Encyclopedia > User talk:Joe Canuck

Article Content

User talk:Joe Canuck

Howdy, Joe! I'd like to see an article about "Canuck", it's origin, etymology and meaning in today's world- and Canadian society. Something you could look into? --User:Pinkerton

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello. I see that you've uploaded a few photographs of Formula One racing drivers recently. Do you have the relevant permissions to use these photographs? (See Wikipedia:Copyrights.) Whether you do or not, you need to indicate the copyright status of all the images you upload on their image description pages. That is, say, "Copyright Joe Canuck", or "Copyright Fred Bloggs but released by him under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License", or "Copyright Fred Bloggs but used here as fair use". I'm not sure if you can claim fair use for the photographs you're uploading, but I am not a lawyer... -- Oliver P. 04:24 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your concern or your authority? The images I uploaded, contained no copyright declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate against me. Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law, but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine. Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck 14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi again.

Thank you for your answer to Oliver regards the copyright of your photos. I'd like to ask the same question regarding the copyright of the non-photographic album covers, book covers, etc, that you have uploaded recently. Do you have the relevant permissions to use these images under the GFDL?

Again, I'd like to request that you cite sources for photos and other images on the relevant image description page. A request I've previously made to plenty of other users, so I trust that you won't see this as discrimination.

Yours, etc Martin 09:44 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think you are DW. Are you? --Camembert

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. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)

What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a piece of cheese)

Could you tell me: which one of the above seven words did you find so offensive? --Camembert

Hi, Joe. I've realised that you seem to be threatening people with lawsuits at least twice, and I wonder why you're doing it. While I understand you're a lawyer, I don't think you'll get very far on Wikipedia threatening people. Since you're threatening them, some people think you're an other user who has since been banned from Wikipedia, named DW, but I know that's not true. But if you lighten up on the threats, I think they will stop with these false accusations. LittleDan 18:39 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re your comment: I never have, and never do, under any circumstances, make threats to anybody. Please retract your false accusation. Nor have I ever said I am a lawyer, sanitation worker, truck driver, horse manure hauler, or any other occupation. In fact, I go about my business making worthwhile, detailed, accurate, valuable and needed contributions to Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. But, if my work is not EXACTLY what Wikipedia is all about (and there are those who play without really contributing anything here), then please advise and I will leave immediately. Note, I never bother anybody, ever. I only respond when I am targeted for discriminatory action. Are you suggesting that discrimination is an acceptable policy at Wikipedia and that anyone being discriminated against should shut up? Joe Canuck 18:54 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess others on Wikipedia have been falsely accusing you. But there is one thing wrong with your work. We at wikipedia are against coppying all pictures without permission. We believe it is unethical. Wikipedia believes very stronly in intelectual property, whether it is prescribed by law or not. This is our policy for all users. I'm sorry if this disappoints you. LittleDan 00:42 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

