Ruhaniya
2009-03-10 04:36:02 UTC
Baha'i Wikipedia Cadre's latest victim. Mike Russell and Jeff 3000 on
the case again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jennifer_Michaud
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Michaud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents
[hide]
1 User:Jennifer Michaud
1.1 Report date February 26 2009, 22:41 (UTC)
[edit] User:Jennifer Michaud
Jennifer Michaud (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs •
block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date February 26 2009, 22:41 (UTC)
Bot analysis reports for this user (experimental and in testing... not
all cases will have one):
Suspected sockpuppets
General Disarray (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs •
block user • block log • checkuser)
Evidence submitted by Jeff3000 (talk)
On the userpage states that is the wife of User:General Disarray, but
is editing on the same pages as the other user and is being used to
circumscribe around WP:3RR. May be a meatpuppet.
Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
Hey there - I can COMPLETELY understand why a person would think this.
I have been observing these pages for three and a half years, and have
recently decided to help out with editting - the 'General" is busy
during the day where as I have a desk job that allows for me to check
in on things. :) I'm not sure how a person would go about proving
their existence, but I would be happy to provide any information
requested, (Facebook page? Driver's licence? Grandma's secret meatball
recipe?). I am also a member of the BUPC, and as such feel that it is
my right to contribute to the pages that are near and dear to my
heart. The Mason Remey page in question is one such article. One last
thing...I'm pretty sure the term is sock puppet, not meat puppet.
Watch yourself. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer
Michaud (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This type of argument can be used for anyone wanting to use multiple
accounts to get around the Wikipedia rules. My brothers happen to live
in the same household, I'll just get them to send proof that they
exist, and I'll (oops they'll) edit in exactly the same way that I do.
The argument doesn't pass muster. And BTW, WP:MEAT can apply here as
well, which states: "Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one
who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. " Regards --
Jeff3000 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Another relevant policy is WP:SHARE which states that "Closely
connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's
purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the
same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or
supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts
should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as
the 'three-revert rule' as if they were a single account. If they do
not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the
same areas, particularly on controversial topics." This checkuser is
needed to ascertain if the two accounts should be considered a single
user for Wikipedia's purposes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:17, 27
February 2009 (UTC)
I'm presuming what MARussell is saying is he thinks he's uncovered
some sort of cover-up? If I were trying to cover-up who I was I
wouldn't have created this account with my real name, nor would I have
thought to link to General Disarray's user page on my own, and
publicly note that he was my husband, would I? MARussell has also
stated the revert I made to the Mason Remey page occured while the
unrelated temporary block on General Disarrays account had been put in
place. He's mistaken about the timing, for I made my revert on my
lunch break around 3:15 pm mountain time [1], and General's unrelated
block was put into affect around 4:00pm our time [2]. That is an
understandable misunderstanding, but he's mistaken nonetheless.
I believe this has all come about premature. Jeff3000 has suggested my
account has been used to circumvent the 3 revert rule, but has only
pointed out a total of 3 reverts; 2 from my husband, and 1 from me. I
was aware that Jeff3000 had already reverted the page, and when I
logged in I noticed he had done so a second time, still without
partaking in the talk. That's when I reverted him, but what he failed
to provide was I also commented on my revert in the discussion, which
was something Jeff3000 had yet to oblige although he himself had
reverted twice at the time.
I've had a chance to read over SHARE, and I see that since we are
sharing an IP address, we should treat it as one account when it comes
to articles we are mutually interested in. Thanks for bringing this to
my attention. I'll see to it that it never becomes an actual issue.
Jennifer Michaud (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other users
User:General Disarray is currently blocked for 24 hours (beginning
23:00, 26 February 2009). In this period User:Jennifer Michaud has
been reverting on exactly the same page the accused sockpuppeteer
typically edits.
Also, its quite odd that the accused sockpuppeteer added a welcome
message to the suspected sock's talk page, at 04:33, 19 February,
2009, only three minutes after the account's creation.
If not a an outright WP:SOCK, then WP:MEAT seems probable as well as
WP:SHARE. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request - code letter: D + F (3RR using socks and another
reason)
Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below.
Requested by Jeff3000 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
While there hasn't been a 3RR violation yet, I can see this account
being used to get around 3RR violations. Currently the two accounts
have done three reverts as shown with the following diffs: [3], [4],
[5]. Jeff3000 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined There is no doubt that a CU will tell us that the two
accounts are related, and as such it is not necessary. The only thing
that needs to be decided is whether the claim to be two individuals
sharing common beliefs, but editing independently is credible, and CU
won't help there. Mayalld (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter.
SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I added code letter "D" to the case as it seems far more
applicable than "F". Tiptoety talk 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions
the case again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jennifer_Michaud
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Michaud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents
[hide]
1 User:Jennifer Michaud
1.1 Report date February 26 2009, 22:41 (UTC)
[edit] User:Jennifer Michaud
Jennifer Michaud (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs •
block user • block log • checkuser)
[edit] Report date February 26 2009, 22:41 (UTC)
Bot analysis reports for this user (experimental and in testing... not
all cases will have one):
Suspected sockpuppets
General Disarray (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs •
block user • block log • checkuser)
Evidence submitted by Jeff3000 (talk)
On the userpage states that is the wife of User:General Disarray, but
is editing on the same pages as the other user and is being used to
circumscribe around WP:3RR. May be a meatpuppet.
Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
Hey there - I can COMPLETELY understand why a person would think this.
I have been observing these pages for three and a half years, and have
recently decided to help out with editting - the 'General" is busy
during the day where as I have a desk job that allows for me to check
in on things. :) I'm not sure how a person would go about proving
their existence, but I would be happy to provide any information
requested, (Facebook page? Driver's licence? Grandma's secret meatball
recipe?). I am also a member of the BUPC, and as such feel that it is
my right to contribute to the pages that are near and dear to my
heart. The Mason Remey page in question is one such article. One last
thing...I'm pretty sure the term is sock puppet, not meat puppet.
Watch yourself. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer
Michaud (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This type of argument can be used for anyone wanting to use multiple
accounts to get around the Wikipedia rules. My brothers happen to live
in the same household, I'll just get them to send proof that they
exist, and I'll (oops they'll) edit in exactly the same way that I do.
The argument doesn't pass muster. And BTW, WP:MEAT can apply here as
well, which states: "Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one
who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. " Regards --
Jeff3000 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Another relevant policy is WP:SHARE which states that "Closely
connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's
purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the
same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or
supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts
should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as
the 'three-revert rule' as if they were a single account. If they do
not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the
same areas, particularly on controversial topics." This checkuser is
needed to ascertain if the two accounts should be considered a single
user for Wikipedia's purposes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:17, 27
February 2009 (UTC)
I'm presuming what MARussell is saying is he thinks he's uncovered
some sort of cover-up? If I were trying to cover-up who I was I
wouldn't have created this account with my real name, nor would I have
thought to link to General Disarray's user page on my own, and
publicly note that he was my husband, would I? MARussell has also
stated the revert I made to the Mason Remey page occured while the
unrelated temporary block on General Disarrays account had been put in
place. He's mistaken about the timing, for I made my revert on my
lunch break around 3:15 pm mountain time [1], and General's unrelated
block was put into affect around 4:00pm our time [2]. That is an
understandable misunderstanding, but he's mistaken nonetheless.
I believe this has all come about premature. Jeff3000 has suggested my
account has been used to circumvent the 3 revert rule, but has only
pointed out a total of 3 reverts; 2 from my husband, and 1 from me. I
was aware that Jeff3000 had already reverted the page, and when I
logged in I noticed he had done so a second time, still without
partaking in the talk. That's when I reverted him, but what he failed
to provide was I also commented on my revert in the discussion, which
was something Jeff3000 had yet to oblige although he himself had
reverted twice at the time.
I've had a chance to read over SHARE, and I see that since we are
sharing an IP address, we should treat it as one account when it comes
to articles we are mutually interested in. Thanks for bringing this to
my attention. I'll see to it that it never becomes an actual issue.
Jennifer Michaud (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other users
User:General Disarray is currently blocked for 24 hours (beginning
23:00, 26 February 2009). In this period User:Jennifer Michaud has
been reverting on exactly the same page the accused sockpuppeteer
typically edits.
Also, its quite odd that the accused sockpuppeteer added a welcome
message to the suspected sock's talk page, at 04:33, 19 February,
2009, only three minutes after the account's creation.
If not a an outright WP:SOCK, then WP:MEAT seems probable as well as
WP:SHARE. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request - code letter: D + F (3RR using socks and another
reason)
Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below.
Requested by Jeff3000 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
While there hasn't been a 3RR violation yet, I can see this account
being used to get around 3RR violations. Currently the two accounts
have done three reverts as shown with the following diffs: [3], [4],
[5]. Jeff3000 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined There is no doubt that a CU will tell us that the two
accounts are related, and as such it is not necessary. The only thing
that needs to be decided is whether the claim to be two individuals
sharing common beliefs, but editing independently is credible, and CU
won't help there. Mayalld (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter.
SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I added code letter "D" to the case as it seems far more
applicable than "F". Tiptoety talk 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions