Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20120412

< Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Contributor copyright investigation

This CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of multiple point infringement have been substantiated and further steps are necessary to address the serious risk of copyright violation from the listed contributor. Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it.

If you are here because of a note on an article's talk page explaining removal of text, please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline.

Instructions edit

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:CCI#Open_investigations to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

  • {{CCI-open|Contributor name|Day Month Year|completed=yes}}

Text edit

  • 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 {{subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
  • If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place {{subst:cclean}} 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 {{subst:copyvio}}, 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 {{subst:copyvio|url=see talk}} on the article's face and {{subst:CCId|name=Contributor name}} 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 edit

 Johnfos

 Johnfos

Evidence:


  • There have previously been some issues with articles this user has created as well, see a brief conversation and explicit copyvio warning here from April 2011. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this matter to a head, as it seemed to be dragging on and on. I have had many previous discussions with Moonriddengirl about what the problem is and what can be done. These discussions include [2], [3], [4]. As they show I have apologised for what has happened, have shown considerable remorse, and have requested help and guidance in remedying the problem (with little response). I get the feeling that Moonriddengirl is far to busy with WMF work to be heavily involved here, but there was an indication at one stage that User:Sphilbrick may have been willing to provide some practical guidance. Anyway, lets open up the matter here and now and sort it out. I am happy to co-operate in any way I can. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seen as you have as mentioned previously, a long history of stating you would remedy this persistent violation of policy, but show no signs of doing so effectively, with yet another copy paste perpetrated by you only two weeks ago - A voluntary ban may seem prudent. As you have consistently failed to follow through on your promise to cease making copy edits. Also of considerable note is that you have a history of making a lot of POV edits which have been noted by many other users - e.g Here but have, again, also failed to rectify this.
Best Wishes,
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my User page, you will see that I have a long history of co-operative editing on WP, and have never been blocked. But there are a couple of editors, with whom I have had a difficult history, who are trying to take advantage of this CCI situation to get an Admin to make a block, or use it to quickly delete articles that they simply don't like.
On a positive note, I have set up two sandboxes, here and here, where I am displaying draft articles and inviting comment and contributions from others, particularly in relation to any copyvio and close-paraphrasing issues. Please feel free to drop in there. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about stepping away from topics that you are clearing biased towards/against and try editing/creating articles on other topics? Looking through your fives years of articles/editing it is clear you are anti-nuclear, pro-activism (of all sorts), pro-renewable energy, etc. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I am not entirely sure a constant flow of POV articles and edits are a positive thing for WikiPedia. PeterWesco (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added this point of clarification to my user page: "I have found nuclear issues and the anti-nuclear movement to be one of the most contentious areas that I edit in on WP. I have never been a member of any anti-nuclear group, but instead studied Energy policy at university. I have found it best to rely mainly on scholarly publications, especially books by senior academics, in this topic area on Wikipedia". And I have actually spent a considerable amount of time editing in areas as diverse as reincarnation, Buddhism and technocracy. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please take it to the relevant noticeboard. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in his userspace that he has recently created look like derivative works of the original copyright violations. See [5] and [6]:

"the Concerned Citizens concentrated their opposition o legal arguments before the courts, the Atomic Energy Commission, and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
"This group concentrated on opposition through the legal system, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
"When NIPSCO decided to cancel plans for the nuclear plant in August 1981, the Concerned Citizens group had achieved its main objective, and it broke up in 1982."
"When NIPSCO decided in August, 1981, to cancel plans to erect the plant, the Concerned Citizens group had achieved its primary objective ... the group disbanded in 1982."

IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, see Bailly Nuclear Power Plant. SolarStrong has also be re-written and moved to mainspace. Johnfos (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to topic

Opposition newsletter used as a source document:

The construction of the Seabrook facility is now complete (ten years overdue, with a cost approaching $7 billion.). The astronomical debt has led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's major utility owner, Public Service of New Hampshire. This was the fourth largest bankruptcy in United States corporate history. But the nuclear industry and the United States federal government remain committed to licensing and operating Seabrook Station.[[7]]

JohnFos edit:

The construction of Seabrook was completed ten years later than expected, with a cost approaching $7 billion. The large debt involved led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's major utility owner, Public Service of New Hampshire. At the time, this was the fourth largest bankruptcy in United States corporate history.

