Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Duffycharles/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Inlinetext recently deleted huge portions of the page Geodesics on an ellipsoid:. 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]):.

In addition to the deleting large portions of Geodesics on an ellipsoid, Inlinetext is also editing mainly articles on Indian topics (just like Crapscourge): (Inlinetext's contributions) and  (Crapscourge's contributions).

Inlinetext showed abusive behavior toward the editor that reverted his first deletions (using Huggle):. Inlinetext also showed abusive behavior toward user Cffk, accusing him of "Blatant copy violation combining plagiarisms from Rapp (1992) and Borr/Strang (2012)":

Jrheller1 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''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 since I 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 would also like to rebut the claim that I mainly edit India articles. I have edited 3 articles connected to (South) India (Swami Nithyananda, LGBT culture in Chennai, V. Shanmuganathan) whereas I had edited 13 non-India connected articles before this SPI was filed (Le Gavroche, Deliveroo), Fernando Suarez, Mayank Prakash, Geodesics on an ellipsoid, Brexit, Leyla Alaton, Hristo Lukov, OurMine, Mick Hucknall, Golden Ambrosian Republic, Gravity, Benford's law). Inlinetext (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification about use of all CAPS in edit summaries. This was often used in the early days of Wikipedia when Mediawiki was not so well developed and did not accept wikilinking in edit summaries.Inlinetext (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal of the accusation that I abused User:FriyMan. It can be easily verified link that on 17th January 2017 at 11:43 UTC this user made 12 edits in the space of 1 minute, including reversing my edits on Geodesics on an ellipsoid which is not humanly possible. When I protested this mindless revert on his talk page, the editor falsely accused me of blanking the page, whereupon only after educating him, did I post the query about his questionable misuse of the automated Huggle tool. I am not the only editor who had objected to his general incompetence / misuse of Huggle. There is a vast difference between abuse and objecting to the misuse of tools and wasting the time of productive editors and I suggest that the filer read this most excellent essay on civility. Inlinetext (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is important to mention that I have never edit-warred with 'Cffk' nor he with me. Neither of us have reverted the other on Geodesics on an ellipsoid and consequently there was no disruption. I am familar with his work in the field, and he may also know my own modest contributions.Inlinetext (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe it's a stretch to say that "there was no disruption". cffk (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Au-contraire: I was improving the encyclopedia by amending your long-term disruptive edits, defined in WP:DE as sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy or self-promotion.Inlinetext (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I will add some comments tomorrow (Feb. 1). cffk (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do so. However, since now that the complainant has specifically used (diff)) this SPI to intimidate / pressure my edits to the content disputed article, I have placed a copyvio template on the article page as I perceive a major source of the deleted content at issue is "Copyright © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim". Inlinetext (talk) 05:53, 1 February 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)


 * I will reply to you in detail in a day. In passing I can say, that the copyvio dup detector is pointed at the reference you provided in the article which is only a link to the actual work (which is paywalled), ie. your "translation" of Bessel and whose copyright is held by the publisher and not by you.Inlinetext (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment : Clearly I had read the article talk pages before my edits and was aware of comments of other editors and reviewers while making my edits, which incidentally is what pedia talk pages and archives are meant for.Inlinetext (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Inlinetext, I'm still waiting for you to show any evidence of copyright violation. The reference to Bessel (1825) in the article includes a link to a preprint of the translation arxiv:0908.1824. So the fact that Astronomische Nachricten requires a subscription should not have stopped you from backing up your claims.  Incidentally, you seem to have latched onto my statement that I "followed the derivation of Bessel (1825) fairly closely" to mean that I violated the copyright on the translation of that paper.  This isn't the case. cffk (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This page is for the Sockpuppet claim. Do you wish to link me to any other account which is either a sockpuppet or sockmaster account, if so what is your evidence? The copyright, plagiarism and original research issues connected with your conflicted abuse of Wikipedia for self promotion of your geodesy algorithms are best dealt with on the article talk page, since it relates to the separate content dispute. It is well known that leveling sockpuppetry allegations is the easiest way of getting rid of inconvenient opponents. I hope you clearly understand a) Apparently you are not the copyright holder of your translation and b) Your article based on your own work and Bessel's equations which are incorporated in this article are still under copyrights which are not yours, including Kai Borre's.Inlinetext (talk) 17:11, 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 have 2 existing accounts both based on my IRL name on Wikipedia, neither of which have ever been blocked. The earlier one from 2004 had about 1,000 edits mainly on another project. The later account has over 3800+ live edits on en.wp between 2007 and 2012. In 2012 I voluntarily stopped editing on Wikipedia after a high profile Arbcom case where I was extensively harassed (including by having racist accusations made against me) by a notorious editor in the "Maths / Sci" domain who was repeatedly indeffed (including by Arbcom motions) for harassing users and mking threats, and had SPIs made against him, including at around the time Jrheller1 began editing. It seems nothing has changed at Wikipedia since I have been away and Wikipedia is as racist as ever, eg. I am still to see anyone being accused of choosing US articles to edit. So I am reluctant to connect my real name (I have a Ph.D) to a Wikipedia account so that I can again be racially targeted and harassed for my editorial choices by apparently all-White Anglo editors with racially different editing styles.Inlinetext (talk) 16:26, 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)
 * Use of this SPI by filer 'Jrheller1' for content control