First, you might want to invite "those others" to apologize to me for making serious false accusations and to you for lying. Having looked around at Wikipedia, I see that this type of lying and harrasment of others is not the first but one of many. I hope it will be the last. I see that an apology is the conduct absolutely demanded by certain sysops of a banned user so I’m sure you do not condone double standards, do you? Re photos: I'm not sure who this "we" is you are referring to because the owners of this site are the only authority with the right to set the legal requirements for usage, not me or you. If I disobey any requirement of the owners, it would be accidental and unintentional and I would cease immediately if they notified me. Have I violated any law? Have I vandalized this site? Not once, sir, not even close. The contrary in fact if you took the time to examine my contributions. And, according to the owner’s User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. And, User:LittleDan, the forming of cabals, be it they deliberate, spontaneous for self-preservation, disguised as sysop work, or otherwise, are included in the term cabal. There is a problem with your interference here inasmuch as you are the third person who has brought up the exact same subject of photos on my page to which I already gave a clear and precise answer at User talk:Oliver Pereira which you obviously are aware of having made a reference to a part of my reply. You stated with respect to photos: This is our policy for all users. That, User:LittleDan, is in fact a policy that has not and is not being carried out, and targeting me or a select few to enforce this policy but not the multitudes of others, is blatant discrimination. And, I repeat the essence of what I said: do not ever, under any circumstances, discriminate against me. With respect to my photos, past or future on this open-licensed site, the site owners, or you if given their specific authority for all to witness, treat me, and all users, exactly the same as you have been doing all along, both before and after I posted photos. And, by the way, for some strange reason, it seems you are concerned that I might be a banned user? That would be dishonest, wouldn’t it? I can see that you believe absolute truthfulness and integrity is essential. For someone only 13 years old, I admire the value of always telling the truth your Daddy instilled in you, you are a fine example for all to see. I await the appropriate apologies from "those others" that you so liberally used in precise written reference to me without first verifying. Joe Canuck 01:59 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you say you are a lawyer and that this is discrimination, it is often misconstrued as a threat. Also, we at Wikipedia can't keep our eyes on everyone. Saying that we're discriminating against you is like saying that it is discrimination to arrest someone going for going 150 kph is discrimination against you and for the others going 110 kph, still over the speed limit. You're going 150 kph. You've uploaded several pictures without proper permission, and you have done what some would call threatening at least once (to me). Others (like oliver) have had similar episodes where they say something slightly critical to you and then you respond and, by their interperatation, you threaten them. LittleDan 15:08 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You seem unable to comprehend my writing or are unwilling to extend the coutesy of reading it, so I will repeat: I never have, and never do, under any circumstances, make threats to anybody. Nor have I ever said I am a lawyer, sanitation worker, truck driver, horse manure hauler, or any other occupation. My position on placing photos was also made absolutely clear and you have read it. Please do not join in an illegal cabal and harass me as another individual here has chosen to do. And, I repeat, do not play word games when trying to justify discrimination. Do not discriminate against me, I will not tolerate it. And, I repeat, I have not violated any rule established by Wikipedia.org for anything I have done. Nor, have I been impolite, abrupt, or offensive in any manner. In fact, did I not congratulate your father for such a good upbringing? If I violate any legal requirement by Wikipedia.org as to the placing of photos here under their DMCA license, or my conduct in any way violates User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, please have the site owner advise me and the issue can be dealt with in sincere respect. Otherwidse, you, nor anyone else here at the licensed open site has a right to harass, intimidate, or interfere with my sincere efforts to contribute fully and completely in accordance with the owners' legal requirements and principles. Joe Canuck 15:27 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

The issue of the copyright of some photos used by you remains unclear. Could you please clarify the status of these photographs? You appear in your comments elsewhere to presume that this issue being directed against you is some sort of discrimination: it isn't. All users are supposed to clarify the source of photos. Not every person does this to an adequate extent and when these gaps are found (often when someone is changing an article and they find an image lacking the necessary information) they are picked up on it and asked for more information in private conversations on their talk pages. However it is strictly enforced in particular towards newcomers. Experienced users have a track record so that if they leave off the information the presumption is they know the rules, have the information but inadvertently left it off. (But it is checked with them just in case.) But new users often do not understand the legal complexities and simply think they can take any image from any website for use. Or that unless a website explicitly states copyright, the image can be presumed not to be. In fact the opposite is the case. Unless it explicitly indicates it is copyright free, waves copyright restrictions on the image is of a certain age (pre 1923 if I remember correctly) it cannot simply be used. The request for information is not discrimination; it is simply seeking to clarify whether a new contributor who has not the experience of downloading images to wiki before understands the restrictions and has sourced the images from an unambiguously copyright-free location. Many new users make a mistake on the first couple of downloads and end up checking back at source to make sure they are images wiki is entitled to use. (Some of those users, having gotten it wrong initially, are now some of the most prolific users of images on wiki.)

That is the reason we need to know the origin of the images. As an obviously competent and intelligent contributor, I have no doubt you can easily check the sources. If an image is copyright and you wish to contact the owner of the copyright, there is a template form available that can be used to send to them. The danger is that if the status and origins of the images isn't stated on the relevant pages, users as they come across them may delete them from articles and place them on the Votes for Deletion page to be removed from wiki altogether. That would be unfair to all your hard work in sourcing the images and they were absolutely OK from a copyright point of view. So it is in wiki's interest legally and your interest in order to avoid having your images deleted, to clarify for the records where they come from.

Good work, BTW, on the years in sport articles. There is a list on wiki of images in the public domain which you might like to check out too. They are handy for sourcing images for articles. I don't know the address off hand but if you leave a message at the village pump some user there will no doubt have the information and get able to supply it to you. Happy wiki-ing. FearÉIREANN 02:51 17 Jun 2003 (UTC) (Joe deleted with the comment (removing an attempt to harass by repeating nonsense and already clarified matters).

Since you refuse to answer the question and delete everyone's requests for the answer or leave agressive statements on their pages, let me put it bluntly. If you do not supply the information the shows that there is no breach of copyright in the images you have downloaded, the images will be removed from articles and placed on the Votes for Deletion page. And if you try to remove this from this page without answering, it will be reinserted, and the fact of your behaviour informed to other users. BTW other users have asked me to inform you that tone and content of the messages you have been leaving on other user's pages breaches basic rules of politeness and co-operation on wiki. While many wiki users are adults capable to dealing with your rudeness, there are children and retired people who are wiki contributors too and they should not have to experience agressive attacks if, like LittleDan, in a spirit of co-operation and respect they simply ask you a question. Such behaviour has in the past and will in the future lead to the banning from wiki of individuals guilty of it. FearÉIREANN 03:28 17 Jun 2003 (UTC) (Canuck removed with the comment (Removing irrational diatrible that included a threat)

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. Joe Canuck 12:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just answer the question? What is the copyright nature of the images you have uploaded? All you have to do is say "I own the copyright, or have permission from the copyright owner, and I hereby release them under the GNU FDL." -- Wapcaplet 12:25 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FYI: "No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be". --Joe Canuck, from Oliver's Talk page

Joe's answered the question. If the answer is unclear, you might ask for clarification. Martin 12:32 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah. Good enough for me, then. -- Wapcaplet 12:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why didn't he just say??!! Its easy enough to say "I already answer the question on Talk:....." But as you pointed it out, its fine by me. - fonzy

Actually, that doesn't answer the question, since he has not said what the copyright nature of the images is. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, a photograph is by default copyrighted by the person who took it. It doesn't need to be labelled as copyright, since it can be assumed, unless the photograph is old enough for the copyright to have expired, or has been explicitly released into the public domain. So it seems that we have to assume that the photographs are copyrighted by someone, even if we don't know who that someone is. So we either have to get permission to use them under the GNU FDL, or claim fair use. And according to Mr. Daniel Mayer, who also isn't a lawyer, incidentally, "to be considered 'fair' a basic requirement is that the image's source needs to be given."[1] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004534) -- Oliver P. 15:40 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I interpreted Joe's words (and I'm sure he will correct if I'm wrong) as saying that basically:

Joe has no reason to believe that the images are copyrighted, but
Joe has not verified that the images are uncopyrighted, and
Joe does not intend to perform such a verification

