Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax1995/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

A very strange case where the editor has been using various accounts to edit his own Userpage and that of Lynda Thomas. See here, here and here Describing the Berlin GDR one as an 'old alternate accout'? Karst (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User talk:FinalPoint1988 Editor acknowledges they are a blocked serial sock puppeteer and they do seem to have turned over a new leaf in some ways. Bringing it here for admin review as to whether this new account is acceptable. WCM email 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC) WCM email 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

All I can add, was their attitude when their edit was challenged on Falklands War tells me they appear to have changed. Perhaps a case for WP:IAR and allow a little WP:ROPE if they can edit constructively with the one account. WCM email 18:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Thanks for the comment Wee Curry Monster; right, I'm an active Wikipedian (since 2007), first I used to use IPs and then on Janaury 1 2011, I created the account Ajax1995 with the purpose of building from scrath (by then) a very poorly written article, with the help of Nymf, now I think it is a good article, the other accounts were created as auxiliary accounts for such purpose six years ago (my error) on the other hand, as I commented to the experienced Wikipedian Flyer22 Reborn, I never had a disruptive attitude on the encyclopaedia, and If you want to check (with check user), now, it is the only/unique account of mine, I paid for my mistakes for using more than one account in the past, but I never vandalized Wikipedia, perhaps my error with Ajax1995 was to get involved in some edit wars (removing some tabloidy stuff) Ajax contribs and show foolishness and recklessness if someone reverted my removal of content, I made some retractors, I was reported for editing with my old accounts my Ajax user page, subsequently I paid for such stupid mistake of mine with my block, Thanks to all of you for taking the time to read my arguments, and for your understanding! Greets and happy editing..Let's make Wikipedia even Greater FinalPoint1988 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: FinalPoint1988 was disruptive as Ajax1995; it was not simply about "removing some tabloidy stuff." In addition to Ajax1995 not understanding some policies or guidelines and misusing them, and his POV-pushing in some cases, he had a very combative attitude. There are still some problems with this editor's editing (now as FinalPoint1988), which I mentioned on his talk page, but he has indeed improved as an editor (which I also mentioned on his talk page). I support a second chance for the editor. As also seen on FinalPoint1988's talk page, I pinged Bishonen; this was so that she could review the case. She did not respond. And I moved on since FinalPoint1988's behavior has improved and I am not pressed on getting FinalPoint1988 indefinitely blocked. I would have pinged NeilN as well since he had also warned Ajax1995, but NeilN has not edited since August 18. Pinging other editors I see on the Ajax1995 talk page: Orangemike, Winkelvi, Krimuk90 (now Krimuk2.0), GSMR, GentleCollapse16 (now Gentlecollapse6), Dr.K., Magiciandude (Erick), Karst, and Matieszyn (now Slightlymad). And, of course, Bbb23 (who has not edited since August 21) is the one who indefinitely blocked Ajax1995 and revoked his talk page access. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This user was last blocked for socking in December 2016, had a very long list of socks they were blocked for, had their talk page access revoked for abusing the privilege, creates a new sock account in April 2017 when they know darn well they should not, is editing disruptively with the new sock, and it's being proposed they be allowed to edit under their latest (admitted) sock account? I've now officially heard it all. I propose the latest sock be blocked and the user told to return in six months to request the standard offer.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  20:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, the standard offer is included in my idea of a "second chance" for sock cases like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, like I stated here, the matter of getting WP:CheckUser evidence can be easily solved by restoring talk page access to the Ajax1995 account and having FinalPoint1988 log into his Ajax1995 account and post a comment on that talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , he's not eligible for the standard offer. The qualifications are as follows:
 * 1 - Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; 2 - Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban; 3 - Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
 * He's socking right now (he's admitted to it, right), and has been since April. He can't promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block because he was blocked for socking and has been socking at least since April.  He created extraordinary reasons for objections to his return by socking after being blocked for socking.
 * I don't know what any interested admin would do, but if they follow policy on this, and he is, indeed a sock of Ajax, then he needs to follow the guidelines for qualification to be considered for the standard offer.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  01:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, you stated, "I propose the latest sock be blocked and the user told to return in six months to request the standard offer." That is what I was considering with my "22:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)" reply. There is the view that his behavior has improved, and it seems that no admin wants to block him. Given that he is a serial sockpuppeteer and that both of us have noticed that there are still problems with his editing, he can be blocked by an admin with the offer of returning in six months and seeing if there is any agreement to unblock him then. I have my doubts that he will stay away for six months, but, per Drmies below, it seems that this is currently his only account. So maybe he did stay away for months before returning, and maybe he can do it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He was sock blocked in December. The current account was created in April and he's been editing with that account ever since.  That's not six months from the time he was blocked.  Based on that, he doesn't qualify currently for the standard offer.  He might if he stops socking for 6 months from now.   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  03:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You stated, "He might if he stops socking for 6 months from now." What are you proposing? If you are not proposing that he is blocked now and then might be eligible to be unblocked six months from now if he abstains from socking for six months, what are you proposing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with 's thoughts blocking the sock. Ajax1995's self-destructive behaviour still has not changed since my last encounter with this user; for instance, the recklessness in edit summaries, not to mention WP:SHOUTING especially when in dispute with an editor, could still be identified from his contributions. Why couldn't Ajax just make an unblock request instead of editing as a sock?  SLIGHTLY  mad   08:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of his Ajax1995 account, talk page access was revoked, but he still had an option for appealing his block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Appealing a block is one thing (and there are avenues to do that when your talk page access has been revoked), creating a sock account and editing with it is another.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  16:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that, Winkelvi. I just stated that "he still had an option for appealing his block." I'm not condoning his behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, my behavior at times was not the best; I'm not excusing myself, but in some cases it was triggered when some people reverted my contributions before take the matter to the talk page, for instance in this case [Madonna], just one user agreed with me, with the removal of this stuff which was a blatant violation of WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:WEASEL (Pushing the boundaries???) and the person who reverted me, wrote in her/his edit summary "...don't be such Ignorant"..anyway, this is the past, I had a number of "overreactions" against some offenses, and it was an stupid behavio..an error!; sometimes we've all had this kind of overreactions when you see that someone minimizes you...but with the passage of time a person/a wikipedian learns from mistakes/own errors, and some people want to crucify me for some mistakes of the past...A recognition to those Wikipedians who in the past (and now) instead of offending other editors, show civility and willingness to reach a consensus to make GREAT ARTICLES NeilN, Nymf, Binksternet, Orangemike, Magiciandude(JB died one year ago! Lead Signature songs), Drmies, Flyer22 Reborn, among some others. Greets.. happy editing! FinalPoint1988 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So you admit you are socking right now, your prior account was Ajax1995 along with all the others you created as sock account, and you created the account to sock again - is that right?  -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Good evening Winkelvi! as you can see [here], those accounts were created six years ago to build this article (Selma Blair, underrated IMO) from scratch, now it is a B article, before my intervention it was a stub article. (It can be said that I never reverted someone with those no longer active/alternative accounts). And this is not a sock account, this is my new UNIQUE and DEFINITIVE account after Ajax1995, (you can check with CheckUser).. and I'm not socking through Wikipedia with alternative accounts or IPs (check again with CU)..on the contrary..all of you and Me are building great Articles, a great ENCYCLOPAEDIA!! .. Have a good day!... FinalPoint1988 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If Ajax1995/FinalPoint1988 wants to edit here again s/he needs to create an unblock request, not create a sock account. We could consider this SPI to be an unblock request - per WP:BURO this will presumably be looked at by an admin who can make this call - but if we're doing that we then need to check Ajax1995/FinalPoint1988's behaviour against the normal standards for unblocking. I mean, read his/her comments, if you'd seen them in an unblock request on Ajax1995's user page - taking account of the fact that he has been socking for the last four months - would you say, yes this person should be unblocked? If we're considering letting this through, that's at least the standard that should be met. Kahastok talk 18:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In my engagement with Ajax1995 I found a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. As I noted in one of the associated WP:ANI cases, regrettably so, as I did find some of the contributions certainly valid and interesting. I always felt that, content-wise, the editor is more suited to the blog sphere as opposed to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I noticed that the editor still has the same combative tone in his edit summaries. In the past, I had a number of difficult encounters over the Lynda Thomas article with Ajax1995 and his socks, where a lot of the material was either poorly or badly sourced. Since his return, I noticed the editor has significantly expanded the Alejandra Ávalos article that, on the face of it, appears to suffer from a similar problem. My issue is that when the editor tackles other articles he appears over-zealous in removing sections. But when he creates content himself that same rigour does not appear to apply. That feels like double standards to me and I am not entirely convinced that is helping to build an encyclopaedia through collaboration. Karst (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Good Night, we had some troubles in the past, and we must remember that BOTH of us showed some bad attitude at some point, but, I'd rather forget such episode, no resentments at all (and you know what I mean); also I must recognize that you are a very good Wikipedian. On the other hand, such article had some problems of sourcing, and it seems their never will be solved 'cause such artist is retired, and despite the efforts, both of us couldn't find more information about it; regarding the Alejandra Avalos article, every single sentence is sourced, right, some of the references are interviews on video...but currently, I'm working on such article, improving all the references and removing puffery, If you realize, the article has no Personal life section, Public Image, Political views, legacy, Influences and all these nonsenses, (despite Ávalos is a very recognized film-tv-stage actress and singer and in my POV has a great talent) The article only focuses on her career and all the redundancies were removed; right, the article has its errors (as many C, B, GA or FA articles) but I´m working on the matters, I will add more secondary sources, some images and I'll make a lot of copyedit, and of course I really hope to continue working to improve lots of articles on Wikipedia., the GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIA...Good night and I leave for some hours, I'll be back tomorrow, happy editing Wikipedians!FinalPoint1988 (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You have now admitted that your current account,, is a sock account even though you said above, "this is not a sock account, this is my new UNIQUE and DEFINITIVE account after Ajax1995". What you are either intentionally missing or don't understand is this: Your previous sock account, Ajax1995, was also a block-evading sock account and was indefinitely blocked for same in December 2016.  Your very long list of other socks were also blocked at the same time, for the same reason: socking.  Your last edit with the Ajax sock account was three days before your indef sock-block.  Your current account, FinalPoint1988, was created in April 2017, four months after you were indefinitely blocked.  You have been using that account at an average of four edits per day since the account was created.  That is sockpuppetry in order to evade a block and a violation of policy (see here: ).  It doesn't matter how good your edits are while doing it, you are still engaging in sock puppetry because your previous accounts were indefinitely blocked.  Because you created and edited with another sock account to evade your block for sockpuppetry, you do not technically qualify for the standard offer per policy.  The final word on this will be from an administrator, but I will be completely surprised if they allow you remain unblocked after admitting to being currently engaged in sockpuppetry.  -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not now, I always admitted in the past that besides Ajax1995, I had other alternative accounts...and those accounts were (as I said before) to make the Selma Blair article six years ago... and to add further info on this and in December I was blocked for editing my own Ajax user page with such rarely active accounts (I never evaded anything with Ajax1995, perhaps other Wikipedians also have alternative accounts...I don't know)...and yes, you are right, an stupid error, but again, Ajax was a genuine account, never before I was blocked for anything; Now it is my UNIQUE account FinalPoint1988...can check with CU FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Ajax was a genuine account...perhaps other Wikipedians also have alternative accounts...I was blocked for editing my own Ajax user page with such rarely active accounts..." My error.  The Ajax account was not a sock account but the sockmaster account.  A sockmaster account with nine sock accounts.  Which were all confirmed and blocked as socks (see here .  Now you have another currently used sock account (FinalPoint1988).  And you still don't see the problem?   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  17:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So that FinalPoint1988 gets the idea about alternative accounts, I want to go ahead and point him to WP:LEGITSOCK. Yes, alternative accounts are allowed under certain circumstances. What you did, FinalPoint1988, is not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU has revealed nothing. Right now I have no opinion on whether this editor should be blocked for socking or not. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Tagged, closing. Katietalk 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)