Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
User is a suspected sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Activity logs and contributions seem to match the sockpuppeteer.
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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.
Both does not provide edit summaries and mark all edits as 'minor.' axrealmdotcom (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed 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)
Blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Gerald Gonzalez. --NrDg 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Mayalld (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Star Movers to /Gerald Gonzalez SpitfireTally-ho! 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Sock blocked and tagged. Auntie E. (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Based on the block of ArnoldDumlao, this should be merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez. TNXMan 13:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Merged case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArnoldDumlao. Elockid (Talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
200.63.165.19
190.136.178.239
Taric25
I have reported this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ), and here is my report.
Page: Rain (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Active Banana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 17 June 2010
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 200.63.165.19 (talk · contribs) requested assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana. 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”,[3], 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 [NUMBER] by [USER] (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)[4]
|
” |
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)[5] |
” |
Back at Editor Assistance: Requests, I saw, “I have started a topic on Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart#WP:UNDUE_and_WP:RS regarding this user's edits to the Melissa Joan Hart article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)”[6] with an identical problem with the same user. I also found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Not sure how to approach this. I also looked into the current open investigation of Active Banana’s sockpuppetry here. I ran X!'s Edit Counter[7] and edit summary[8] for Active Banana the same two[9] reports[10] for Gerald Gonzalez and the and looked at their contributions, and I ran wikichecker for both[11] users.[12] 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)
Administrator note Behavioural evidence indicates that Active Banana is
Unlikely to be a sock of this user. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Editing style seems to be similar to the sockpuppeteer. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.