTER you issued your ban and is therefore immaterial to the actions you stated as the facts that I had committed warranting your ban. And, unless you are waiving DMCA protection, you cannot step in to ban me but must be requested to do so by a third party. Please provide the complete details of the request for my banning.

 J.WALES:  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?

 Joe Canuck: As to me being either of the above, in your banning announcement you said "I express no opinion on that matter." If it is a non-issue, why the sudden reversal once I question your ban? You did invite me challenge your ban as part of it being a non issue, did you not? And, as to do I "know" someone who, as best I can discern was previously banned, or am I  "associated" with someone who may have been previously banned, are you stating that if you ban someone their father, mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, children, friends, employers, priest, accountant, or any other party "associated" with them is banned too? As I do not understand, please clarify this important question so that I can and will answer all three questions fully.

 J.WALES:  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.  

 Joe Canuck: My words are a statement of fact and are in no way rude or disrespectful, or threatening  whatsoever. Your calling them "nonsense" is an opinion being tossed out not accompanied by proofs of any kind. Editing is one thing, but unwarranted interference is another. Text can be edited, and the reasons for it debated. Photos cannot. Therefore one cannot justify the arbitrary removal of a photo on any grounds. It is what it is. User’s are required to obey the rules set down by Wikipedia.org, not the rules created by others as I will demonstrate further on. If I, or any User at Wikipedia, were to obey what others on this OPEN site say, then some of us would be dead, others would be trying to have sex with themselves and others trying to go to hell etc. On your website Mr. Wales, I am not obliged to obey the whims of other users.

 J.WALES: Accusing them of violating your rights is preposterous.

 Joe Canuck: When I (or any person) arrives at Wikipedia they are granted the right to use this site in accordance with the rules built into the software which in turn operates under the  licenses under which the website is given the right to operate. Similarly, I nor anyone else has  the right to abuse this site nor do I have the right to deny another person the right to enjoy this site. For the site owner/operator to intervene and ban anyone, they must do so based on credible facts, not innuendo.  In the United States, it is a right to carry on business, not a privilege, and using an Open website has inherent rights under the DMCA because the owner must be passive and cannot interfere. Therefore, it is not a privilege, but an equal right. The first principle is equality of all Users. When another User demands I perform certain things over and above the built in software requirements, that is in fact a violation of my right to freely use this website. When they continue to demand of
 me the same thing, that is harassment. When others join in and together begin demanding I obey them, that is an organized or spontaneous cabal, something you declared as unacceptable in your statemnent of principles. The DMCA law states that you, being an owner-operator, must remain passive:  the conduct of the site Users are neither your responsibility or under your control unless you refute DMCA protection and choose to intervene. And I checked this morning, you have not cancelled your DMCA registration for copyright infringement protection. The issue over the photos I uploaded had nothing to do with fair use. It was solely my clear request that I not be discriminated against but that I be treated exactly as prior usewrs had, and users after me who had uploaded photos. What happened to meis clear, deliberate and targeted discrimination. I uploaded photos and followed the rules created by the Wikipedia.org software. And, being new (but one who  read a great deal before opening my
 mouth) I uploaded images consistent with the way ALL OTHER  users had been doing. If you, Mr. Wales, had taken the time to investigate before banning me, you would have seen that I alone was being told I MUST supply information others were not being asked to do. Despite my clear enunciation of the facts that out of the past 500+ to possibly 5,000 photos uploaded to Wikipedia, mine were the '''ONLY''' ones on which copyright proof was demanded yet a great many uploaded by others had no statement of copyright given. I suggest, Mr. Wales, that  you read the record of the facts about discrimination against me at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright. Check the image list as well as the facts on the Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright page Mr. Wales and you will see someone posted samples of the multitudes of images uploaded where the only explanation is the name of the image or other meaningless wording that was never challenged, questioned or deleted. Others uploaded images
 have an unfounded claim that they were "taken by the User. " Accepting user claims of having taken a photo is an invitation to unlimited abuse yet it is in fact tolerated. However, even so if they do abuse this, there is no risk of any kind to Wikipedia because of your registration under the DMCA. Note however that UserMaverick posted a photo claiming it was in the ''public domain'' which was an outright lie. No one questioned this, not even after the lie was pointed out. But, the only ones questioned as to copyright for as far back as the list takes a user were mine --- and my photos were deleted. That Mr. Wales, is blatant discrimination.  And if I advise another User not to discriminate against me, that sir is not a threat. It is merely a proper desire  that everty citizen wants and is what democracy and human rights is all about. 