It's not an entirely satisfactory answer, but it is an answer. Based on that answer we can now discuss whether Joe's images should be deleted from Wikipedia, or leave them on Wikipedia pending advice from the FSF or from paid lawyers. Martin 19:08 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Unless he states clearly that a picture is not copyright, wikipedia has to presume that there is a question mark over its status at best, that it is copyright at worst. But because wiki is not just a website by an encyclopædia and has to be ultra-careful, if the user has not stated explicitly that it is copyright-free then it is removed from articles, the person who downloaded it is asked where they got it and if they cannot (or as is usual with DW, will not) say its status and origins, it is listed on the VfD page and unless satisfactory information is supplied within one week, deleted. But then DW knows that. In every one of its identities, he goes through the same nonsense of refusing to provide information. As to fair use, to avoid complications, it is thought preferable to be able to say where it came from so that that can be acknowledged alongside the picture or in the page that is opened when someone hits the picture and opens up its page. Using an acknowledgment is a necessary cover because it allows us to say that everything is above board. Without stating that, in the event of a challenge by the owner of the image, they can assert that it was simply stolen from their site. As an encyclopædia looking to be taken seriously, wikipedia cannot allow itself to earn for itself the reputation as a sourcebook that steals copyright images. If it does so, people who may have allow wiki to use its images will decline to do so and wiki could face legal problems that in a worst case senario would lead Bomis to terminate the project. As such the behaviour of any user, including this one, cannot be allowed to endanger the reputation of wiki and the work of thousands of people over the last two years. But DW has consistently shown contempt for other users in this and other issues. FearÉIREANN 22:42 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your comment has two parts, so I shall answer them seperately.

Is Joe Canuck a reincarnation of DW/Black Widow/...? Perhaps. We have a rough policy on how to deal with possible reincarnations at wikipedia:bans and blocks. If that rough policy is inaccurate or inappropriate, edit it. Otherwise, apply it.
Are Joe Canuck's images inappropriate on Wikipedia? Perhaps. I suggest that you list them on votes for deletion. While both you and I would prefer that Joe provide sources, Joe has made it clear that he has no intention of doing so. Since we cannot force Joe to provide sources, we are left with two options: keep the images, or delete the images.

Martin 23:00 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My position in fulfilling my full and complete legal obligation in accordance with the rules established by the owners of Wikipedia.org with respect to posting photos at this Website has already been clearly stated. Any discussions others might wish to have on photos, bananas, or any other subject should be between those parties but not on my personal page. I repeat, if anyone disagrees with my unequivocal assertion with respect to my photos, do not harass me, do not vandalize my legitimate work. Instead, take up this issue with the only legal authority: the owners of Wikipedia.org. to which I will willingly and totally cooperate if my assertions are incorrect and they wish to amend the policy under which they operate this site. I am now deleting unwarranted discussions of which I have no involvement or responsibility for of any kind. Joe Canuck 23:15 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If someone disagrees with you and then asks you about it, you do not start saying they are harassing you. They are mearly asking a question. We in wikipedia try and co-operate, to improve the articles. Pictures, articles, etc. are dealt by Wikipedians, not by "the owners of Wikipedia.org", Jimbo Wales has left it up to us to run Wikipedia. I ask you just to be abit more co-operative in future. Thankyou. -fonzy. Also by deleting messages taht are contraversal, you are creating suspicions. When you delete them you rave on about legal mumbo jumbo.

Hello Joe. I don't know if you're DW or not, but your arguments are very similar. If you're not DW, I think you would greatly benefit from reviewing the discussion we had with that user. You should read the archives of Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, where we explained in detail that:

We can delete material you post for whatever reason we like. It's not necessary that it be illegal, only that it be inconsistent with our goals of building a free encyclopedia.
Although the DMCA copyright act provides some degree of legal protection to Bomis, Wikipedians have an interest in keeping Wikipedia copyright free. There are several reasons for this: international copyright law, quality control, medium independence, etc. All are explained in the talk page cited above.

