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.
Please accept this as my formal appeal of the ban
stated above in
accordance with the second paragraph. Regretfully, it is impossible
for me to provide a defense to obtain proper justice in this serious
matter when the only accusation made known to me is "that Canuck's
actions alone are sufficient for banning."
Please look at this concise summary:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004729.html
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?
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.
Accusing them of violating your rights is preposterous.
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.
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.
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.
But behavior like this, which directly undermines our community spirit
of friendly co-operation, is not allowed at Wikipedia.
--Jimbo