Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alma Fordy/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Alma Fordi and Alma Fordy have an obvious similarity in their names. Besides that, all the accounts share common interests.
 * Fordi created Nicole Mandich. Both Fordi and the IP edited Kidsongs to link her name:,.
 * The IP editor has continued Fordy's edit wars: and ;  and ;  and

This is currently also being discussed at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Before this is closed, I may be wrong but I think the Alma Fordi account is the oldest by a couple of hours. May not make a lot of difference in most ways, but when telling someone to make requests at their main account, it does. I make it 02.49 for Fordi, 04.41 for Fordy and 23.27 for AP. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have the times right but not the dates. Fordy was created on December 11, and Fordi was created on December 14.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is no direct overlap between Alma Fordy and Alma Fordi, but they are connected through the IP, so I blocked the sock indefinitely and the master for 3 days. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another sockpuppet has appeared, User:AP37, whose only edits have been creating a user page, editing the article Nicole Mandich (mentioned above) and then requesting the lifting of an autoblock caused by Alma Fordy. I have blocked that account, but I think this raises two questions: (1) Since this account already existed before the others were blocked, are there other sleepers? For that reason, I am requesting a CheckUser. (2) When an editor who is blocked temporarily for sockpuppetry uses yet another sockpuppet, it is common to make the block on the original account indefinite. I certainly intend to extend the length of the block, but I am unsure whether to make it indefinite. I would be interested to read any comments on this matter, from or anyone else who has any view on it.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now looked further into this, and I see that the amount of disruptive editing, edit-warring, ignoring messages and warnings, etc, is much greater than I had realised, so I am going to go ahead with an indefinite block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The three named accounts are ✅ and retagged. No other accounts warranting blocking seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Based on the block yesterday of, I strongly believe this users behavior is identical to that of the sock master (and the most recently blocked sock above.) The creation of redirects of production companies to major celebrities, the wording and everything is like one giant, obnoxious duck. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm I guess technically the master is ? Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think that but no.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think sleepiness got to me and I misread dates XD.  Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're not supposed to be filing SPIs when you should be in bed. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2017 (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
Yeah, it's pretty obvious. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * A new batch of socks found today. ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:50, 27 April 2017 (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

 * As above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * I found a new user, MASTUHOSCG8845, who has been adding unsourced content to most of the articles he has edited. It also happened to two more of the Alma Fordy socks, GrudgeDragon and MovieFan85. For instance, GrudgeDragon added unsourced content to War Horse (film) and it was removed. Later, MovieFan85 had added that same unsourced content just like GrudgeDragon did. And now I saw that MASTUHOSCG8845 has added that same unsourced content to this article, and I removed it. This user also added unsourced content to articles like New Attitude (TV series), That's My Mama, and Are We There Yet? (TV series). I removed them because they were unsourced. Adding production and distribution companies and other information that are unsourced are just an obnoxious duck. Alma Fordy also added unsourced distribution companies to articles back in December 2016 and some of the later socks added them too.


 * Those are the reasons why I'm tagging MASTUHOSCG8845 as a suspected sockpuppet of Alma Fordy. Evil Idiot (talk) 1:06, 14 April (UTC)