 But, beyond the fact that no user is obliged to answer someone’s question, tolerance of that kind of conduct on an open site always escalates. And, at Wikipedia, tolerance of those making their demands on users has in fact been escalating. Here is an example on the  [[Wikipedia:Bans and blocks]], written by the user and your sysop, MyRedDice:

If you are the victim of a mistaken identity, please provide some evidence of who you are. This evidence might include a photograph of yourself (holding a sign saying "Hi, Wikipedia!"), or a non-disposable email address, or a work address or telephone number, or a link to your off-Wikipedia home page. Your evidence needs only be sufficient to convince the community that there is some reasonable doubt -- it need not be conclusive. 

That this kind of demand is tolerated by you, Mr. Wales,  through the supposed Wikipedia Administrators, is not only absurd, it is frightening. Keep in mind, I recognize you must be passive, but equally passive. So, now you have notice on this matter. Worse though, is that you already received a written warning as to this Sysop’s conduct. Look back in this mailing list of May 8. You had a complaint from a User named sonyalebrun stating as fact that sysop MyRedDice had used Wikipedia to launch a hacker's attack against her. In your reply Mr. Wales, you were grossly rude, making unfounded accusations (that set an example for others), and belittled this person by stating that: "I find the claim about MyRedDice placing a photo of himself into this person's cookie folder wildly implausible." Following thisunacceptable conduct on your part, another user named koyaanis qatsi, who I believe is a long time and respected Wikipedia User, was so concerned that the next day he e-mailed you, with
 the following comment directed specifically to you:

 Jimmy writes:

> I find the claim about MyRedDice placing a photo

> of himself into this person's cookie folder

> wildly implausible, but nonetheless, I'm duty

> bound to say don't do that.  :-)

 

Hm, you don't think Martin could have hacked the

server and changed it to assign an ASCII-art

self-portrait cookie to DW and pals, but no one else? 

I thought that's what Martin did for a living.

 

Kq

 

 Mr. Wales, User:MyRedDice is a sysop and one who acts, as you stated above: " under my "express written authority" ."Not only were you rude and dismissive of a serious charge against a person under your "express written authority," you ignored a warning from another credible user and did nothing but insult the complainant. That Mr. Wales is beyond rude, it is disgraceful and a dereliction of your duty under the laws which allows you to operate this site. And this statement by me is not "quasi-legalistic nonsense" as you called it above, but is an absolute fact of law. You can quote me on that.

 In addition, I found where User: J. Hoffman Kemp made racists statements about Canadians that User:MyRedDice moved to another page and rewrote them so as to deliberately obfuscate the racists statements. Question, Mr. Wales, why are the sysops and you tolerating this conduct? Intimidation works when others recognize that User:MyRedDice has hacker skills and as Kq said above that is: "what Martin did for a living." . 

J.WALES: 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.

 Joe Canuck: I treated everyone with respect at all times. In fact, had you taken the time to read the communications on this matter before banning me, you would see that I went out of my way to politely explain my position to several people even though I am not obliged to answer those questions. And, if you wish to waive your DMCA protection and abandon the passive requirement placed on you, then please do so and as an active owner/operator make all the rules you wish and I will, as I said I would, obey them.  

 J.WALES: 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.

 Joe Canuck: Here, Mr. Wales, I will do as you requested and try to be less formal. Your statement that "The question of "fair use" of images is a thorny one, and one which we struggle with constantly," is purely self-serving bull. Wikipedia.org has no stated goal for its future or that of its contents beyond the operational use of this website as it exists. Wikipedia.org through the DMCA license of Bomis Inc. has no risk of any kind with respect to a Wikipedia User uploading photos. You cannot be held liable so long as you remove them after your appointed DMCA agent receives a written legal notification of a violation from the copyright owner.  And, you are not required to monitor the photos uploaded to Wikipedia in any way shape of form. And, ewhen a user makjes a statement to you that I endangered Wikipedia with my photos and you ban me, then you have misrepresented this website to its users. And you did point to USER:Jtdirl’s statement to that effect. Where your supposed
 "struggle" comes in, is when Bomis Inc. uses Wikipedia’s uploaded images on their "For Profit" website. Second, we now move back  to your statements at the beginning of this discussion as to the software you created in compliance with your operating licenses. You do not have to "struggle" because you have control over the software and can prevent the uploading of images at anytime had you chosen to do so. 

