User talk:LucasGeorge

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, LucasGeorge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Appealing my topic ban". Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! LucasGeorge, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 06:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic area alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 04:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LucasGeorge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock of the blocked User:PatCheng. I believe that my nomination to SPI was not in good faith, and my block was not given enough due process.

In reference to [1]

1) User talk:203.222.154.162 indicated that PatCheng operates from the Burwood, New South Wales area, possibly using a public wifi belonging to the local council. I live in Wollongong, which is nowhere near Burwood or the city of Sydney.

2) My name is not Pat or Cheng. I'm happy to provide relevant ID documents.

3) PatCheng's edit history showed that he edits a lot of video game/pop culture related subjects, something I have zero interest in.

4) I began editing Wikipedia in 2012 after noticing User:Arilang1234's prior rampages through the Boxer Rebellion articles, creating pages about his preferred books that are used to push a distinct anti-Boxer Rebellion POV after being removed from the main article [2].

5) Lots of editors had problems with Arilang's conduct throughout his existence at WP. PatCheng/PCPP created the ANI notice in early 2011 [3], and to suggest that he created me as some sock a year later, after Arilang was long blocked, is ridiculous, particularly since PCPP was never topic banned from China related articles in the first place.

6) Lots of editors share similar POVs, but that doesn't indicate that they are the same people. Both 50 Cent Party and Mao's Great Famine are controversial China related articles, and I had ran a watchlist on several China relates articles, including those mentioned.

7) Lots of WP editors use CamelCase user names. Just count how many are listed here [4] alone. This is just grasping for straws.

8) PCPP was involved with several editors in the Criticism of Confucius Institutes in 2012 [5]. I raised a few points on the talk page of the main Confucius Institute article to express my problems with the article in 2018. How is that relevant?

9) PatCheng added criticisms to the Mao: The Unknown Story in 2006. I added criticisms from a completely different author in 2019. Again, considering the controversial nature of the book, Correlation does not imply causation.

10) I have zero interest in the Falun Gong articles outside those relating to Chinese politics like The Epoch Times. In fact I took off the article from my watch list, and was only noted to the existence of the edit after I was informed on a Facebook group about the general state of the article.

LucasGeorge (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the CheckUser result, off-wiki evidence corroborates the connection between the LucasGeorge and PatCheng/PCPP accounts. I am able to provide this evidence to future reviewing administrators via email. — Newslinger talk 08:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LucasGeorge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that the SPI case against me was done in bad faith after I raised the issue of another editor in the FLG-related articles having irregular edits [6]. I wasn't even given a chance to defend myself from socking allegations, and was blocked with the bare minimum of evidence that wouldn't stand up in any real life tribunal. Some of the accusations are bizarre and vague, such as that my name is in CamelCase, that I edited a few hours after the IP of the socking account (not withstanding that the page was on my watchlist), and that I added criticism to a page years after, from a completely different author to boot. Like I mentioned before, all I share with the socking account was a similar POV, and that I live on the East coast of Australia, yet these alone was enough to convict me of being a sock, despite the fact that I have zero interests in common outside of Chinese-politics related articles. LucasGeorge (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, on balance of evidence, I don't believe you, and think you are a sock. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The SPI wasn't filed in bad faith. The suspicion was already mentioned on the administators' noticeboard on July 27, but at that point I didn't yet see enough connections. You mention that you live "nowhere near" Sydney, but that's less than 100 kms, which is within the approximate accuracy of an IP geolocation. I think you're being a bit disingenuous here; after the 1999 ban and further campaigning from both the Falun Gong and CCP, the whole FLG is related to Chinese politics, not just their newspaper. There's no reason to believe that PatCheng is a real name, so offering an ID has no value nor is it customary to do that in Wikipedia.

You have around 100 edits and registered 8 years ago. You mention that you "ran a watchlist" (as in, someone gave you a complete watchlist before you registered), you were aware of Arilang1234's editing from 2011 and that you were informed about The Epoch Times article in a Facebook group. That would be WP:MEATPUPPET behavior which is also forbidden. So if that is your defence, then the question would only be if you are a sockpuppet or just a meatpuppet who had numerous coincidences with a sockmaster, including the "likely" CU result. --Pudeo (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drop your condescending attitude and quit putting words in my mouth. You know well that FLG only account for a tiny bit out of the entirety of Chinese politics, and most of my interests and edits are in CCP and the recent Chinese history in general. Also you know what the blue star on the top page means? How dare I use a WP function to place pages I am interested in on a watchlist. I came across Arilang's disputes the way many other people did: by looking at the NPOV tag and looking at the page discussions, and I did not like what I saw. And you still haven't answered my question: why would PatCheng/PCPP create a sock for things he was never topic banned from?--LucasGeorge (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your email

UTRS is migrating to a new system, which explains why UTRSBot isn't doing its job (that or there's a new bot that I don't know about...That happens more than I'd like). Since your talk page is unlocked, unless your appeal features information that you can't safely post on here, it's going to be declined as a matter of procedure (not necessarily with regard to the merit of your claim).

I'm involved, so I really can't undo any other admins' action in FLG related articles (unless maybe it was unblocking a user whose handling of the FLG articles I clearly disagreed with, and there's no way I could begin to argue that's been the case with you).

This was a checkuser block, and since I'm not a checkuser I can't do anything about that.

The SPI on you and the SPI on Homunculus are separate and not zero-sum. That said, while I agreed with you that there was sufficient reason to investigate Homunculus, the SPI on you featured more and better behavioral evidence. Not saying it's right or wrong -- I've only looked at it enough to know that I simply can't invest the time to try to find a counterargument. Sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same message as before; don't know what you're hoping I can advise you on. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LucasGeorge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already listed the reasons above and the users seem to have problems distinguishing between having a particular POV and thus being attracted to certain controversial articles, versus being a sock. Occam's Razor applies, and the users acted in bad faith, assuming that I'm a sock by default and are trying to find every ridiculous reason, including that my name is in CamelCase and that I edited an article, once, years after the supposed sockmaster PatCheng, even though I didn't even use it to resume his feuds with other editors. I wasn't even given an opportunity to defend myself in the investigation. The sockpuppet investigation, which concluded between possible or likely, can easily be explained by the geographical proximity between Wollongong and Sydney, which PatCheng apparently operates. Like I mentioned, all of my edits relate to Chinese politics, whereas PatCheng's edits range from Chinese politics, to video games, to Falun Gong, where most of his feuds are at. I edited the Falun Gong articles exactly once. In addition, I realized that meatpuppetry is considered the same as sockpuppetry per policy. I admit that I got involved in the Falun Gong articles as well as the sockpuppet investigation from a pro-China Facebook group. As such I realized my error and would not get involved in offsite canvassing again. LucasGeorge (talk) 10:22 am, 8 September 2020, Tuesday (16 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

The above unblock request does not provide an adequate explanation for edits related to the sockmaster early in your editing history, specifically your participation at AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fixed template at 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC). Java Hurricane 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The off-wiki evidence that I mentioned in my decline reason on 5 August is unrelated to Facebook. I am able to provide this evidence to any reviewing administrators via email. — Newslinger talk 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange that you chose to hide the evidence and refuse to let me address them, yet you gave PatCheng plenty of opportunities to defend himself. And you already deemed me guilty in the Blue Canoe case where you operated under the assumption that I'm a sock as if I'm guilty until proven innocent.--LucasGeorge (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To protect your privacy, the off-wiki evidence cannot be revealed on-wiki because PatCheng, PCPP, and your current account have never disclosed it on-wiki. However, I am able to share it with the reviewing administrator via email. The reviewing administrator may, at their discretion, provide you with the details via email if your response is needed. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]