-- Tim Starling 00:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All images for which satisfactory information as to their copyright status has not been supplied or for which because of lack of adequate information claims of fair use may not be appropriate, have been listed for deletion and have been removed from the relevant article. Any attempt to reinstate the images in the articles in the absence of adequate information as to their copyright status will be reverted and such efforts will be reported. Each image for which the necessary information as to copyright status has not been supplied will be deleted after one week. FearÉIREANN 03:04 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You now appear to be completly ignoring your talk page, is it becuase you wish not to answer? -fonzy

I repeat: You cannot discriminateJoe Canuck 13:52 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Who's discriminating? We delete suspected copyright violations no matter who they're from. Some people don't get the message immediately and they get annoyed. You're in that class; there's been plenty of others. If we let you get away with it, it would be favouritism. -- Tim Starling 14:26 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Who's discriminating? When a Wikipedia user obeys the requirements of the owners, and someone, be it they alone or as a cabal, usurps the owners authority and imposes their personal views, is discriminating and harassing. Do you support overriding the owners of Wikipedia and discriminating against a few selected users? I hope not, but as this matter will now be taken to the proper levels, I have no more to add to my already clearly stated position. I might however, suggest you ask the owners of Wikipedia if I am wrong rather than making wild unfounded claims while continuing to harass and discriminate. And, before you continue, you might also ask the site owners what the consequences for Wikipedia.org are when a user discriminates and harasses another user. I, for one, would never do anything to jeopardize Wikipedia.org. Joe Canuck 14:42 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You say you would never do anything to jepordize wikipedia, yet you refuse to clarify the copyright status of the images you have uploaded. Why? If you would just write something along the lines of "I took this photo myself" or "The person who took this photo has given me permission to upload it to wikipedia" I would willingly withdraw my vote to have your images deleted, and I am sure that many others would withdraw their vote too. Theresa knott 15:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bomis owns the servers. They don't own Wikipedia. We each own our own contributions. You've been told this before. But even if Bomis was the owner, Jimbo Wales has explicitly given us (the Wikipedia editors) the authority to make decisions like this, so no usurping is necessary. You've been told that before, as well. We are in some sense accountable to Jimbo, so you're welcome to take your case to him.

Deleting images posted by you is not harassment. It is the normal system of quality control in action. You don't complain when we revert the edits of a user who replaces entire articles with "hello i am john", do you? What is so different about your case?

-- Tim Starling 15:17 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) (Joe deleted with the comment answer Theresa knott, deleted irrelevant rantings)

From the Wikipedia:Overview FAQ:

Who owns Wikipedia?

The owner of the server and the domain names is Bomis, Inc. However, the articles are released by their authors under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the articles are open content. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Wikipedia articles are Bomis' property. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Readers' FAQ for information on how you can use Wikipedia content.

So, when you keep referring to the "owners" of Wikipedia, you are talking about you, me, Tim, Martin, FearÉIREANN, and anyone else who contributes. -- Wapcaplet 15:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) (Joe deleted with the comment answer Theresa knott, deleted irrelevant rantings)

What is or is not legal copyright here at Wikipedia.org is not for you or anyone to make an arbitrary judgment on. Wikipedia.org protected itself, it did not mandate users to be copyright lawyers. When a group of users form a cabal to impose their views, that is in fact discrimination and doing it selectively and repeatedly constitutes harassment. A user to Wikipedia is entitled to use the site in accordance with the owners terms -- not yours or mine. There are many "brave" loudmouths who hide behind their non-USA residence who don't worry about harassment because the prime and serious damage will be to Wikipedia.org, not themselves should a provoked user or rights group decide to protect themselves from abuse. In this regard, I find it incredible that you are willing to think that a totally unknown and unverifiable person logged into Wikipedia under any user name they choose can simply say: "I took this photo myself" or "The person who took this photo has given me permission to upload it to wikipedia and you accept it. Mind boggling that you would accept such implausible claims as adequate legal protection. The DMCA was created just so innocent website operators couldn't be held liable for the actions of the uncaring few. Joe Canuck 15:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You and I are arguing form different viewpoints. To be honest, I am not particularly concerned about the legal ramifications of having copyright material in Wikipedia. I am concerned about the moral & intellectual ramifications.

If I create an image, and someone else copies it without saying that it was me that created it I would be upset. I am proud of the work I have done on wikipedia, and want to be recognised for my talents. It is a matter of common courtesy to say who took a photo. It is also a matter of courtesy to ask permission from the person who created an image before uploading it to wikipedia, and not uploading it unless the permission is obtained. I do not want the reputation of wikipedia to be harmed.

If some uploads an image saying they took the photo themselves, and if it turns out, they were lying, and in fact stole the image, we at wikipedia will have acted in good faith. If the true owner complains, we can delete the image and ban the lying thief. But if we do not insist that the person who uploads an image states that they have permission to upload someone else's creation, we are condoning theft. I want wikipedia to be seen as an honourable place that respects creative peoples right to control the use of their own images.Theresa knott 16:11 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Joe, I am starting to believe you are a reincarnation of a banned user. There is one thing that makes me believe this:

You seem to know your way around Wikipedia quite well for a new user.

-fonzy

If I am a banned user, please provide your proof. Wikipedia.org will not tolerate harassment or false accusations from anyone. Joe Canuck 18:00 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Read the fine print above. Fonzy is starting to believe you are a banned user. He doesn't know for sure. Rickyrab 18:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Joe, that is not harassment (which acroiding to you almost everything is) its my opinion. And from now on i may get abit rude. "Wikipedia.org" or Wikipedia as everyone else calls it, WILL NOT TOLERATE YOU. YOU ARE BECOMING AN INCREASING NUISENCE!!! SPEAKING LOTS OF LEGAL NONSENCE AND MUMBO JUMBO. You are not helping Wikipeida. If you want to help answer are questions. Lots of images (even ones uplaoded by regular users) are checked. Its not just yours! As you are new people are more weary. You are on your last strands of being banned. So Co-operate now! - fonzy (quite annoyed which is unusal)

Joe instead of this reverting, why not just co-operate? It would be far easier. - fonzy

The above rantings and threat bolded by me was deleted from my page by me but reinstated four times by the vandal who is harassing me. Joe Canuck 18:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See, you write so impulsively that you forget there is more than one Wikipedian that is annoyed at you right now.

Joe Joe Joe, if you want to compain about me ask other people. BTW please read part 3 of this: [2] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004698) -fonzy

Yeah, I already read it. I wonder if you understand what it means? Joe Canuck 18:43 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

P.S.: Read: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles

I also wonder if you know lots of people are annoyd with you and your on the verge of being Banned. Also you again seem to show you know your way around Wikipedia for a new user. - fonzy Also do not chaneg otehr peoples text. ie turning mine in bold.

I will bold all I want as part of my response on my UserTalk page. Joe Canuck 18:50 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for turning your word banned into bold earlier. Rickyrab 18:52 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

did you? :-s tisk tisk, i forgive u for that as your apoligise. But Joe has delibratly done it. -fonzy

Obviously. Rickyrab 18:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I moved your discussion with Jtdirl in Wikipedia:Protected page from the article proper to the talk page. --Dante Alighieri 19:24 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Qouting from what you and I said on that page:

"The above statement by the person going by the user name: [[FearÉIREANN contains falsehoods and has abused their powers as a Wikipedia Administrator by protecting pages in which they were involved as part of the discussion. This is unacceptable conduct, and demonstrates the strong reluctance and lengthy delay by other Administrators in trusting this user with Administrator powers. I believe that a sincere and always polite User:Ed Poor set an excellent example of honorable conduct when he made only one mistake and abused his Administrative powers. Joe Canuck 19:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If your "new" hwo the hell do you know what Ed Poor is like??? answer me that... -fonzy!"

acording to [3] (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ed_Poor) he was only on Jun 12-13

acording to [4] (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Joe_Canuck&limit=500&offset=500) you joned on jun 11.

Ed seems to have little to Nil Contact with you? So how can you judge? - fonzy

Content moved from elsewhere from various locations - just trying to clean up after the mess.

re Maureen Connolly (and other articles where Joe wished to insert an image) This page being protected is an abuse of Administrative powers because they are party to the disagreement. Joe Canuck 18:37 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I can't find this page listed on Wikipedia:Protected pages. Could the page please be listed there together with a reason and the name of the person who protected it? -- JeLuF 18:46 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am about to add the list of pages protected. The reason why is because one user, Joe Canuck, downloaded images but refused to confirm that the images are copyright-free. All the images were removed and placed in the deletion list. He became abusive to users and reinserted images. Users removed the images. He kept reinserting them. His banning has now been requested. In meantime, to stop Canuck (alias DW) from constant reversions, all the pages have been locked. That is the only way to stop this user reinserting his images which are scheduled for deletion. For information on the conduct of Joe Canuck, see his abuse of other users on his talk page and on the Votes for Deletion page. FearÉIREANN 18:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well allegedly DW. That is one thing your can't say. But i am now ceratin myself its a re-incartaion of some banned users. Or possibly its just a new usere tahta nuisence. -fonzy My evidence (said elsewhe) tahst shows that Joe is not new: He knows his way around very well for a new user. -fonzy

(to Tim Starling) This is a copy for you, just in case you might not see it on my page:

Who's discriminating? When a Wikipedia user obeys [...comment repeated from above...] Joe Canuck 14:42 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Don't bother, your user page is on my watchlist. -- Tim Starling 15:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm honored that you would want to see all my work. I know that User:Maverick149[?] said my "years in sports" pages was a quote: "horrible mess", but I did apologize to him for my incompetence even though I always thought a contributor here was only supposed to do to the best of their ability. When my sports work is done, I might tackle a few other subjects -- to the best of my limited ability. Please feel free to impart constructive criticsm and to edit anything I write as much as your expertise deems necessary. Joe Canuck 15:40 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm watching your contributions, just your user page. There's a discussion going on there which I manage to contribute to occasionally, when you don't just delete my comments. -- Tim Starling 15:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

From a mailing list post (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004534) titled "DW back as Joe Canuck":

"Just look at the horrible mess at 1987_in_sports - which isn't at all similar in format to any other year page type" -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

Having now virtually completed the setup for 1950 to 1987 "years in sports" (with more additions by me and others to follow) I shall keep on with 1988 to 2003 with all due diligence. However, I sincerely apologize to User:Maveric149 for my incompetence, but I did my best. Joe Canuck 22:51 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

New content

Note: another user attempted to delete the hard ban notice on the user page and reinsert Canuck's page with an additional note. Stan Shebs reverted to the hard ban notice version, as is wiki rules. I have protected the main user page to prevent any more deletions of the hard ban notice. This page is not protected and if User:ChuckM has any points he wishes to raise, he can do so here. FearÉIREANN 00:22 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The following was placed on the wiki-list by FearÉireann on 26th June 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:

a unique shared editing style;
a preoccupation with editing and creating pages of lists, specifically in the areas of sports, history, Canada, etc.;
personal abuse of other users, specifically including legal threats;
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;
an identical unusual captioning style, namely - caption - in which all three elements were bold italicised;
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.
the absolute and frequently rude refusal to state the origins of the images;
the attacking of anyone who dares question the origins of the images;
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.
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 FearÉIREANN 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:

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 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? 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. 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.

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

Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the spirit of creating something valuable.Jacques Delson 22:31 25 May 2003 (UTC) (comment to JHK)

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? Jacques Delson

Do you have special privlidges here that the rest of us don't? ChuckM to Wapcaplet

*After looking at above examples of DW's "quotes"*
Brilliant!! Who is this lunatic? I demand a regular column. Every week a different rant against a percieved injustice. Coming soon The Voices Made Me Do It, and The Clocks Keep Looking At Me'.

PMelvilleAustin 05:31 2 Jul 2003 (UTC) :)

You forgot to mention that all of them for some reason are under the delusion that Jimmy Wales is on their side, have a strange obsession with the DMCA, and seem to think that a domain name can "own" something. -- Wapcaplet 15:38 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I unprotected the user page. Protection might be warranted in cases of repeated edits, but one edit is not that. Martin 19:47 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!