Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard

Related discussions

 * Earliest discussions

The following inactive discussions [through December 2008] were formerly preserved in one of my user talk archives but they bloated it by 25% and are more appropriate here anyway. — Athaenara ✉  04:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection of deleted article
→ In re: nonsense/hoax articles and sockpuppets (1st, 2nd, 3rd reports) → See also: Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard


 * Article links  (list may be incomplete) 
 * (June)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (July)
 * (August)
 * (August)
 * (August)
 * (August)


 * Socks  (all timestamps 2008 UTC) 
 *  15 June 
 *  16 and 30 June 
 *  3 July 
 *  6 July 
 *  8 and 20 July 
 *  21 and 23 July 
 *  23 and 27 July 
 *  25 July 
 *  27 July (x3, then blocked) 
 *  27 July 
 *  28 July 
 *  29 July 
 *  30 July 
 *  1 August 
 *  1 & 2 August 
 *  3 August 
 *  8 August 
 *  1 August 
 *  1 & 2 August 
 *  3 August 
 *  8 August 

Hi, earlier today you deleted the hoax/vandalism article Martinez And Caldwell, which I had nominated for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, it's been recreated and redeleted twice since then. I was wondering if you could protect the file to prevent it from being created again. Thanks. &#8209; MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM    (talk)   03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My first (and possibly best :-) advice is to list it on Requests for page protection (I rarely protect pages myself). — Athaenara  ✉  03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked [one] user who was doing it. — Athaenara  ✉  03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I reported it as you suggested, but not before the vandal got a new identity and recreated the article again. &#8209;  MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM    (talk)   03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There were at least four instances with several name variations which I tagged for speedy deletion over the last few days. I had watchlisted all of the possible permutations I could think of. I knew that the article was being created with a bunch of different names, but I didn't realize there were so many user names involved. The vandal certainly seems proud of the page. It is a good looking hoax. Too bad that creative energy isn't being applied to something constructive.


 * BTW, thanks again for referring me to Requests for page protection. I thought that was just for protection of existing pages and didn't realize it could be used for protecting deleted pages from being recreated. &#8209;  MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM    (talk)   09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! (WashingMachine11* hit a sister project: see Wikiquote Administrators' noticeboard#Martinez & Caldwell nonsense hoaxes.)  — Athaenara  ✉  22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * *(plus El Diablo, 69.137.62.64, and others)

I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the above table of the logs. I reported and got Police Cops (television series) protected. I'm impressed that you preemptively protected Caldwell y Martinez. I wonder where the vandal will strike next. Or maybe this is finally the end of it. In any case, I'm glad I chose you to report this to, since you've made it into such an interesting project. &#8209; MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM   ( NOTЄ ЭTOИ )  10:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind a bit, and thanks for saying I made it interesting! RHaworth updated the lists with the "and/or" variant above.  — Athaenara  ✉  01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard. As first on the scene, user Jean Girard should be considered the "puppetmaster" until such time as the real one, who is probably a registered user with a more extensive edit history, is turned up.   — Athaenara  ✉  01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the latest page Martinez and the Fellow who is Formally Known as Caldwell and user Snappy13. As of the time I'm writing this, the file hasn't been deleted yet. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM  ( NOTЄ ЭTOИ ) 02:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Today's versions (at least the ones I know about): Martinez & Caldwell & Others (created/deleted twice and then protected) and Caldwell & Martinez & Others which I've marked for speedy delete and protection. It looks like the user StockMarket12 (talk | contribs) removed a tag, a behavior which I haven't seen before.  MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM   09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it that you're continuing to keep me informed about this. I added the new sock (there are at least fifteen now) and the two additional articles (those are up to at least ten) to the sockpuppet report, but I don't know how effective that will be as it has been archived (see below).  Sorry that the sockpuppet report process is so unfamiliar to me—I'm just doing the best I can as I go on. — Athaenara  ✉  15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Caldwell & Martinez & Others is back, created by . This time it was up for about two and a half hours before I discovered and tagged it. MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  00:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard (3rd) (not sure I did it right) and asked for advice on User talk:Jehochman#Hoaxes and socks. — Athaenara  ✉  01:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And now M and C by. Please let me know if you want me to discontinue reporting these to you. Of course, thanks to your efforts, maybe the vandal will be stopped soon (or he'll finally tire of this dreary little game he's playing). MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM  03:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious now that Enigmaman's archiving of the first sockpuppet report was premature (separate pages for the most recent two of the fifteen socks merely fragment an otherwise clear picture rather than aid the process) and Scarian's bitter blast of animosity (diff) in support of it was out of order.


