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

[Jimmy Wales]

Folks, this isn't going to go much further.  David Baltzer apparently
wants to put *me* on trial, and that just isn't a game I'm going to
play.

David Baltzer wrote:
>  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.

Yes, it is.

> 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.

The statement is a summary of the reasons why you were banned.  The
facts outlined in that statement are about things that happened before
the 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.

DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

>  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?

I never said it was a non-issue, I said that I was expressing no
opinion on that matter.  It is, in fact, an issue, and so I repeat my
questions.

>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.

Just answer the question.  I am *not* stating anything of the sort,
I'm just asking questions so that we can, in your words, "deal with
all issues on this matter openly".

The question of whether or not to ban someone, or whether or not to
reverse a ban, involves me analyzing all the pertinent facts in as
much detail as is warranted by the specifics of the case.  Since
you've chosen to challenge the ban, I want you to tell me the whole
truth about everything.

> 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.

What I am telling you, point blank, is that those actions -- removing
those photos -- were fully and completely within the stated rules of
wikipedia, and I support those removals completely.  Editors are given
wide discretion to edit the site as they see fit, but ultimately I am
the final judge in all cases of conflict.

> 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.

But you are the *only* person in the instant controversy who broke the
rules of the site in such a manner that warranted banning.  Period.
As a result of your breaking the rules, you were banned.

Your theory that under the DMCA that I have to be passive is wrong.

> 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.

I'm glad to hear that you are agreeing not to edit the site, under any
username, so long as your ban remains in place.  Having resolved that,
there's likely little reason for further discussion.

You may hate me, and think I'm unfair, discriminatory, whatever.  But
the record stands.

> 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

This is false.  Our stated goals for the future extend far beyond
the operational ues of the website as it exists.  

>  Thank you. I await your reply.

Here's my reply.  I refuse to turn this into a trial of me, or of
other wikipedians.  You're banned, and if this is the best you can
muster as a defense, it's clear to me that you don't understand the
causes very well, and I don't see any reason to revert the ban.

I'll let you have the final word, and if your final word is a simple
apology and pledge to not upload any more images and to behave in a
more friendly and supportive manner with others, I'll *possibly* take
the time to reconsider.

Otherwise, just have your final word, and then I will remove you from
the mailing list, and you'll be banned and free to go tell your story
to the world, if you like.

--Jimbo