Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez/Archive

Report date March 31 2009, 00:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Blake Gripling (talk)

User is a suspected sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Activity logs and contributions seem to match the sockpuppeteer.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I don't see it myself. Please provide me more evidence. I need somewhere to start, which logs and which contribs? Even better yet provide specific diffs. Without these we are going to have to close this case as inconclusive in a few days. ——  nix eagle email me 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the edit patterns of user:Gerald Gonzalez and user:Samgel27 fits the pattern exactly. Same articles, similar edits. I blocked the user as a sock of a banned user and cleaned up his edits before I noticed this case. --NrDg 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To add, for the record, Blake Gripling, can be trusted to correctly identify socks of Gerald Gonzalez. --NrDg 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date April 21 2009, 08:40 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Editing pattern and behaviour seems to match those of User:Gerald Gonzalez, a user who was community-banned for disruption. His userpage seems to suggest the same fanaticism as with the sockpuppeteer, who was known for COI/POV edits.


 * Evidence submitted by Blake Gripling (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Both does not provide edit summaries and mark all edits as 'minor.' axrealmdotcom (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * And the fact that his behaviour and apparent intent suggest that he is Gerald. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is weird that an editor will edit the article of Angel Locsin and mark all his edits as minor, and mostly will not put edit summaries just like these editors who are all Gerald's sock. As you may not know, the community is exhausted with what Gerald had/has been doing, and the Tambay has to do all the works to fix the damage made by the said user's in all his comeback. axrealmdotcom (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

whilst it is clear that you have extensive experience of dealing with socking by this user, we ask for evidence of socking, rather than assertions of socking. It is not sufficient to open a case saying "I've looked at the edits, and I'm satisfied". You have to satisfy an admin here, and I'm afraid that this involves "spoonfeeding" the admins and clerks with information in the form of diffs. Mayalld (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * The evidence IS the patterns of behavior. This is as obvious as it gets. --NrDg 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the behaviour patterns are the evidence. However, saying "look at the contributions history" doesn't help anybody coming cold to the case to evaluate it. Providing a series of specific diffs that exemplify the behaviour patterns makes it so much easier. Mayalld (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

''Blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Gerald Gonzalez. --NrDg 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Blakegripling ph
User activity suggests of being a sock of banned user Gerald Gonzalez, based on editing patterns and behaviour described at this page as well as in this LTA page. He had attempted to recreate the Abdulnasif Dimaporo page, which is likely to be him, based on the fact that he spawned similar pages that included his surname. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Star Movers to /Gerald Gonzalez SpitfireTally-ho! 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock blocked and tagged. Auntie E. (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WayKurat
Sockpuppet User:APOLDumlao has a similar sounding name compared to sockmaster User:ArnoldDumlao. Passes WP:DUCK test. Both accounts mostly edit anything related to Associated Broadcasting Company and add hoax information on those articles. See 1, 2 for evidence. -WayKurat (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. Based on the block of ArnoldDumlao, this should be merged with Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez. TN X Man 13:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged case from Sockpuppet investigations/ArnoldDumlao.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Supergabbyshoe
Vandalism, otherwise removing unsourced sections like channel listings of some cable channels and some sections of some entertainers articles, this may be a Sock Puppet of Gerald Gonzalez. Supergabbyshoe (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any diffs and subsequent warnings? Can you show that the user is delibrately ignoring them? Otherwise, this is too generic and looks like a vendetta. –  Tommy  [ message ] 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Response to Evidence submitted by Supergabbyshoe: The lack of any evidence provided with the filing of claim and the following edit summaryACTIVE BANANA to the list, this is the end of the user!!!!) leads me to believe this is a bad faith accusation. Active Banana (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Partial reply to Taric25 (not related to the actual purpose of this page, allegations of sockpuppetyr). Not every editor has as their goal for improving wikipedia to elevate every article they touch to Featured Article status. Some of us are content to keep a wide swath of wikipedia articles from sinking into a morass of myspace fanpages which would have the very real danger of dragging the overall respectability of Wikipedia as a source for valid information into the gutter. From WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." Active Banana (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Partial response to Taric25 (related to the purpose of this page, allegations of sockpuppetry) "I ran wikichecker for both users. I found that when one was logged on, then other was logged off," Yep, when I am asleep is when Gerald_Gonzalez is most active, and vice versa. Active Banana (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
200.63.165.19
 * This user is removing alot of sourced information Siobhan Magnus and unsourced information that could easily be sourced with someones help. And also removed the awards section of Rain, which has been on Wikipedia for years, but she isn't helping Wikipedia by simply deleting it. Shouldn't they be helping by sourcing. Also his awards are also in Naver, Korean Wikipedia and Rain's official wbesite as well. 200.63.165.19 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

190.136.178.239
 * Someone may want to look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chzz#Suspicion

Taric25 I have reported this user at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and here is my report.

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 17 June 2010


 * 1) 03:03, 12 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 367530447 by Taka12345 (talk) we would need a source for claims of "first"")
 * 2) 03:06, 12 June 2010  (edit summary: "rem unsourced non-leadworthy claims")
 * 3) 03:09, 12 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal Issues */")
 * 4) 06:34, 12 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Comeback */ the "explosion" was a gag obviously")
 * 5) 06:41, 12 June 2010  (edit summary: "in need of better sources")
 * 6) 15:22, 13 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 367778884 by 193.71.106.79 (talk) goes to a redirect page")
 * 7) 17:41, 15 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368211537 by 24.35.120.59 (talk)")
 * 8) 01:22, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Awards */ unsourced claims")
 * 9) 01:53, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368511791 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) source?")
 * 10) 02:04, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368513259 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) unsourced contentious claims about living person WP:BLP")
 * 11) 11:57, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368572514 by 210.70.69.8 (talk) unsourced controversial promotional material about living person WP:BLP")
 * 12) 16:10, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368605304 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) unsourced contentious blp promotinal claims")
 * 13) 16:17, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 368607163 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) WP:V WP:BLP yes we can remove unsourced content")
 * 14) 16:32, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Awards */ thanks for the source")
 * 15) 20:02, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Awards */ as you provide citations THEN you can return the claims WP:V")
 * 16) 20:02, 17 June 2010  (edit summary: "/* Awards */ WP:MOSBOLD")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 05:38, 18 June 2010

Comments:

I am a Reviewer (verify), and as I was checking Special:OldReviewedPages and Special:RecentChanges as I was reverting vandalism today, I noticed an IP requested assistance at  Editor assistance/Requests. I took a glance and saw Active Banana was not helping the editor and working in the opposite direction to remove content. I offered my assistance and left messages on both their talk pages directing them to a section I created on the article’s talk page in order to discuss it and stop the edit war. Long story short, I took a few minutes to do a simple Google search to find newspapers that published much of the information that Active Banana removed. I urged Active Banana to keep a cool head for the display of sarcasm and to use edit summaries instead of reverting with no explanation. I urged the IP not to focus on Active Banana’s behavior, and I urged both editors to specify the content in dispute. Although Active Banana agreed to be “willing to have the unsourced claims removed from the main page and placed here until each claim is verified and removed back to the main page with its source”,, I realized I was dealing with an editor totally uninterested in improving the page (to eventually one day getting it to featured status) and more concerned in playing Wikipedia wack-a-mole and removing good-faith edits in the process. As far as the use of edit summaries, please do not use the automatic summary “Undid revision by   (talk))”, without writing anything else in the edit summary, which I have seen you do a couple times, or no summary at all other than the section in which you're editing, such as Legal Issues, and speaking of that edit, do you see how this is infinitely more desirable than removing that content? It really took me only a few minutes to find the information on Google in order to add the source. Please do the same, unless you can't find the information in under five minutes, then move it to the talk page. Taric25 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Active Banana’s response disturbed me. Feel free to follow me as I hack trails through jungles of unsourced content; and you can build lovely sourced roads in the wake. Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search" to attempt to find sources for claims ranging from seemingly benign to bizzare. If you do, well good for you! But, bringing articles into closer compliance with WP:V is something that takes mere seconds and if I do get interrupted, my previous work is not lost and providing zero improvement to Wikipedia. Thank you for improving Wikipedia in your way, and I will improve it in mine. Active Banana (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Back at Editor Assistance: Requests, I saw, “I have started a topic on Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart regarding this user's edits to the Melissa Joan Hart article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)” with an identical problem with the same user. I also found Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613. I also looked into the current open investigation of Active Banana’s sockpuppetry here. I ran X!'s Edit Counter and edit summary for Active Banana the same two reports for Gerald Gonzalez and the and looked at their contributions, and I ran wikichecker for both users. I found that when one was logged on, then other was logged off, and they were both doing the same type of editing removing content in the same fashion. Taric25 (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Minneapolis Police 1987 traffic patrol.jpg In reply to Active Banana’s comment as of 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC), I do not demand editors spend any more time on the project than they like, however, I may demand they change their behavior in how they spend their time. To put this in perspective with real examples, according to X!'s Edit Counter, I have been on Wikipedia since Oct 21, 2005 02:08:57 and edited 656 unique pages. You have been on Wikipedia since Feb 03, 2010 23:55:39 and edited 1,476 unique pages. This clearly shows you do not take your time when editing and are focusing on the quantity of your edits rather than the quality, and you violate Please do not bite the newcomers in the process when you remove good faith edits from new users. Per Vandalism, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism,” although removing good faith edits despite multiple warnings is disruptive edit warring. In the previous examples I showed above, multiple editors continued to urge you to collaborate, which you have failed to do. You work against good faith when you remove good faith edits from the encyclopedia, and the constant removal of good content runs completely against the project by subtracting from the sum of knowledge. Wikipedia is and should always be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, anyone, no matter how inexperienced they are with our rules. You have not shown your dedication to consistently collaborate with them, and you have not shown dedication to displaying what we consider to be our best articles, as determined by Wikipedia's editors: featured articles. The only dedication that everyone can agree you have is to remove as much content that doesn’t align with the rules from as many articles as possible in the least amount of time. Per Where to get feedback on your new article, “Above all, don't rush: Rome wasn't built in a day, and there's no reason any article should be.” Taric25 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Active Banana’s comment as of 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC), the fact that you just claimed or know Gerald Gonzalez’s activity against your own real–life sleep schedule is in and of itself probable cause for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Taric25 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Behavioural evidence indicates that Active Banana is to be a sock of this user. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

21 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing style seems to be similar to the sockpuppeteer. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Both users mark their edits as "minor edits", and the sock mostly edit Filipino celebrity pages, specifically Angel Locsin (see Fordniel17's contributions and Gerald Gonzalez' contributions). Look like a duck from my point of view. -WayKurat (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's pretty obvious. The "minor edits" on everything he edits is the major tell. This is a banned user and should be blocked as such. WP:DUCK should be sufficient for identification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Care to elaborate on that? One sentence isn't nearly enough evidence. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - Have to agree, some diffs please? The last case was 1 year 7 months ago. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I've looked into this a bit more, and my guess is that it's actually Bmcidol21. As such I've opened a case over at Sockpuppet investigations/Bmcidol21; see the evidence there. Closing this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)