From the mailing list:
I request a ban on User:ChuckM. Currently, his only activities are complaining about Jtdirl on random people's talk pages, and requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he can find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
This is, frankly, ridiculous.
Forget 'doesn't cite a source' . The images site the source, the RTÉ Press Office. Someone even gave him their telephone number. But he wants the formal name of the press officer, the full name and address of the location. Next thing he will want Ann's fingerprints, birth date, marriage certificate and favourite shade of lipstick.
Yeah. I think it is time this latest version of DW was binned. Then we can play the game of 'spot DW's 19th identity!
I would point out that he's actually done this with a *lot* of users and a lot of images, not just JT's ones. This is not a minor act of disruption, it's quite severe.
(sorry JT, I realise you were agreeing with me, but there was some potential for confusion)
> requesting clarification of copyright status about every image he can
> find that doesn't specifically cite a source.
Agreed.
Such an act is intended to scare away new Wikipedians uploading their very first images, already with a conscious or subcon fear that they might've done it wrong. Newcomers may even mistaken him as a representative of WP. Therefore, such an act is destructive.
If he does not stop such a behaviour immediately as some administrators have asked him to, his continuance will cause further damage to our name, and therefore must be banned to ensure his discontinuance.
Menchi Zh-En
Mailing list posts end
ChuckM made a malicious ban request at User:Hephaestos/ban: (now moved here)
Posted in accordance with Wikipedia:Bans and blocks:
This user has repeatedly deleted conversations between myself and User:Theresa knott on HER talk page. Despite been told to stop, User:Hephaestos continued. When I finally filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, he deleted that too. ChuckM 13:53 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I object to the proposed ban on Hephaestos. Evercat 13:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- me too. jimfbleak 14:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- me three. Tannin 14:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- me four FearÉIREANN 17:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
For a (rather long) statement of the case that ChuckM is banned user Joe Canuck (and also banned user DW), see this mailing list post.
However, I suspect this is largely irrelevant, since ChuckM's actions almost certainly warrant a ban on their own, no matter who he is. Evercat 14:24 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Some examples of ChuckM's malicious questioning over copyright:
At least one such post was deleted to avoid confusing a relative newbie.
Some posts claiming that everything people did on certain articles was likely to be wasted:
Most of the above were reverted by admins and re-reverted by ChuckM, sometimes on several occasions.
It is - I hope - obvious that ChuckM's only reason for the above posts is not out of some desire to protect Wikipedia from problems, but to discourage users for contributing. Evercat 14:45 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Or simply an attempt to lash out at anyone who "discriminated" against Joe Canuck by questioning the origin of the images he contributed. It's pretty obvious he is not at all interested in the copyright status of the images in question, since he has ignored the replies he has received, ignored the perfectly clear statement by the photographer of the image he questioned me about, etc. -- Wapcaplet 15:25 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This is especially obvious given ChuckM's earlier claims that copyright status wasn't an important issue, for example, in this edit.
Quote from the above edit:
- If a copyright owner gives the required legal notification to Wikipedia of an infringement, there is no dispute, the photo is removed. It is simple and no big deal and no risk of any kind to Wikipedia who cannot be held liable if someone uploads a copyrighted photo because they have, as User:Joe Canuck, pointed out, registered for protection under the DMCA.
So, ChuckM does not really believe what he's saying, he's just intent on causing trouble. Evercat 15:22 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't like these "ban" subpages. Shouldn't this kind of stuff be discussed on a page like Wikipedia:Votes for banning, or on Meta? --Eloquence 16:09 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- You're not alone in this dislike. Want to take this to wikipedia:bans and blocks? Heck, just edit that page directly to reflect what you think would be best... Martin 17:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I updated user:Joe Canuck/ban with Jimbo's recent mailing list post, which affects Chuck. Martin 20:17 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I was just wondering...if banned users come back and contribute stuff that isn't vandalism or inappropriate, why does that have to be deleted? Is it just easier to ban everything about them, rather than picking and choosing? Adam Bishop 20:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- This has been debated at some length, though rather about the place, so it's hard to give a single link... you might try meta:bans as an example.
- Different people have wildly different ideas on the issue, with some folks arguing that all edits by banned users should be reverted and other folks arguing that all edits should be treated on their merits. Martin 21:14 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The logic is simple:
- Hardbanned users are by definition not entitled to be on wiki, so everything they can contribute amounts to a breaking of the ban imposed.
- The threat of complete deletion of their work can act as a deterent. Past non-enforcement of the deletion rule meant that people were actively encouraged to keep coming back because when it discovered that they were banned and were behaving in a bannable manner all their work under their name still survived. A rigid enforcement of the rule means that being caught doesn't simply mean that you are kicked off and can sneak on again, it means the potentially hundreds of hours of work they had done, all their time and effort, was completely wasted. In DW's case for example, if everytime he was caught, his entire portfolio of work had been been deleted, would he have continued to come back? Or if he did, would he have been damned sure not to get himself banned again and face the dumping of his precious work?
For both DW and Michael, pride in their past work has been one of their characteristics. Leaving their work sends out the message that a ban is simply a temporary little glitch they can get around. DW for example flew into a rage when not just his Joe Canuck image downloads but earlier ones he had been able to sneak through were deleted on sight. As long as DW and Michael see that their stuff with their name (whatever it was at the time) it makes them think of Wiki as in some sense theirs to keep coming back to. Removing their stuff en masse says to them what is the underlying message of the hard ban - 'go away. You do not belong here' with the implication that the only way they can ensure their work survives is by getting the ban lifted by Jimbo, which is the only method by which a multiple banned user is supposed to be able to return. It is hard to lose good information, but which would be better, a wiki with DW's pages to which DW kept returning to add to and edit under various false names, in the process causing chaos around him and driving good users away, or a policy that got DW off wiki permanently? Others could at sometime in the future turn up and write the same pages without causing the harrassment, the rows, the intimidation, etc that they cause. If deleting the pages gets the message through to people like Michael and DW 'stay away' then in is worth it. And keeping the pages is disastrous, however good the quality, if it acts as an encouragement to the likes of DW to keep coming back. FearÉIREANN 23:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)