Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/HughD

Instructions
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up.

If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Copyright violations. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

When every section is completed, please alter the listing for this CCI at CCI to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

Text

 * Examine the article or the diffs linked below.
 * If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it.
 * If you remove text presumptively, place   on the article's talk page.
 * If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place   on the article's talk page. The url parameter may be optionally used to indicate source.
 * If there is insufficient creative content on the page for it to survive the removal of the text or it is impossible to extricate from subsequent improvements, replace it with, linking to the investigation subpage in the url parameter. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. Your note on the CCI investigation page serves that purpose.
 * To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion, place  on the article's face and   on the article's talk page. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor.


 * After examining an article:
 * replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether problem was found (add y) or not (add n). If the article is blanked and may be deleted, please indicate as much after the y.
 * Follow with your username and the time to indicate to others that the article has been evaluated and appropriately addressed. This is automatically generated by four tildes ( ~ )


 * If a section is complete, consider collapsing it by placing collapse top and collapse bottom beneath the section header and after the final listing.

Background
 HughD "In the last five years, Burke has altered his voting record by putting through six journal corrections on votes he has cast, more than half of the total corrections requested by all 50 aldermen during that period." ... "In some cases, his corrections have involved votes dating back seven years." ... "Burke's recent penchant for changing the recorded history of his voting has drawn fire from other aldermen and Daley."
 * Reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk)
 * From the copyrighted source http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-07-20/news/9707200107_1_aldermen-voting-chicago-city-council -
 * From the copyrighted source http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-07-20/news/9707200107_1_aldermen-voting-chicago-city-council -

Added in the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_M._Burke&diff=next&oldid=514244335 - " In the five-year period 1993 through 1997, Burke altered his voting record by putting through six journal corrections on votes he cast, more than half of the total corrections requested by all 50 aldermen during that period." ... "In some cases, his corrections involved votes dating back seven years." ... "Burke's penchant for changing the recorded history of his voting drew criticism from other aldermen and Mayor Daley."

"Those measures would require candidates for assessor or the Board of Review to return contributions of more than $1,500 in an election cycle from lawyers who appeal tax assessments" ... "They also would bar public officials from conducting any type of political activity while on the county clock or using county resources, such as offices and phones"
 * From the copyrighted source http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-13/news/ct-met-cook-county-board-ethics-20100913_1_ethics-reform-county-ethics-ordinance-commissioners -

Added in the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Berrios&diff=next&oldid=468184611 - "a measure that required candidates for assessor or the Board of Review to return contributions of more than $1,500 in an election cycle from lawyers who appeal tax assessments" ... "and another measure that barred public officials from conducting any type of political activity while on the county clock or using county resources, such as offices and phones"

"... Beavers was born and raised in the Kenwood/Oakland neighborhood, one of the five children of a mother who worked in retail and as a waitress at the popular Palm Grove Inn nightclub-restaurant and a father who worked in the steel mills. The father later worked for a wrecking company and was killed on the job when the alderman was an adult."
 * From the copyrighted source http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-06-11/features/0606110390_1_alderman-south-side-ward-public-housing -

Added in the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Beavers&diff=prev&oldid=478806192 - "Beavers was born and raised in the Kenwood/Oakland neighborhood of Chicago, one of the five children of a mother who worked in retail and as a waitress at the popular Palm Grove Inn nightclub-restaurant and a father who worked in the steel mills. His father later worked for a wrecking company and was killed on the job when the Beavers was an adult."

"Seldom, in fact, has a project received such universally negative reviews. In addition to a groundswell of criticism by civic and preservation groups, the architecture community has been withering in its comments. "It's a travesty," says John Buenz, a principal with Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates. "A fiasco," says Stanley Tigerman."
 * From the copyrighted source http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2002/Field-of-Pain/ -

Added in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soldier_Field&diff=prev&oldid=476796427 - "Seldom has a project received such universally negative reviews. In addition to a groundswell of criticism by civic and preservation groups, the architecture community was withering in its comments. "A fiasco," said Stanley Tigerman."

"It turned out he was facing even more turmoil behind the scenes that year, including these developments that would prove to be headaches for Daley after coming to public prominence years later:"
 * From the copyrighted source http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/5868507-452/the-watchdogs-hired-trucks-to-homicide--much-that-daley-faced-in-2004-took-years.html -

Added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_M._Daley&diff=prev&oldid=473893235 - "2004, Daley's 16th year as mayor, was unusually turbulent, including developments that would prove to be headaches for Daley after coming to public prominence years later."
 * Note that none of the above were quoted when added by HughD. Countless more example can easily be found in this editor's recent editing history. As far as I can see, none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased. (Full disclosure - I happen to strongly disagree with the editor's approach towards WP:BLP, which is what brought him to my attention.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge, good to hear from you again! I hope all is well with you & yours on your side of the pond. Here in Chicago things are going very well, we are enjoying fall color & a spat of summery weather. BTW I was inspired by your user page to add some of your widgets to my user page, including the "Wikipedian since" and "percent article space," so thanks for that. And thank you for your disclosure of your strong disagreement with the cited editor. May I ask, what is your interpretation of the CCI policy, "if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, and seek larger input at an appropriate forum"? Do read it as "if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor, unless disclosed"? Thanks in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

May I ask after any efforts on your part to resolve these issues, prior to your CCI request? For example, did you paraphrase a close paraphrase and it was reverted? Did you attempt gf concensus on an article talk page or on the cited editor's talk page or elsewhere? Does the cited editor have a history of copyright violations or recalcitrance with respect to wp policy? Thanks in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hugh, over here we're just emerging from a mild and damp spell, and entering a cold and damp spell. Although, not as cold as it presumably gets in Chicago sometimes! Incidentally, the "Wikipedian since" gadget isn't mine; the "percent article space" one is adapted from the rather more popular "contributions to Wikipedia" userbox, purely because I like having a convenient link to the edit counter tool but don't want to encourage the WP:EDITCOUNTITIS mentality that sometimes causes difficulties for newer editors. You have a most admirable article space percentage, by the way.


 * "You have a most admirable article space percentage" you are not helping Hugh (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "You have a most admirable article space percentage" thanks, why is yours so low? Hugh (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, you've a few questions for me, so I'll try to answer them in turn. I didn't consider there to be an "ongoing dispute" - prior to making the CCI request I had not interacted with you at all for the best part of two months, and in fact the total number of times I've edited on your talk page or on articles that you frequent, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I would love to join you for the delights of an ongoing dispute, but sadly I currently find it very difficult to make sufficient time for such things.


 * "I had not interacted with you at all for the best part of two months" Thank you for explaining the CCI process to me. Please help me find in CCI quidelines where "ongoing" is defined as "within the last 2 months." Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As regards a larger forum, it would indeed have been an option for me to post on a copyright noticeboard, or on WP:ANI, or on the widely watchlisted talk page of User:Moonriddengirl, but such a discussion would inevitably have led back here anyway, just with the addition of much higher visibility and drama and the possibility of a trigger-happy individual either blocking you or at least plastering your talkpage with angry warning notices. (I had in fact several times asked an experienced editor if he would review your contributions and form his own independent opinion of whether there was a copyvio problem, but either he was unwilling to do so or he did not have the time to do so.)


 * what concensus building took place prior to your decision to file a CCI request? Hugh (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You may of course wish to also raise this issue in such a larger forum in order to assert either that I should not have requested a CCI, or that User:MER-C should not have opened this CCI after I requested it. You can make such assertions here, but individual CCI pages tend to receive very little attention, so your chances of getting an opinion from an uninvolved editor are relatively low.


 * No, I have not attempted to re-write any of the copy-pasted material that you have added.


 * So you requested CCI because you could, because it was easiest for you, and you recognize no obligation, under agf or failing that merely under consideration of the valuable time of the fine folks at CCI, to try simpler, more direct, more collegial approaches to your blp concerns? Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I currently find it very difficult to make sufficient time for such things" Yes, I fully understand how a CCI request is big time-saver for you; article space is a slog, so many rules, fetching rs is a hassle, and of course we are all busy busy. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dealing with the material - by re-writing it or by removing it - will be carried out as part of the CCI process. Yes, it is my view that the cited editor has a lengthy history of copyvio additions. No, I am not aware of "recalcitrance"; in other words, you haven't received any warning (or even advice) about copyvio additions in the past (as far as I know). If you had been warned about it in the past and then continued in this manner, then a block and a CCI would have been the likely way forward, rather than just a CCI.


 * That you've been editing actively for a number of years and have never received any advice about your use of sources is regrettable, ...


 * well, my point is, and I think you understand, I never received any advice from YOU prior to your CCI request Hugh (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...for a number of reasons. First, because it's presumably annoying for you to be told about this now rather than back in 2007. Second, because whoever does the CCI cleanup work will now have considerably more to do.


 * I note that at User talk:TonyTheTiger you ...


 * are you stalking me? Hugh (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ... re-assert that you are a conscientious editor. It is worth mentioning that the commencement of a CCI process does not in any way imply that you are not a conscientious editor. You also comment there, "recall the recent blp dust-up took the form of section blanking and rs deletion, this sure feels like to me a new means to the old end". I would point out that Copyright problems lists either speedy deletion of the problem articles, or blanking of large sections of them to replace them with with a highly visible copyright infringement template, as options alongside a CCI. These options would have had a much greater, more sudden, and more dramatic impact on the articles' content than just opening a CCI. Further, you now have the opportunity (should you so wish) to re-write problematic sections of the articles entirely in your own words, and then mark off the edits as such in the CCI. This would avoid the need for anything to be blanked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I didn't consider there to be an "ongoing dispute"" I see, you are not in an ongoing dispute, it's just that you "happen to strongly disagree with the editor's approach towards WP:BLP" - hmm, seems like a bit of a lawyer-ish finesse to me. I was hoping you might answer my question as to whether you consider disclosure as an end-around to the CCI guideline asking that an editor with a beef seek an alternate forum to a CCI request, because I don't see that exception anywhere. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point I would like to ask you to honor the clearly-stated CCI guideline and ask that this CCI be closed, and let us work together to find an appropriate forum for your blp concerns, may I start with the obvious suggestion of a talk page of a specific article of concern to you. Perhaps we both have something to learn from each other about blp. If you have strong feelings about this CCI issue it will no doubt be a simple matter for you to convince a sympathetic neutral editor to re-submit the request. It would mean a lot to me. I would feel a lot better about this CCI process if it were someone else's request. I feel I am due this consideration under CCI guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Myself, a statement of the form "I strongly disagree with the editor's approach towards WP:BLP" without reference to any specific aspect of WP:BLP, and without reference to any particular content, I don't see myself ever posting anything like that anywhere about anyone. Maybe that's just me. What are your thoughts? Hugh (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking me here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? I think it is quite clear what I am asking: I'm asking you about your understanding of npa, of agf. Rephrasing: myself, I see no point what-so-ever in broad-brush negative characterizations of a fellow editor's work, separate from specific guidelines and specific content. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your claim, "none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased," this strikes me as a very strong statement, one that to make in gf might seem to me to require an exhaustive retrieval of thousands of rs. Is that your intention, to contend that ALL of the cited editor's contributions are improperly paraphrased? Is this kind of statement appropriate in your view? Hugh (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think, bro? "none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased"? a bit over the top perhaps? Hugh (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "As far as I can see, none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased." Having recently come across several counter-examples which expose this statement as a fallacy, may I ask, have you had any further reflection on your statement in the context of WP:NPA? Hugh (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Hugh, I was in fact planning to reply to that paragraph too, -- but like you said, we're all busy busy. Now, your argument here (overall) is that I should "withdraw" the CCI request and we start again from somewhere. Two things. First, I'm not even sure I'm in a position to do that - the CCI request has been accepted and opened by an independent editor (check the history of this page), and looked at by another who removed (from the CCI) some of your edits that were not problematic, and there's no clear way I can annul that (or those) judgements and just say we're not going to bother. (I remain convinced that a CCI is necessary.)

Second, as far as I can tell, you are making these requests/demands solely at me on this page. (Maybe Tony and a couple other people are watching, but all of them are busy.) What you want is for someone to say, "Hey Demiurge, you got it wrong this time, Hugh has a point, you should've done it differently." I'm not planning to say that myself, and I'm not planning to engage in a back and forth over several days or weeks until one of us wears the other down.

The problem is, there are only one or two people watching this page, which means you have a very low chance of someone saying "Hey Demiurge, you got it wrong". If you do feel that I have committed breaches of guidelines in requesting this CCI be opened, and you wish to get comments from outsiders on it, you should open it (feel free to link this discussion) at an appropriate noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "What you want is ..." Please don't speak for me, thanks. I am not sure how to withdraw the request either. Thank you for strategizing about it with me. For now I am interested in you & me buddy. Again, I ask that YOU reconsider your request in the light of our discussion of the CCI guideline and agf and npa, and YOU try and see what you can do. It would mean a lot to me. I tend to think that if you posted here to the effect, upon discussion with the cited editor, upon further reflection on my own motivations and upon the guideline, perhaps there is better venue for my blp concerns, perhaps a more direct approach might have been better for all concerned, perhaps I should not have been the one to make this request, if I had it to do over I might have done things differently - I tend to think folks might recognize that. Let's try it & see what happens, what do you say? Hugh (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You've lost me somewhere along the way - you're not really making sense. There isn't a need for a "more direct approach" - there is no more polite way of saying "hi Hugh, several thousand of your contributions are copyright violations, please would you fix them before you copypaste any more material about local politicians?" I simply couldn't have started off by saying that, because (1) it would be rude, and (2) you would say no. (That's partly what I mean when I said earlier that it's regrettable - that it's Wikipedia's fault - that no-one pointed this out a few years ago when it would've been no big worry and you would've fixed a couple things then carried on writing articles in a slightly different way. It's regrettable, it didn't happen, and I'm sorry that it didn't happen.) The reality is that the copyright violations that you have added to Wikipedia need to be fixed. That is why this CCI has been opened. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "you would say no" ah! thanks, this is actual progress, because this is an assumption on your part, and it is the exact opposite of a good faith assumption. thanks for your reply. I have a talk page just like everybody else bro, link's right after my name: Hugh (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) "you would say no" You seem to know me pretty well, how so? have we met? Hugh (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "it's regrettable - that it's Wikipedia's fault - that no-one pointed this out a few years ago" may I invite you to speak for yourself? might you regret not pointing this out prior to your CCI request? thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I ask again, and I would please like to get an answer: Do you recognize that you yourself are among the Wikipedians who did not warn the cited editor of copyvio prior to your CCI request? If so, do you yourself regret not making any attempt to warn of copyvio prior to your CCI request? Thanks in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, I have read all of them, and I have done my best to reply to them. I do not intend to continue this discussion here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a fellow editor, and I am trying to engage you in arriving at concensus as to whether your CCI request was our best course of action, given our mutual understanding of CCI policy, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. I think right here, right next to your CCI request, right next to your disclosure, right next to the considerable progress we have made so far together over the last few days, is the simplest, most direct place to pursue this concensus. "there are only one or two people watching this page" - as far as I know, it is just you & me my brother editor, and I hope that will make things easier for us. Where would you prefer to continue this discussion? Hugh (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hugh, I'm sorry to see you're having so much trouble with this. To repeat what I said before, (quoting myself here) "It is worth mentioning that the commencement of a CCI process does not in any way imply that you are not a conscientious editor." So no, I have made clear, I am not assuming bad faith on your part, nor is this a personal attack.


 * the simplest thing we could do, the least trouble for everyone, is settle this between you & me right here right now. Please withraw this request and then explain to me your issues with me, somewhere more appropriate like a talk page. I don't know anything about "ongoing seriously problematic pattern of behaviour on [your] part" and I don't care to know. let's keep focus. thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "you would say no" please explain how this is not assuming bad faith. thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased" please explain how this is not a personal attack. thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Full disclosure - I happen to strongly disagree with the editor's approach towards WP:BLP" please cite in CCI guidelines the disclosure exemption, I can't find it. thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What you have made clear, though, is that the specific item you are disputing, is that you feel that I should not have made a CCI request regarding your edits. I take the view that opening a CCI request was the best course of action. Places that you can dispute this include WP:RFC/U (if you think this is an ongoing seriously problematic pattern of behaviour on my part that requires community action), WP:ANI (if you feel this is an incident of personal attacks, or similar, that requires administrator intervention), Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations (if you merely wish to discuss whether the request itself, or the opening of the CCI, was appropriate), or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems (if you wish to discuss those issues in a broader sense). I understand that it's very alarming, and usually unexpected, when someone raises a CCI regarding your contributions, so I wish you all the best. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been a wikipedian for 6 yrs and there's so much article space work out there I'm happy to report I've never done an ANI or RFC or CCI and my preference would be to not start now. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I understand that it's very alarming, and usually unexpected" Yes, it's "alarming" to have a fellow editor blow passed agf and a perfectly clear cci guidleline. It's "alarming" that a fellow wikipedian uses a cci request as an opportunity for a personal attack with impunity. Yes, a cci request is "unexpected" when requested without any prior contact. And it's "alarming" and "unexpected" that a fellow editor is more interested in pursuing an agenda and saving face than in doing the right thing and honoring wp culture. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"As far as I can see, none of the material he adds is properly paraphrased." Now that you have reviewed more edits, and now know this statement to be false, will you please delete it from your request? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge, I thought of you while reading WP:CRYBLP. Let's review it together and discuss. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this. It's hard to go through even a smaller CCI when every update is a continued back and forth. I don't want to see any more posts here unless it's someone actually reviewing an article and checking/xing it off. Wizardman 05:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution survey
__NOINDEX__