 * Alison's one month block of three IPs (69.137.62.64, 69.255.154.165, and 172.134.26.80) may have short-circuited further registration of throwaway sock accounts, but it's too soon to know whether the whole hoax campaign has been slowed down or even stopped. Mandarax, you have been very helpful.  Please don't hesitate to post any further information here.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It wasn't premature. The current issue was resolved. When someone files an SSP report and the decision is made to block the master and the listed socks, the case is resolved. If more socks surface, you can always submit another case. Alternatively, you can ask checkuser for additional help with a possible rangeblock to prevent even more socks from appearing. The SSP case you submitted was treated in the same way the other SSP cases were. There is no requirement for cases to remain open for 10 days or any arbitrary amount of time.  Enigma  message 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, I would appreciate it if you'd stop painting me as someone who abusively archives things out of process. I don't know if you noticed, but the 2nd and 3rd reports on Jean Girard have also been closed and archived. This is the way SSP operates. You are obviously unfamiliar with it. If you disagree, perhaps bring it up at WT:SSP and make a proposal for a change in how things are done around there. I was following the guidelines and recognized procedure for dealing with sockpuppet reports.  Enigma  message 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering how persistent the vandal is, I was surprised that the block was successful in stopping this for so long. Martinez e Caldwell is the current title, by. (I certainly could have missed some others, too. I've been checking the deletion logs, but not really perusing them too carefully.)  MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated the article links and userlinks lists above after adding your new information to Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard (Nishkid very kindly corrected the format there). — Athaenara ✉  03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Segue: Mandarax, you impress me as conscientious and very aware of administrator-like concerns.  Have you ever considered adminship?  — Athaenara  ✉  04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your kind words, Athaenara. Yes, I have considered that I would be able to serve Wikipedia more efficiently as an admin. I am very proud of my 4500 edits and I am confident that RfA !voters would find little to nothing in my contributions to object to. But I'm afraid my lack of contributions in some areas would be a deal-killer. I've got tons of anti-vandalism work and lots of edits which wikify, cleanup, or otherwise improve existing articles, but I've only written about four short articles. And I've contributed little to nothing in areas where admins may be expected to participate such as WP:XFD or various projects, and almost nothing outside of main article space (besides user warnings). MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I just wondered how you felt about it. If ever you are nominated (I'll see it in the  Tangotango report transcluded above) I will be glad to support it.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! It's nice to know that I'll have at least one supporter! MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  09:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: SSP
→ '' In re: early closure of Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard by Enigmaman. ''

What's the problem? It was resolved. Best decision you could've hoped for. Scarian Call me Pat!  22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Enigmaman closed many (dozens?) of such reports today. It was too early for this one, which was opened less than 24 hours ago.  Ten days are allowed for a checkuser request and no attention has yet been given to the two anonymous IPs involved.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna be honest, you've pissed me off a fair bit and I'm pretty angry right now. Do you not understand that this is SSP and not WP:RfCU? You don't need an SSP for a CU. You can go straight ahead to a CU without an SSP. RfCU's do NOT require an SSP. And the IPs will be taken out the by the autoblock anyway, so what's the point? Autoblocks last 24 hours which is as much as I would've blocked the IPs anyway. Which makes the whole point of re-opening the SSP completely and utterly redundant. We worked for over an hour clearing that backlog and you've just thrown away our hard work just because you're not satisfied about a totally fine closure. We did everything that was to be expected and we followed it to the letter. I won't hide my disgust. You didn't need to open that SSP again. Maybe you didn't know that. Just to double check I had another admin check it out and he told me: "just let it sit there...it will make her happy...then after the 10 days archive it again". Enigmaman and I are incredibly offended at your lack of respect. Scarian  Call me Pat!  23:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I'm not angry. I do not know why you and/or Enigmaman have been "incredibly offended" and claimed a "lack of respect."  I frankly see your post as an over-reaction—it's way over the top.  — Athaenara  ✉  23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Athaenara, I can see where Scarian is coming from here seeing as he just spent a lot of time and hard work clearly a rather large backlog at SSP and then you com right through and undo his hard work, I would recommend contacting the user/admin that closed the case next time instead of undoing their actions. Also, you may be a bit confused by how the whole process works. SSP is not required too file a RFCU and is not a forum to request any type of CheckUser assistance (that needs to be done at WP:RFCU). Also there is not "10 day limit" like you seem to think there is, and to be honest I really am not sure where you got that from. In hopes of not starting a edit war I am going to leave the case open to allow another admin to review the case, but after looking over it myself it appears like it was handled rather well. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't be edit warring over this. — Athaenara  ✉  23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, I apologize for any confusion I caused, and I thank you for being so reasonable about it in contrast to Scarian's anger and "disgust" above. (I feel a need to point out that this was about the fact that I removed the SSPa page archiving template one time from a single report and re-added that report one time to the active SSP page.)


