Inlinetext recently deleted huge portions of the page Geodesics on an ellipsoid: [1]. In September 2014, a sockpuppet of Duffycharles called Crapscourge did the same thing to this page (using the same style of edit summaries claiming ORIGINAL RESEARCH [in all caps]): [2].
In addition to the deleting large portions of Geodesics on an ellipsoid, Inlinetext is also editing mainly articles on Indian topics (just like Crapscourge): [3] (Inlinetext's contributions) and [4] (Crapscourge's contributions).
Inlinetext showed abusive behavior toward the editor that reverted his first deletions (using Huggle): [5]. Inlinetext also showed abusive behavior toward user Cffk, accusing him of "Blatant copy violation combining plagiarisms from Rapp (1992) and Borr/Strang (2012)": [6]
Jrheller1 ( talk) 21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a content dispute initiated by
User:Jrheller1 (itself a year old account which displayed great familiarity with Wikipedia and Mathematical markup from its inception). The content dispute is over the article
Geodesics on an ellipsoid. The author of the bulk of the article is
User:Cffk who self-identifies on-wiki as Charles Karney author of various papers on this topic and who claims to have developed new / better / improved versions of various Geodesic formulae. The article as it existed before I edited was used by Cffk for self promoting his several off-wiki websites for his (as yet generally unaccepted) research. A portion of the pre-existing article was extracted from works like
Kai Borre's 2001 paper by claiming these were Bessel:1825's (where they are not found) which I attempted to
discuss with Cffk. I also note that the
User:Crapscourge in his 3 drive-by edits justified them as "Original Research", whereas I am being accused of citing "Plagiarism/Copyvio" for my removals. It would seem evident that "Original Research" and "Plagiarism/Copyvio" are inherently opposed/contradictory. So please initiate a Check-User so that my innocence can be established and sinceI have always been cooperative, sought discussion on the article's talk page, assumed good faith, never been abusive to any other editor, and generally attempted to improve this encyclopedia.
Inlinetext (
talk)
04:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I will add some comments tomorrow (Feb. 1). cffk ( talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Inlinetext relationship to other Wikipedia editors. He (or she) acknowledges previously having another account. Until a week ago the explanation for switching accounts was "I cannot remember the username or password"; now it's that the previous account was "based on my real world name and which I don't wish to connect to my IRL identity". I will also note that in some of the discussions with Inlinetext on Geodesics on an ellipsoid, I am reminded of User:Turnitinpro who was the GA reviewer for the article and whose was account was suspended about a month later. However, the language used by these two editors is sufficiently different that I doubt that they are the same individual.
Inlinetext is far some my usual experience with editors. Usually large changes in an article are preceded by an announcement and discussion on the talk page. I have not previously been accused of plagiarism or copyright violation. (Inlinetext has just put a copyright violation notice on the article. But the duplication detector finds only overlap in the names of journal articles and a few other false positives.)
Inlinetext and Turnitinpro both viewed the inclusion of figures I had generated with suspicion. Turnitinpro questioned their "genuineness"; Inlinetext wanted assurances that these were not "either original research or a hoax". However, the figures are merely technical illustrations showing the behavior of geodesics. The wikimedia descriptions supply sufficient information to enable any knowledgeable editor to reproduce them with a modicum of elbow grease.
cffk ( talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
To relevant admins: the behavioral evidence from edit summaries, choice of articles to edit, and editing style is extremely compelling. -- JBL ( talk) 13:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I cite
this,
this,
this as evidence that 'Jrheller1' and 'Cffk' were continually evading good faith discussion on the article talk page before the SPI and are now using this SPI to control the article
Geodesics on an ellipsoid essentially authored by 'Cffk' for self promotion of his (allegedly superior) geodesic algorithms and websites. Under such conditions of intimidation and pressure I cannot participate in any unequal discussion over the rampant copyvio, plagiarisms, bias and original researches which permeate the article. I also find that 'Cffk' has copied expressions from my own prior text-book on this subject which apparently he has accessed in translation from the US miitary (not Bagratuni) without attribution. My own book is still in copyright. I request for an immediate Check User to be conducted so that I can expose the concerned plagiarist to the Wikipedia community.
Inlinetext (
talk)
03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In answer Inlinetext's questions above
fgnievinski and I are currently working on drafts to improve this article at fgnievinski's draft and cffk's draft. Inlinetext objects to this method of improving the article and is waiting for this SPI to complete before he resumes editing this article. cffk ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The filer 'Jheller1' was previously warned ( diff) for offensive attacks ( diff) in defence of an editor who edited Geodesics on an ellipsoid soon after this SPI was filed ( diff) . Inlinetext ( talk) 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Inlinetext recently deleted huge portions of the page Geodesics on an ellipsoid: [1]. In September 2014, a sockpuppet of Duffycharles called Crapscourge did the same thing to this page (using the same style of edit summaries claiming ORIGINAL RESEARCH [in all caps]): [2].
