Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JerryBusser

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

JerryBusser



 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G

User has created an additional username(s?), Tomknight99 as well as PSaturen09 and Stunna990. This user has shown the exact same editing pattern (also here), and has acted as a consensus builder for JerryBusser.  Pats 1  T / C  20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Deskana (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

JerryBusser



 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G

All of these IPs/users have been adding and, in some cases, re-adding the parent category Category:University of Florida alumni to pages that already have one of its subcategories, Category:Florida Gators football players. This is obviously unnecessary as it just adds an extra layer of category(ies). The original edits were made on 29 August 2007 by 128.164.214.189. They were all reverted. On 28 September 2007, the other IP address (from the same institution as the first) started reverting most of these, while the 4 usernames were created sequentially and each reverted chunks of the original reverts. The original IP was warned in August, and all 5 others were warned yesterday. The only username that has responded is the latest one, JerryBusser (who also reverted all again), so I listed that as the sockpuppeteer.  Pats 1  T / C  19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Before looking for sockpuppetry, you should consider whether or not the actions are a problem, anyway. For example, I agree with the edits that JerryBusser has been making.  The edits that he is making are only reverting because he believes that the information that was removed improves the article, and he was restoring it.  If they are all the same user, then he isn't using the sockpuppets to get around Wikipedia policies, and no action should be taken.  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's reason to believe he was. His (or the first IP's) initial actions were reverted and a note was left on his talk page that WP:CAT discouraged what was being done. Then, within a span of an hour, 4 different usernames were created/logged in to in order to make parts of the reverts he wanted to. I think there was some attempt here to make it appear the drive to add the parent category was an effort being made by multiple users. But I think the fact that the user created yet a fifth username (JerryBusser) in order to advertise his efforts (on the talk pages of multiple Florida Gators-related categories) is a bit incriminating.  Pats 1  T / C  21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about if they are all the same person or not. It isn't sockpuppetry if the accounts aren't being used in a wrong manner, and I don't think they are.  Additionally, I agree with his edits.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question, then: Are they then being used in the right manner? And I'm not sure if you know that this user(s) is adding a parent category to pages that already have a sub-category included. That completely defeats the purpose of having sub-categories. Again, this user was informed of this over a month ago. I think the fact that 4 different usernames were used to make a round of reverts (essentially) suspects that the user(s) was up to something. What else would be the point of doing so? And I'm not even including the fact that the user(s) created a 5th username to make another round of reverts.  Pats 1  T / C  22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on the category/subcategory thing, but from what I've heard you say, Pats1, there isn't anything wrong with what this user is doing. Again, even if they are all the same person, the accounts aren't being used to gain unfair advantage in a poll/discussion, they aren't being used to cause disturbance, and he is only doing what he thinks right.  The accounts being the same person isn't sockpuppetry unless there is blatant wrongdoing by the accounts, which I don't see any.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things. Pats1, please provide specific diffs for the behaviour that shows the pattern. Do not ask checkusers or clerks to go wading through edit histories to find them. Request is deferred till then. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Using sockpuppets to get around rules against revert warring is an abusive use of multiple accounts. That's not debatable.
 * 2) This is not the place for arguments about policy or about what sockpuppetry is or isn't Continuing this argument here would be considered by me to be disruptive so please discontinue it, Ksy92003, on pain of sanctions against you for disrupting this page. (and please stop responding, Pats1 even if you're right).
 * Very well. I'll provide a few article examples here, but keep in mind this exact pattern (but with different usernames, of course) continued over 40-50 articles, and that warnings were provided on all 7 user/IP talk pages:
 * Jarvis Moss
 * 128.164.214.189 01:20, 30 August 2007
 * Real Gator 17:43, 28 September 2007
 * JerryBusser 16:56, 30 September 2007
 * Jabar Gaffney
 * 128.164.214.189 01:27, 30 August 2007
 * TTomzak 17:30, 28 September 2007
 * Reche Caldwell
 * 128.164.214.189 01:29, 30 August 2007
 * 128.164.215.188 17:22, 28 September 2007
 * Guss Scott
 * 128.164.214.189 01:18, 30 August 2007
 * RossWilcox 17:51, 28 September 2007
 * JerryBusser 17:02, 30 September 2007
 * Reggie Nelson
 * 128.164.214.189 01:20, 30 August 2007
 * UFAlum1965 17:46, 28 September 2007
 * I think that should suffice.  Pats 1  T / C  21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Results: ✅ that JerryBusser == TTomzak == Real Gator == UFAlum1965 == RossWilcox and that 128.164.214.189 and 128.164.215.188 are associated with edits from this user. in addition, found related users: I agree that these users have an unwarranted SPA focus on U of F and that their activities are disruptive. I leave it to other admins to decide what to do next. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC) ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''