[[8]] PeterWesco (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not a perfect editor, and Peter and I had some initial misunderstandings, but I seem to recall it was actually me who put a Welcome message on his Talk page... [9]. And I have been happy with the changes Peter has made to the Seabrook article and have not opposed them in any way. I really have no gripe with Peter and wish him well with his editing. Johnfos (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "warm" welcome (removing my edits) [10] and cordial introduction to the WP community (accusing me of being a "sockpuppet") [11] are still fresh and appreciated. So maybe I am probably a little biased when it comes to you. I hope in the future my circumstances will make you hesitate for 5 minutes before biting the newcomer. I have said my piece on the aforementioned issue, the above copyvio issue, and I consider all of this a dead issue. Good luck. PeterWesco (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Johnfos

Unfortunately, Wolfie and I have had a difficult history. But thankfully there are other editors who have provided much needed help and guidance in this matter, and I would particularly like to thank Moonriddengirl, User:Beagel, User:Mrmatiko, and User:NortyNort. If given the chance, I would like to continue to do my best and improve as an editor, and continue to display my drafts at User:Johnfos/sandbox and User:Johnfos/drafts to give all the opportunity to have input before they are moved to mainspace. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our history is fairly limited: [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me speak frankly. To me it seems that we have had a difficult history because: (1) we ended up at ANI together, see here, (2) we have had an incredible amount of disagreement at Talk:Reincarnation research, the article which is the subject of your complaint here, and (3) I have received a lot of "you will be blocked" type messages and warnings on my Talk page from you. From my point of view, you have scrutinised my edits, and asked me to explain them, to an extent that I have not known before on WP. Yes, I have made mistakes, but you seem to want to make a display of them, often pointing out each error in two or three different places. For example, my recent edit at Reincarnation research resulted in a critical edit summary when you reverted, a note on my Talk page, and a note here. You keep insisting that I am "under two copyright investigations", but I am only aware of one CCI page pertaining to me, here. (Or is there another somewhere that I am unaware of?) Anyway, all of this really is overdoing it and to be honest I feel harrassed by you. Perhaps you are unable to assume good faith with me? Johnfos (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a question of assuming good faith. The diff from earlier today where e.g. the phrase "where the young child recognised various people and places" can be found verbatim in the source material shows that you are still using copy&paste to create content here. That is a significant problem, and you really must stop doing that right away. I'm not sure how this can still be happening. Amalthea 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good things must end, and I can see that my time on Wikipedia is over... best wishes to all... Johnfos (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey edit

Johnfos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This report covers contributions to 1410 articles from timestamp 2007-02-16 06:16:57 UTC to timestamp 2012-04-10 00:28:01 UTC.

Subpages

Articles 1 through 20 edit

This article has massive scale copyvio. I've flagged it as a copyvio. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Y removed some. I'm convinced there's more.

Articles 21 through 40 edit

Articles 41 through 60 edit

Articles 61 through 80 edit

Articles 81 through 100 edit

Articles 101 through 120 edit

progress: I removed copyvio from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1542356/Professor-Ian-Stevenson.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule and Douglas M. Stokes (1997). The Nature of Mind, McFarland & Company, p. 190. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 121 through 140 edit

Articles 141 through 160 edit

Articles 161 through 180 edit

Articles 181 through 200 edit

Articles 201 through 220 edit

Articles 221 through 240 edit

Articles 241 through 260 edit

Articles 261 through 280 edit

Articles 281 through 300 edit

Articles 301 through 320 edit

Articles 321 through 340 edit

Articles 341 through 360 edit

Articles 361 through 380 edit

Articles 381 through 400 edit

Articles 401 through 420 edit

Articles 421 through 440 edit

Articles 441 through 460 edit

I've put this up for speedy, unambigious copyvio of http://web.archive.org/web/20080803132051/http://www.tides.org/resources-news/news-room/single-news-item/article/anti-nuclear-advocates-receive-jbl-awards-from-tides-foundation/index.html. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the initial text was a copyvio but was subsequently changed. It seems very closely paraphrased. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 461 through 480 edit

Articles 481 through 500 edit

Articles 501 through 520 edit

Articles 521 through 540 edit

Articles 541 through 560 edit

Articles 561 through 580 edit

Articles 581 through 600 edit

Articles 601 through 620 edit

Articles 621 through 640 edit

Articles 641 through 660 edit

Articles 661 through 680 edit

Articles 681 through 700 edit

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2012-04-12T04:54:24+00:00 in 0.50 sec.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20120412&oldid=1188233781"