In addition to the deleting large portions of Geodesics on an ellipsoid, Inlinetext is also editing mainly articles on Indian topics (just like Crapscourge): [3] (Inlinetext's contributions) and [4] (Crapscourge's contributions).
Inlinetext showed abusive behavior toward the editor that reverted his first deletions (using Huggle): [5]. Inlinetext also showed abusive behavior toward user Cffk, accusing him of "Blatant copy violation combining plagiarisms from Rapp (1992) and Borr/Strang (2012)": [6]
Jrheller1 ( talk) 21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a content dispute initiated by
User:Jrheller1 (itself a year old account which displayed great familiarity with Wikipedia and Mathematical markup from its inception). The content dispute is over the article
Geodesics on an ellipsoid. The author of the bulk of the article is
User:Cffk who self-identifies on-wiki as Charles Karney author of various papers on this topic and who claims to have developed new / better / improved versions of various Geodesic formulae. The article as it existed before I edited was used by Cffk for self promoting his several off-wiki websites for his (as yet generally unaccepted) research. A portion of the pre-existing article was extracted from works like
Kai Borre's 2001 paper by claiming these were Bessel:1825's (where they are not found) which I attempted to
discuss with Cffk. I also note that the
User:Crapscourge in his 3 drive-by edits justified them as "Original Research", whereas I am being accused of citing "Plagiarism/Copyvio" for my removals. It would seem evident that "Original Research" and "Plagiarism/Copyvio" are inherently opposed/contradictory. So please initiate a Check-User so that my innocence can be established and sinceI have always been cooperative, sought discussion on the article's talk page, assumed good faith, never been abusive to any other editor, and generally attempted to improve this encyclopedia.
Inlinetext (
talk)
04:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I will add some comments tomorrow (Feb. 1). cffk ( talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Inlinetext relationship to other Wikipedia editors. He (or she) acknowledges previously having another account. Until a week ago the explanation for switching accounts was "I cannot remember the username or password"; now it's that the previous account was "based on my real world name and which I don't wish to connect to my IRL identity". I will also note that in some of the discussions with Inlinetext on Geodesics on an ellipsoid, I am reminded of User:Turnitinpro who was the GA reviewer for the article and whose was account was suspended about a month later. However, the language used by these two editors is sufficiently different that I doubt that they are the same individual.
Inlinetext is far some my usual experience with editors. Usually large changes in an article are preceded by an announcement and discussion on the talk page. I have not previously been accused of plagiarism or copyright violation. (Inlinetext has just put a copyright violation notice on the article. But the duplication detector finds only overlap in the names of journal articles and a few other false positives.)
Inlinetext and Turnitinpro both viewed the inclusion of figures I had generated with suspicion. Turnitinpro questioned their "genuineness"; Inlinetext wanted assurances that these were not "either original research or a hoax". However, the figures are merely technical illustrations showing the behavior of geodesics. The wikimedia descriptions supply sufficient information to enable any knowledgeable editor to reproduce them with a modicum of elbow grease.
cffk ( talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
To relevant admins: the behavioral evidence from edit summaries, choice of articles to edit, and editing style is extremely compelling. -- JBL ( talk) 13:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I cite
this,
this,
this as evidence that 'Jrheller1' and 'Cffk' were continually evading good faith discussion on the article talk page before the SPI and are now using this SPI to control the article
Geodesics on an ellipsoid essentially authored by 'Cffk' for self promotion of his (allegedly superior) geodesic algorithms and websites. Under such conditions of intimidation and pressure I cannot participate in any unequal discussion over the rampant copyvio, plagiarisms, bias and original researches which permeate the article. I also find that 'Cffk' has copied expressions from my own prior text-book on this subject which apparently he has accessed in translation from the US miitary (not Bagratuni) without attribution. My own book is still in copyright. I request for an immediate Check User to be conducted so that I can expose the concerned plagiarist to the Wikipedia community.
Inlinetext (
talk)
03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In answer Inlinetext's questions above
fgnievinski and I are currently working on drafts to improve this article at fgnievinski's draft and cffk's draft. Inlinetext objects to this method of improving the article and is waiting for this SPI to complete before he resumes editing this article. cffk ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The filer 'Jheller1' was previously warned ( diff) for offensive attacks ( diff) in defence of an editor who edited Geodesics on an ellipsoid soon after this SPI was filed ( diff) . Inlinetext ( talk) 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)