Editorial

By: Bart Verhaeghe
To: All
Re: Ward Dossche The abuse Story.

Dear International Fidonet Sysop's. I am here to inform you of the abuse of Ward Dossche. Just some time ago I was a downlink of Ward. But the cable company was ready in Belgium so I took the cable and, I asked Johan Zwiekhorst (RC29) if I could poll his system instead by IP, That was fine for Johan and I informed Ward about my decision. But this was not to the liking of for Ward so he tried to trick me. * Like changing my password so I could not areafix to his system to disconnect my echomail. * Second he refuses to change his route file so the mail for me and my downlinks staid at his place instead of going to Johan Zwiekhorst. * Third after having a big discussion in natsysop.b he wanted to take me out of the nodelist. But in the end he gave in...

Second chapter of this story: I have made friends outside Belgium like in R28, Z3(WWB), Z1 (animenet). I like reading a lot of R28 mail and such... So Mr. ward dossche was been pissed because I got r28 mail from the Netherlands without the need of his "historical" import of such (limited) mail.Again he is threatening me for removal from the nodelist again. He says that there is a historical rule that say's that the ic/zc2 has to take mail from the r28-bone. His whole mailer system is "historic"...no %rescan; no Msgid and he still strips seenbye's so his system lacks indeed dupe detection if there is parallel import...Several people advised him to upgrade to something better for mail-moving...he disregards everything except his own view:(

Third Chapter of this story He made another people think I am a bad person by saying in a R29 area (west-vlaams.reg) with another college (Alfred Vossen) that he is not welcome because of his special Limburger accent and that's not true. All the facts are provable on netmail and echomail messages. Steven Leeman even wanted to write a story about this sick joke...

So my dear fidonet sysop's I hope I've shed some more light on Ward Dossche's abusive power as ic/zc2.

Groeten, Bart Verhaeghe Fidonet : 2:292/907 Web-Site :
http://tsohbbs.dyns.cx E-mail : the-sources-of-hell-bbs@yucom.be
Online Poll System : tsohbbs.dyn.dhs.org , BinkP

+32-(0)50/81.52.94 (2:292/907)

(19483) Mon 25 Dec 00 9:20p
By: michael kleerbaum
To: Ward Dosche
Re: Domains
St:

Hi Ward,

Is it so, that you have been acting as the International Coordinator everybody who reserved a domain name including "fido" will have to ask you for permission, and will otherwise be removed from the nodelist?

Yes or no, please.

With one sentence: You just can't remove somebody from the nodelist because he reserved a national www domain faster than you, and even less if he didn't have any opportunity to establish local communication about the contents of the concerning site.

Michael

By: Ross Cassell
To: Steven Leeman
Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...

Hello Steven!

25 Dec 00 21:13, you wrote to me:

RC>> What demands were made to or of Steven?

SL> give up fido.be & fidonet.be

I suggest you not give them up, I'll give you a home in the nodelist if that is what it takes.

Meanwhile Ward has set sail in his ship, let the winds blow him into the whirlpool.

==
Ross
E-mail: rcassell@home.com ICQ = 5305939

From: "David Hallford" <hallford@thevision.net>
To: "Warren Bonner" <wdbonner@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Steven Leeman Node Number put on HOLD by Ward
Date: Sunday, December 24, 2000 9:59 PM

Hi Warren!

I agree with Joe Jared's well thought out response. The internet is not part of Fidonet and should never be used for any punitive action within Fidonet. Before I say anything deeper, I would like Ward to have a chance to respond.

with warm regards, Dave

Ed:

Dave, I couldn't agree more. When I received the Netmail from Steve Leeman early morning on December 22. I at first couldn't believe I was reading a plea to hopefully move the Snooze into battle position. So I phoned Joe and told him to watch his incoming netmail, then I listened to see if he got the same message I did, out of the broken English, although the more times I read it the better I understood Ward Dorsche acting God was removing his ability to receive or send netmail.

Joe immediately replied that Ward could not do that by policy, and the Domains owned by Steven were not any part of fido or policy. I said, "you will as my NC pass this on to Brenda"? He said he would take care of it. He did quite well directly to all parties. Same thing happened to him with King Kohl a couple of years ago, so he had a mission. Ol'wdb

By: Steven Leeman
To: michael kleerbaum
Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...

Hello michael,

Monday December 25 2000 22:17, michael kleerbaum wrote to Ross Cassell:

mk> I can't believe, that this can happen in FidoNet 2001... :((
mk> Ward Dosche, the Emperor of FidoNet?

SL> I even heard someone say "little ceasar" ? :-)

[Algemeen.b]
From : Dave Luyten 2:292/624.63 Mon 25 Dec 00 18:24

Ward> indeed, no discussions. You've received your extended netmail
Ward> <point>. Ter Attention of the innocent loser : dns.be is not a
Ward> player here, the case is handled within Fidonet. So if my
Ward> demands are fulfilled it'll be business-as-usual, if not I wish
Ward> the domain holder much pleasure without a nodenumber \x/@rd

At the moment that Ward Dossche (IC) deletes a nodenumber without a complaint going thru the hierarchies, Ward Dossche (IC) shows "excessively annoying behaviour". Excessive because Ward has done it on purpose :-)

In which case it'll be possible to the ZC's to undo the decision on this case (qualified majority). (what's always the case , but in this case has the most probable solution) also Impeachment procedures will be possible then

The simple case was that Ward Dossche (IC) in this case a direct complaint to himself Ward Dossche (IC) but that Ward Dossche (IC) this complaint had to disregard without any any prenotice. This is an automatism because by my knowing there wasn't any complaint to begin with at NC level. The NC that is the immediate higher in rank of Steven in the Fidonet Hierarchies. Further complaints on the decision of the NC must be made by RC, ZC and IC in that order...

Neglecting the proper order is showing "annoying behaviour". So Steven can draw charges against Ward Dossche (IC) by his NC. And that can become even stranger if Ward Dossche (IC) has to defend himself at NC-level. But that isn't the case...because Ward has operated in function of IC...

And the problem that Ward Dossche (IC) raised didn't hold too much. The having of domain names is to no matter for the working of Fidonet. You have to prove that those domain names by Steven can be "excessively annoying" to other nodes in the network what isn't the case!

And having a DNS entry is to matter at all in Fidonet. Steven is not "excessively annoying". The only rightful way to become owner of fido.be & fidonet.be is via non-fido channels. Those that were especially setupped for this matter. File a complaint at DNS...which is already spoken for by Jan "IN MY HUMBLE OPINION" Have A Nice Day Dave Luyten

By: Jerry Schwartz
To: Dave Hamilton
Re: Ward Dossche

Hello, Dave...

Dec 25, 2000 at 14:19, Dave Hamilton wrote to Janis Kracht:

DH> Do you have an opinion of Ward Dossche's treatment of Steven Leeman? Does the RCC have an opinion?

DH> I think it's obscene.

If things are as they were reported, I doubt you'll find many who disagree with you.

I had severe misgivings about Ward. Despite all kinds of assurances that he was really a nice guy, my long-distance opinion has always been that he's a bit overwound. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear more from other sources, if any exist. In particular, I'd like to hear from Ward.

I don't think the "in your face" approach will work with him, in any case; so I'd like to see this handled diplomatically.

Regards, Jerry mailto:jerryschwartz@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

--- Msged/NT TE 05
* Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928)

By: Peter Barandat
To: Ross Cassell
Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...

Hello Ross,

On 25.12.00, 15:45:38 you've sent this message in outer space. An alien retrieved it on Tuesday 26.12.00, 0:51:13, and replied to it.

Establishing connection

PB>> Steven has to proof that he owns the rights to buy those domains. Now, I'm sure that even Ward doesn't own those rights, simply because they don't existe, in Belgium. If Steven can't get his hands on the rights before thursday he will be deleted from the nodelist.

RC> To which, WARD does not have this authority whatsoever. Indeed :-(

Greets, Peter

By: Joe Jared
To: Peter Barandat
Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...

Disclaimer: No copyright should be inferred from any portion of the embodiment of this message. This message is public domain, and all rights have been granted to publish this document anywhere or everywhere.

Hello Peter!

Monday December 25 2000 19:50, you wrote to Ross Cassell:

PB> Hello Ross,

PB> On 12/25/2000, 11:46:57 you've sent this message in outer space. An alien retrieved it on Monday 12/25/2000, 19:28:04, and replied to it.

PB> Establishing connection

PB> Translated it means: The node 2:292/624 is placed on hold (as of
PB> now) in the fidonet nodelist en will be removed during following
PB>>> week, together with all registrations of the same person. If
PB>>> the sysop does not comply with former demands.
RC>> What demands were made to or of Steven?
PB> Steven has to proof that he owns the rights to buy those domains.
PB> Now, I'm sure that even Ward doesn't own those rights, simply because
PB> they don't existe, in Belgium. If Steven can't get his hands on the
PB> rights before thursday he will be deleted from the nodelist.

JJ> Simply put, Steven does have the right. He has money, and has purchased the domains. Ethically, I hope he does cooperate with the Zone, but nothing can be done within fidonet to force him. This point needs to be clearly identified, and opposed. It's as simple as Fidonet != Internet. For the c impaired, Fidonet <> internet. As for the effect this will have, first off, without the *C of the effective level's endorsement, the domain isn't official in my own list. Another point. Fidonet cannot be copyrighted by any other entity than Tom Jennings. If Ward would claim a copyright, my own argument would be that if anything, it was already Public domain, and that by his own reasoning in prior messages, he has no claim. You cannot post-mortem copyright that which is in the public domain, and prior art, the world's first fidonet nodelist, would be the prior art challenging the claim of copyright.

Spilt milk. As a matter of precedent, fidonet.com is owned by someone who is almost a non-entity. The attack at Steven is simply because he is close to home for Ward.

PB> In my opinion, Ward doesn't want the proof of the registration of fido. He wants those names to be erased from the dns-tables. But why I ask? Steven is committed to make something beautiful of those domains. Ward hasn't got the registrations, so he can't register the domains... (otherwise he has to place his own pc on hold, to be removed within a week.... =) So? What will he say if some dog food company registers the fido.be ?? Now a fido member has this domain... Ward should be proud!!

When Ward asked me why I contacted Janis on this issue, the reasoning was simple. The ZCC (The 5 remaining ZC's excluding the ZC who is IC), can overturn his ruling. I don't see this situation as a resolvable one, but rather a ZCC will need to intervene on principles. It is however up to Mr. Leeman to appeal the IC Decision to the ZCC. Given that the ZC is also IC, he only gets one shot at this, so I'm hoping that the ZCC will act in fairness, or that Ward as IC will rescind his ruling. The positions of *C above NC are typically of appeal, not action. It would serve Ward well to back down from his current course of action, but I doubt he will. As such, many of us have asked our own ZC as a member of the ZCC to rescind Ward's decision for him. Hopefully, the other ZC's will act in kind.

NC 1:103 joejared@osirusoft.com

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1 * Origin: telnet://telnet.osirusoft.com (1:103/301)