Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicedbloggerman/Archive

Musicedbloggerman

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

Report date January 17 2010, 21:51 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

~~Musicedbloggerman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)~~
~~Pea12345 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)~~
~~12.70.189.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))~~

Evidence submitted by Wine Guy

*Musicedbloggerman has within the past week created a walled garden of three articles, Chris Purifoy, The Restoring Music Foundation, and Philip E. Daniels which appear to be about himself, an organization with which he is associated, and a colleague. These articles are all currently at AfD, [1], [2], [3].

IP 12.70.189.98(Contribs) then appeared, making edits to the Purifoy and Daniels articles. This IP is located in the Nashville, Tennessee metro area (specifically Murfreesboro); this location corresponds to Chris Purifoy.

*On January 16, a new user, Pea12345(Contribs) appeared, making edits to the Daniels article and the related AfD discussion. This user appears to be either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of User:Musicedbloggerman.

~~While there are certainly more egregious uses of sockpuppetry around WP, the WP community's serious attitude regarding the sock issue makes me think that this situation should be looked into here.~~

Update: I have struck User:Pea12345 from this case based on his response below. Wine Guy Talk 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Now that Cdpurifoy has come forward as well with a perfectly plausible explanation of events, I would like to withdraw this SPI, no further action appears necessary at this time. Wine Guy Talk 06:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. I am new to Wiki and am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. So forgive me if I am stepping out of protocol here. I am also learning about how to edit and contribute to wiki. However, I am a rather incensed by the judgments and assumptions and claims that are being made against me, as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I was overjoyed to see an article has been created about me. I also wanted to keep myself anonymous for privacy reasons. You will see that I have spent a lot of time only to improve the article that was NOT originally created by me, and found citations and links to support my notability in my field. The community has made certain assumptions and suspicions about me, without fully investigating or researching the links, my activities and achievements. One comment even referred to my links mentioning "a charge". Well, I don't litigate. I have found the comments ill-informed, ill-researched, and plain wrong, and frankly insulting. I recommend that the community re-reviews the improved article with all links and citations thoroughly on a stand alone basis and on face value, without a background of suspicions of sockpuppetry, walled gardens, meatpuppetry. You will find that my notability has been established.Pea12345 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Chris Purifoy. I wanted to shed some light on the situation. Musicedbloggerman helps us at the Restoring Music Foundation and works for me at iSchoolBand.com. He was trying to create notability for the organization using wikipedia as we are currently in the middle of a press run. He didn't know this violated any rules. He also created an account for myself Chris Purifoy and one for Philip E. Daniels to be a suck up (no offense Joe...ha We were both very excited to see ourselves in Wikipedia). Phil is one of the co-founders of The Restoring Music Foundation. He is also the user above: Pea1234 (He didn't make that clear in his post). He hopped on wikipedia to make the necessary updates and to prove his notability. I believe his article, Philip E. Daniels, should be kept as he is one of the industry's top attorneys. He has been in the business a long time and has proven himself to be a notable attorney. I would like to petition you keep his article. I would also like to petition for my own. Though I do not have as much of a claim to notability as Phil, I have made a name for myself in the music education industry. As for MusicEdBlogger man, please excuse his misunderstanding of your policies. --Cdpurifoy (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I made a notation to the Chris Purifoy article to petition to keep it and to further explain things; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Purifoy. Should I have Joe (musicedbloggerman) make a notation to these articles as well? He works for me and wasn't sure what to do. I figured it'd be best to just explain the matter. best, --Cdpurifoy (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

This does seem more than slightly suspicious. New editor creates a walled garden. Garden comes under AfD by several different editors, and then brand new editors turn up to defend the garden at AfD. If it quacks like a duck... --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: Case withdrawn at submitters' request, further no need for CU based on evidence here. NJA (t/c) 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.