Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exazonk

Exazonk

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exazonk/Archive.

Report date November 13 2009, 06:28 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by ThaddeusB

Exazonk return after a couple sparadic edits years ago to create a very POV Australian Vaccination Network. Since then two new accounts - Greengiantjolly, & 58.174.33.170 - have been created to edit only Australian Vaccination Network. All 3 conveniently showed up at the article around the same time to take turns edit warring back to the same version created by Exaonk. Turlinjah, who hadn't edited in more than 2 years, returns to make one related post on a seemly random IP talk page a couple weeks ago (before the AVN article actually existed interesting enough) and then on the article in the middle of the edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I can only say I have no idea who the other three users are and that I have no contact with them. This organisation (the AVN) is receiving a lot of attention in Australia at the moment. I searched for the wiki article, found that it needed many more references and facts, signed up for an account and started adding information (all of it to newspapers, scientific articles or the AVN's own homepage). I'm surprised to be accused of being a sockpuppet of Exazonk, especially considering that we apparently have differing viewpoints (look at the content I have added versus that of Exazonk). A single user ("corruptioninmedicine") has repeatedly blanked the site and removed all referenced material, replacing it with unreferenced and heavily biased statements, without attempting discussion with the other editors of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengiantjolly (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am 58.174.33.170. I know Exazonk. Exazonk created the article. I added the history section. I also have a few copies of the quarterly print "The Inside Edition" so added the information about that. I have also spent time "un-blanking" all the hard work Exazonk put in as it all seems to be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.33.170 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever edited wikipedia by using my own account which is exazonk. I have never ever edited under any other account. I have never influenced anyone to comment on any articles that I have created or edited. All of my ideas have been original and have been backed by quotes. Furthermore, I have removed negative comments from other users especially ones that have not been relevantly sourced as can be seen from the edit history. I am learning as I go here on wikipedia and due to the emotive issues of vaccination this has unfortunately resulted in quite a lot of traffic to the AVN wiki site. Exazonk (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I am "Turlinjah", and have had this account only about a week or so, when I made my first edit to "Australian Vaccination Network". I have had the email address, which uses the name "Turlinja", only 3 weeks. I used the name Turlinja because I live in a village of that name. I have only 1 Wikipedia account, so clearly the accusation of "sockpuppetry" was made in bad faith.

The "Australian Vaccination Network" is being subjected to much governmetn scrutiny here in Australia, which is why its members are particulary sensitive about any creiticism, no matter how well founded and referenced, and this accusation against me was a tactic to silence a critic.

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Adding CU since it now seems reasonably plausible that at least some of the accounts on unrelated to each other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions