Jimmy Wales wrote:
Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia. Would
someone with the
appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
technically true.
As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further,
and/or is invited to the mailing list.
Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same
person or persons as DW, etc. I express no opinion on that matter,
and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning. To
the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person
is grounds for a continuation of the ban.
--Jimbo
what has he done?
Just to clarify for those who don't know:
(1) He systematicaly downloaded a series of images to wikipedia, many of
which may well have been copyright.
(2) When a number of users asked him to clarify their status, he became
highly verbally abusive, issued legal threats and then deleted the questions
from his talk page.
After a series of requests and after consulting with various users I removed
the images from the pages and placed them on the Votes for Deletion page. A
note was left with each image stressing the problems with copyright and
stating that they were listed for deletion. (Given his history of deleting
'unwelcome' comments I thought it safer to protect the image pages, so that
he could not delete the note and then claim he did not know of it.) All
users without exception who commented said that in view of his refusal to
give /any/ information on their original sources, the images should be
deleted.
(3) Though asked not to, Canuck reinserted the images into the pages. When
users removed them, he tried to reinsert them yet again. To stop these edit
wars, I was forced to protect all the pages onto which he continually tried
to reinsert the images /temporarily/.
(4) Canuck then verbally abused and threatened users on the Votes for
Deletion page and on various talk pages.
(5) A close examination of his edit pattern, and the /manner/ in which he
edited pages (eg, removing birth and death dates from after a person's name
in the first line, the standard encyclopædic method of entry which is also
used by wikipedia), coupled with the nature of his abuse left little doubt
but that Joe Canuck was banned user DW, who was banned for among other
reasons verbally abusing users and charging article structures to a version
he wanted, even when users told him that his version was contrary to wiki
style.
In view of the refusal to give details of the origins of images, the sheer
scale of his abuse of users and the overwhelming evidence that he was a
banned user, a number of users requested his immediate banning. Though not
commenting on the issue of whether he was DW (which was academic in the
circumstances), Jimbo agreed that Canuck's behaviour was so completely
contrary to all wiki stands for as to warrant immediate banning. Following
his banning I immediately removed all the protections placed on the pages.
Unfortunately the history of this user as DW, Black Widow and now as Joe
Canuck suggests that he will return, will continue to download and install
images the copyright status of which he will refuse to clarify, and when
challenged will begin verbally abusing people again. While users like
Michael and Adam have been banned for adding in textual inaccuracies to
articles and for acting provocatively to other users, DW/Joe Canuck's
behaviour is far more serious in so far as by blatently using potentially
copyright images he endangers wiki itself, through the possibility of legal
problems arising from his action. The fact that he is consistently abusive
/in the extreme/ to anyone who gets in his way or simply politely asks as to
the status of his images makes dealing with him a particularly unpleasant
experience.
For evidence of his abuse, see [[User:Joe Canuck]] page, onto which his
abuse has been transferred from other pages. Also [[Votes for Deletion]].
JT.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail