Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzild/Archive

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Newzild

Newzild (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

13 April 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

Newzild (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
180.75.197.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Relationship between Newzild and 180.75.197.219

Newzild had reversed a whole slab of work I contributed to article 2012_Indian_Ocean_earthquake at [April 2012‎] without any prior discussing on the talk page or providing any valid justification as to why content was removed instead stating "fixed tense - present to past". After my contribution were reinstated, within hour of doing so 180.75.197.219 made 13 ([1], [2], [3] ,[4],[5] ,[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]) edits to article 2012_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which again removed all of my contribution to the article, further more all his edits were content removal.

Newzild and 180.75.197.219 share a similar editing style, with majority of edits being content removal. content removal by user Newzild ([14] , [15] ,[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23], [24],[25] ,[26] ,[27], [28]), majority of both users edits are content removal.

This behavior is highly likely to lead to an edit war if its not dealt with. Distributor108 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Newzild. I recently did some edits under my login name (Newzild). I then logged out and switched off the computer. When I came back I did some more edits assuming that I was still logged in, but in fact I wasn't. This was not an intentional attempt at "sockpuppetry", and in fact if you read my edits you will see that there was no reason for me to resort to sockpuppetry in any case.

As for the nature of my edits, I went to the 2012 Indian Ocean Earthquake page purely out of interest, and while reading the page I noticed that much of the content had been written in present tense by a person / people who apparently speak English as a second language. These sections exhibited numerous examples of poor grammar, redundant words and unusual clause conjunctions. I tidied these sections up (spending around 40 minutes to do so), and they were immediately reverted by the chap who has laid this complaint. It took me 40 minutes go back and retype it all. On the second occasion, I left explanations for every single edit that I undertook. All of these edits took place under the handle "Newzild".

Just to state my qualificatins in this matter, I have eight years' experience editing news stories on a major daily newspaper, I have a MA in Applied Linguistics (which I passed with distinction), and I am currently an English teacher. It is frankly annoying to have some guy who doesn't speak English properly reverting my edits without giving them due and proper appraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.197.219 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that your edits had a benign intention but you did remove some content that was sourced. When removing any content that is properly sourced, you need to fully discuss this in either the edit summary or on the talk page - which you did not do. Most of your grammar related edits were partially summarised in the edit summary but the content that was removed was not mentioned at all. Your qualifications are irrelevant to this matter, anyone can participate on Wikipedia regardless of whether he is attending elementary school or completing a doctorate. In my opinion, your edits have been both beneficial and detrimental; tense and grammar correction profoundly improved the coherency of the article however removal of content that was sourced while claiming that laymen may not be interested in such technicalities is detrimental. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 06:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further background information

Well, I'm afraid that I disagree, and so does Wikipedia. I believe that you are refering to the "Tectonic" section of the article, which was written by somebody using way too much technical jargon and which no normal speaker of English could possibly understand without specialist help. Now, if you go to Wikipedia's style page, you will see that articles are meant to be written in plain, comprehensible English that a normal person could understand, and that jargon is meant to be avoided. I have just finished rewriting the "Tectonic" section for a second time so that a normal person can understand it, and furthermore I have added a section on the talk page if you wish to discuss it. I'm more than happy for you to edit the "Tectonic" section yourself if you think you are able to make it more comprehensible, but please do not just revert it because one or two sources have been edited out. Please note that I have also added one source to explain what "slip-strike" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with [[User:YuMaNuMa|YuMa], while some of Newzild are constructive in a mannar that they improve the coherency of the article by editing typos and grammar they leave the article in complete disconnect to the reality of the situation. for example, Newzild made an edit in which he claimed he "removed unnecessary govt department (one will suffice),". When in reality 1 department itself cannot authorize an evacution order, there is a due process that must be followed, for the article be accurate it must read that the department of meteorology deemed that an evacuation order was necessary, then the ministry of disaster management must authorize it into effect. point 2: Newzild changed "that Sri Lanka will not be affected by the preliminary earthquake, however, it would continue to monitor the situation to assess any potential effects of possible aftershocks" to "It said the initial quake was not expected to affect Sri Lanka". This change does not improve the flow of the article, all it does it cut out critical words that give more accurate representation of the reality. Distributor108 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion on this point, too. I'm unaware of your editing background, but is poor writing style to begin a sentence with the names of three separate government departments, all of which contain block capitals. I more readable way would be to exclude the departments altogether, and say "In Sri Lanka, government agencies urged people to leave the coast and seek higher ground." Are you able to give any other examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it seems a bit extreme for this schoolkid to accuse me of being a sockpuppet just because I forgot to log in before doing an edit. It's not like I used another name or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)

Actually I wasn't the one who initiated this investigation, assuming you were referring to me since I stated that I was attending high school on the article's talk page. I merely warned you about the risk of being accused of sockpuppetry if you continued to make edits under your ip address. But since you brought up that latter point, it's clear that you're not familiar with the policies of wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why my age should affect the credibility of my edits and discussion points much like I don't why your qualifications would make you more entitled to create such edits. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 15:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. In that case, who accused me of being a sockpuppet? And who's making the accusation that I've been blocked on "4 different DNS servers", whatever that means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User 180.75.197.219 IP is black listed on 4 different DNS servers, specifically bl.tiopan.com, zen.spamhaus.org, pbl.spamhaus.org ,dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net I'd like to bring to you attention the level 2 listing on dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net due abuse by the said IP, this listing can only be lifted by special request from the IP's upstream service provider. Distributor108 (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Huh?

I've added my comments above.

I have no idea what the guy is talking about in terms of being "blacklisted". As far as I know, I've never been blacklisted anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.197.219 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think you will get anything more than a verbal(informal)warning but to prevent such accusations in the future, it would be wise of you to explicitly identify yourself as the owner of the IP address in question in this investigation and to discuss major changes on the talk page before making actual edits to the article itself. Of course whether the information in the article is too technical or not is still up for debate and that should be discussed on the article's talk page. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm sorry, but generally checkusers do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can be closed. Newzild, try to remember to sign your posts, and put a note somewhere if you edit logged out again. Distributor108, if an editor's IP is on a spam blacklist somewhere, that's a problem for their Internet Service Provider, not for Wikipedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]