 J. WALES: 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.

 Joe Canuck: No, thank you. My behaviour if you looked at it, was to put many hours of work on Wikipedia. And, from this mailing list have to know that someone called my contributions excellent. Logic, Mr. Wales, says someone who works quietly doing a great deal of work didn’t come to Wikipedia to cause harm. In fact, had you not exhibited prejudice as you did in your statement in response to sonyalebrun, you would have understood that.

 J. WALES: But behavior like this, which directly undermines our community spirit of friendly co-operation, is not allowed at Wikipedia.

--Jimbo

 Joe Canuck: First, my words and actions never once undermined your so-called community spirit. In fact, I tried to give off the message as politely as possible that Users who discriminate, harass, libel or take certain other actions against another User could trigger a lawsuit that is a real threat to Wikipedia while pointing out that uploaded images are no threat whatsoever.  My effort to enlighten others of the dangers has proven factual with yesterday’s announcement that the Recording Industry, who can do nothing about anything uploaded by Users on a DMCA registered site including songs and photos, are proceeding with legal actions against hundreds of users. As you, Mr. Wales, are aware, it is the website operator who is automatically drawn into these legal battles first, and secondly always as a co-respondent. If an individual has been the victim of harassment etc. at Wikipedia and sues the User for damages, Wikipedia will be named as was Kazaa in order to obtain the User’s true
 identity and you can well be forced to be part of lengthy and costly multiple legal proceedings. I was trying to help your website Mr. Wales, not harm it. However, I find your statement unacceptable and will list an example of your claim that Wikipedia is a " friendly community":

 From: User talk:172

Adam's family is trying to garble the opening paragraph of the history of the SU article. They seem intend on chopping up the opening paragraph so that it says something else to what it was meant to say. *sigh*. What a monumental asshole Adam and his minions is!!! [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 04:23 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

 

 Also from: User talk:172

You not had a threat yet from that fuckwit 'Olga' yet? Darn it. You must be feeling left out. I've come across some piles of horse manure in my time but this crackpot really stands out. If only the nutter's intelligence was even half as well developed as his arrogance, he might be able to contribute something to wiki. But about all this fuckwit does is give everyone a laugh as they count down to his next banning. A prize asshole of the highest order who thinks we all don't know who he really is. [[User:Jtdirl|ÉÍREman]] 02:43 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

 Following these "friendly Wikipedia community remarks" calling people horse manure, crackpots, fuckwit, monumental asshole. User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE was accepted by you as an Administrator of Wikipedia where he could as you said, act  under your "express written authority." Note please, the following clear and precise statement accompanying Jtdirl’s appointment and can be found on:  [[User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6)]]:

 As per Jimbo's agreement, you have just been made a sysop! Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Eloquence 01:10 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)  

 

Note Mr. Wales,  the very clear warning about protecting pages when personally involved in an edit war. Note, Mr. Wales, had you checked before banning me, you would see that while acting under your  "express written authority" Sysop Jtdirl did precisely that to me, violating your trust by using his sysop powers to protect  several pages in an edit war with me. Following this, and your banning me came User:Jtdirl’s lies and libelous statement about me that you not only accepted but used to provide a link to as your answer for banning me. After this, your Sysop Jtdirl received this warning on [[User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6)]]: 

 01:26 24 Jun 2003 . . Maveric149

You said in an edit summary reverting another user: "moved to correct spelling after some idiot screwed it up" 

JT, you're an Admin now and the user in question is not an "idiot." You know the rest. --mav

 However, Mr. Wales, this warning did neither either to stop Jtdirl because this followed:

 User talk:Evercat

18:03 25 Jun 2003 . . Jtdirl

With Michael running riot, Adam and DW back after the umpteenth banning, and a small bunch of arrogant idiots screwing up articles because of their own agendas (and blind to their own ignorance about most of the topics they insist on editing

Your "friendly" community has been clearly defined by the actions and words, and racist slurs under your "express written authority" of Administrators, Jtdirl, MyRedDice, J. Hoffman Kemp and others who I can document, along with your own rude and dismissive comments to sonyalebrun.

Finally, I request that you examine the facts and remove the ban on me and that you permnanently ban your Administrators, Jtdirl and MyRedDice for their conduct.

 Thank you. I await your reply.

 D.C. Baltzer (User:Joe Canuck)






---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030626/54f5b6fa/attachment.htm