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. —— nixeagleemail me03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --NrDg03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
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)[reply]
Clerk note: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
my response to Taric25's comments not related to allegations of sock puppetry- hidden
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)[reply]
Partial response to Taric25 (related to the purpose of this page, allegations of sockpuppetry) "I ran wikichecker for both[1] users.[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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][reply]
”
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][reply]
See the blue car? Yep, she was going too fast. 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 Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers in the process when you remove good faith edits from new users. Per Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Clerk note: 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)
Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Star Movers to /Gerald Gonzalez SpitfireTally-ho! 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Unlikely to be a sock of this user. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)