 * In re "there is not "10 day limit" ... not sure where you got that from": I saw it once two days ago when I was trying to figure out how to file a suspected sockpuppets report.  I hunted for it since your post here and finally found it again in Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect:   "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, the report will be closed by an administrator."  — Athaenara  ✉  02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard (2nd)‎ Feel free to add any additional evidence or socks if you find them. Thanks,  Enigma  message 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up on that, Enigmaman. — Athaenara  ✉  02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The return of Martinez and Caldwell
Hi, Athaenara. Just as I had anticipated, shortly after the vandal's blocks expired, Martinez and Caldwell returned. This time it was done as an IP by replacing a redirect on Police Cops with the usual garbage. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM  19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this! The IP was used to resume the same activity when the one month block expired, so I re-blocked for three months.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

May be related
User links:

Article links:
 *  27 August 2008 
 *  7 August 2008 

[ Eerie similarity. — Athaenara ✉  10:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC) ]

The return of Martinez & Caldwell
→  see also: sockpuppet report, checkuser request, and deletion log 

Hi Athaenara, it's been a long time.... Our old vandal is back, this time as with So Let Me Get This Straight..."Vasquez & Roswell"?   MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked it, thanks for letting me know! — Athaenara  ✉  01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one: And I Told Him...That I Would Grant His Wecrest... by . MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  09:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a connection between these and the recent expiration of the second block on 69.137.62.64 (block log). — Athaenara  ✉  22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it had been three months already. The vandal's probably been active ever since the block expired, so there were probably some versions which I missed. I looked through the deletion log for files which seemed to fit the recent naming pattern, and I came across "How Many Times Do We Have To Go Through This, Guys? Really...", Checking "What links here" led me to User talk:JonStewart62, who turns out to have an accusation of being a Jean Girard sockpuppet. Another file listed for speedy deletion on that page is "Wanna Fight About It?". I don't know if these two files are the same ol' hoax, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They were. I re-blocked the IP for 6 months.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, then I'll probably be talking to you in June.... MANdARAX  •  XAЯAbИAM  21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, after 00:15 UTC on the 9th. — Athaenara  ✉  23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Martinez & Caldwell again
Hi Athaenara. Even though the block on our Martinez & Caldwell vandal doesn't expire until June, I continue to monitor for it every day. Today I discovered that he hijacked the page Schnappi using. By the way, are you familiar with Deletionpedia? MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM  19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oy ... — Athaenara  ✉  20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like we missed some:
 * Cardenas & Cardwell (log)  LlewdlaC dna zenitraM (log)
 * (back in January and February). — Athaenara  ✉  07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (back in January and February). — Athaenara  ✉  07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from the updated sock puppet report that there was also an April Fools' Day spree by, including the hijacking of and , and I assume he was also responsible for Mairteenez airnd Cradwoll (log). There have probably been other versions which got deleted or reverted without anybody making the connection. The one that really interests me is LlewdlaC dna zenitraM. Since the vandal has probably noticed that I'm on the lookout for his handiwork, I wonder if he chose that title to taunt me, because of my "backwards" signature....  MANdARAX  •  <SMALL>XAЯA</SMALL>b<SMALL>ИA</SMALL>M  09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More likely trying more permutations, I think. — Athaenara  ✉  06:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the guy's got a sense of humor. As, he created Hey, Mandarax, I'm Taunting You (log). Also, as , in addition to announcing his intentions here on your talk page, he created Ha! I Wonder Why I'm So Power? (log).


 * As for my prior speculation, when I saw "zenitraM", it just instantly reminded me of "<SMALL>XAЯA</SMALL>b<SMALL>ИA</SMALL>M". (Plus, I may have been influenced by the fact that I had just watched an episode of The Mentalist in which a serial killer taunts the guy who's hunting him down.) M<SMALL>AN</SMALL>d<SMALL>ARAX</SMALL>  •  <SMALL>XAЯA</SMALL>b<SMALL>ИA</SMALL>M  17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [ struck above] Well, so much for what I think, eh? — Athaenara  ✉  20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another one (block log) (article log) earlier this month.  I wonder if a WikiProject Hoax would help look after this seamy underside of Wikipedia.  I'm seriously losing interest in having these discussions anywhere in userspace.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And another (block log) (article log). Many thanks to J.delanoy, Sitethief, and William Avery for reverting that one's vandalism to my userspace.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Hope this is the right place to mention this, but I nominated THIS IS EGREGIOUS, YOU HEAR ME? EGREGIOUS! for speedy deletion after googling M&C and reading a cached version of Athaenara's comedy page. has speedily recreated it. I guess this is the same person re-rearing their head. TheSmuel (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * APPLEBEE'S HAS RATS! I FOUND A WHOLE RAT IN MY COBB SALAD! too. The hoax page used to stick around a long time before being discovered, but lately it's been found quickly, probably because of the outrageous user names and article titles he's been using. Such titles just jump out at new page patrollers and practically guarantee that the page will be immediately tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know anything about vandal psychology, but it seems as though he initially just wanted to see how long he could get away with keeping his hoax in place. Now it appears as though he's just looking for attention. M<SMALL>AN</SMALL>d<SMALL>ARAX</SMALL>  •  <SMALL>XAЯA</SMALL>b<SMALL>ИA</SMALL>M  20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just permablocked User: Mr. xaradnaM for vandalism for creating yet another variation on the Martinez and Caldwell article; having seen three or four of them go by in the last month, I've set my phaser to "permablock on sight". Accounting4Taste: talk 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's something else I can do to be helpful the next time I see one of these go by in new page patrol, I'd appreciate knowing; I'm not experienced in these matters. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Forwarded message 1
→  in re: sockpuppet tag; see also user logs 

Thanks for adding that note to the user page. This is a brand-new area for me, so if there's something that's important for me to know, I'd be grateful if you could spare a moment and let me know. One of the things that posed me some difficulty was that I had seen enough of the Martinez etc. pages go by from different accounts that I knew they must be sockpuppets, but I couldn't find a way to find out exactly which sockpuppet investigation this was a part of in any reasonable time. But I did permablock immediately, which gave me a little trepidation but turned out to be the right thing to do, or so it seems. Your comments would be welcome. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, and you're welcome, I think you did fine. I commented on WP:AN/I* and forwarded this here.  Your help is definitely needed, thanks for stepping in!   I think fresh blocks of the anonIPs being used would be appropriate.  — Athaenara  ✉  23:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * * (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542)
 * Happy to be of assistance; I will recognize this situation in the future and work more confidently and quickly, I hope. Thanks for your kind words.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 1, put the hoax on my talk page. And today has created Mexican & Canadian as well as adding links to that page from two other articles. M<SMALL>AN</SMALL>d<SMALL>ARAX</SMALL> •  <SMALL>XAЯA</SMALL>b<SMALL>ИA</SMALL>M  18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Forwarded message 2

 * "Martinez & Caldwell I have noted that you have been involved in patrolling a persistent vandal insistent on adding a page about a nonexistent TV show called Martinez & Caldwell. I wanted to point out that a new sock has arrived (in the person of, with a new page called Mexican & Canadian. Thought you might be interested in following the happenings. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)"
 * '' [As posted on my talk page (diff), blockquoted above — Athaenara ✉  22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)]

I updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard in the hope that some anonIP blocks which prevent new account creation will halt the hoaxsters again. — Athaenara ✉  01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(Now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jean Girard/Archive). — Athaenara ✉  23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There was another one in late May (block log). One result of the updated checkuser case: two anonIPs (98.231.231.158 and 69.251.215.93) were blocked. — Athaenara ✉  00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mandarax's Pal
I just discovered another one. I was exploring registered usernames and I found. This one was active on July 10, 2009. I continue to monitor for this vandal, but I haven't seen any other instances since then. However, I would not be surprised if there were others which I've missed. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and blocked within 6 minutes of registering, too. — Athaenara ✉  03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)