 * Comment Removed self-requests for Check User since this community's Check User policy strangely disallows an SPI accused from requesting a CheckUser run to establish their innocence.Inlinetext (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I won't be able to address your charge of copying expressions without more details (which expressions and in which textbook did they appear). In any case, it might be that the "expressions" are not copyrightable.  Nevertheless it may be appropriate to include an attribution.  cffk (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You show me where you obtained your derivations from (and please don't say Bessel) and I'll show you the copyvios / original research.Inlinetext (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For your claims of copyright violation to be taken seriously, most people will want you to show specific instances in which it has occurred. cffk (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't evade the issue of where you inserted those derivations from. You have to specify whether those derivations are expressions from standard geodesy texts (which are still in copyright, starting from Bagratuni(1962) to Borre/Strang(2012) as you specified), or if these are your original researches from your own work. In either case, these derivations cannot stay in the article. I already know the answer but I would prefer to hear it from you. Presumably the filer (like most people) also knows the answer to my query, which is why he speedily removed (and without waiting for an admin or clerk to settle) my copyvio template pointing to "Bessel:(1825) (as linked by you)" whose (C) still vests in the journal publisher as you have already admitted on my talk page. Furthermore, works like Bagratuni's (and mine) were never published in the USA and the Bagratuni translation you linked to / cited is unauthorised. Inlinetext (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem... You put the copyvio template on the article linking to a copyright violation report which showed no violation. If you think I've violated the journal publisher's copyright then you can use the preprint version of the article on arxiv to establish this.  If appropriate, I can ask the publisher for permission to use the material.  But I can hardly do this if I don't know what I'm asking for.  cffk (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's my problem with you Charles, > You don't AGF. Had you cared to view my edit history (eg. here) you would have seen that I had already clarified my returning editor status to User:DVdm's query "Under which username did you edit before? - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)" and modified my user page accordingly. I had also requested you to drop the stick and collaborate on the article diff. Now to answer your query, My copyvio template linked to the same reference you provided in the article. Since the reference is behind a paywall, the dup-detector's report is meaningless and any copyvio admin / clerk will have to proceed manually. I cannot use a preprint version, as you know very well, since this pertains to expressions well beyond Bessel's (now public domain) expressions in German. As the copyright status of unauthorised translations (even of public domain works) is complex, you can simply request the journal publishers to release the entire documents under a Wikipedia compatible CD (Commercial + Derivative Works) free licence and convey this to OTRS. I think that should cover it and we can all drop our claims and accusations, and get on with improving the Encyclopedia. Inlinetext (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, I've not violated the copyright on the 2010 Astronomische Nachrichten article. So I don't see the need to seek a release from the publisher. cffk (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, I must then ask you very pointedly to identify the source of all those derivations I removed containing significant material not found in Bessel's 1825 original work, since I will then clearly show you where you have taken expressions from works of other authors without proper attribution. Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your personal approaches when Vincenty's simple, accurate and time-tested algorithms hold the field. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the concerned publisher would have given you a Wikipedia compatible release which effectively rescinds their copyright. You cannot have it both ways Charles, those derivations are either your own work or they are copyvios. The choice is yours. It would be best if they are removed from the article. Inlinetext (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Helmert gives derivations of the basic equations for geodesics: F. R. Helmert, Mathematical and Physical Theories of Higher Geodesy, Vol 1 (Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, St Louis, 1964); English translation of Die Mathematischen und Physikalischen Theorieen der Höheren Geodäsie, Vol. 1 (Teubner, Leipzig, 1880). cffk (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of going over the well beaten grounds of your Good Article review discussions with 'Turnitinpro' where you claimed Helmert derivations were based on Bessel. Unlike 'Turnitinpro', who incidentally couldn't catch the extent of your mischief, I don't have to point out why citing your scans of Helmert as your source does not help your cause, Corporate and government agency libraries have routinely retained copies of these translations produced for their staff. Recently, these libraries have considered scanning the translations and putting them on an intranet so that they are accessible by all of the employees of that organization.  Clearly, this amounts to mass reproduction and distribution of the translation; further, the translation is an unauthorized derivative work.  While having the article translated and one copy maintained in the library may be fair use; wide distribution via an intranet is unlikely to be fair use.  It is possible that the publisher would grant permission for posting the translation on the intranet but permission should be requested before undertaking such distribution. - Copyright of translations,Texaco ruling. Who translated your Helmert English translation ? Inlinetext (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well this is getting rather far off-topic... Helmert's book was published in 1880.  The English translation appeared in 1964, presumably after the original copyright had expired.  The translation was performed by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center.  Since this was part of the US Government, the translation is in the public domain.  Scanning and posting the translation is therefore permissible.  cffk (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I recall you subsequently clarified on the article talk page that "your" derivations follow Bessel and not Helmert. So any discussion on Helmert is non-productive.Inlinetext (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I explained why I am not "assuming good faith" with Inlinetext in comments to both the talk page of Inlinetext and then Cffk (both of which are linked in Inlinetext's statement above). Jrheller1 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So it's to be a Show trial then ? The more things change the more they remain the same. Inlinetext (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions concerning conduct of 'Cffk' posed to Wikipedia
 * 1) Is it not a contravention of the 5 pillars for a self declared "expert" Charles Karney 'Cffk' on Geodesics on an ellipsoid to take over the concerned article to promote his (allegedly superior) geodesic algorithms and softwares and to divert readers to his websites whose numerous external links have been helpfully provided on article ?
 * 2) Is it proper for such a conflicted editor to deprecate the standard approaches followed for decades (and I speak especially of Vincenty(1975)) "as a quick cookbook recipe providing little understanding of the problem" when Vincenty's formulae / algorithms have been repeatedly validated as being simple and accurate (to 0.115 mm over 18,000 km - Thomas and Featherstone (2005) -Vincenty's algorithms the de-facto preferred method) and holding their own against Karney's (Lee(2011)?
 * 3) Is it not required for an editor, when challenged, to verify POV opinions in the article deprecating other authors / proper approaches in fabour of his own, eg. deprecations of the Vincenty and ODE methods regularly used today, and explicity state that these are his own opinons and conclusions ? For instance Karney's version of the article claims (without validation) that Vincenty's iteration is slow, but Thomas and Featherstone (2005) say of Vincenty's formulae Even using a relatively slow programable calculator the time to obtain a solution is very short ? Inlinetext (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Relatively minor edits can be made to the article to address some of these concerns. cffk (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's now beyond minor edit tweaks. Are you prepared to toss out those derivations, pictures, and most references to bring the article below 25K size which is where most math Good Articles tend to be at ? Inlinetext (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes! Although I disapprove of setting a size threshold, I note that the size of Geodesics on an ellipsoid is now 24 kB. cffk (talk) 21:25, 20 March 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)
 * 1) I created Geodesics on an ellipsoid from scratch, working from July 2012 to August 2013 (when it was made public).
 * 2) I stand by my remark about Vincenty (1975).  However this appears on the talk page and is irrelevant to the present discussion.
 * 3) The comment about the speed of Vincenty's method no longer appears in the article; so this issue is moot.

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)
 * Attack history of filer 'Jrheller1'

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nothing left to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)