Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/StuartStewart

User:StuartStewart

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

--Celtus (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence

StuartStewart edits exclusively articles relating to the surname Ferrer and the history of the name. Until recently all his edits were unreferenced, and have been challenged. Almost all this user's edits have been consistently pushing a certain POV that is either unreferenced and poorly referenced. Jeanarmand is a new account, and also a single purpose account with the same POV as StuartStewart. This new user is his/her first 3 edits to wikipedia has attempted to avoid the content dispute by spitting the article (which is only 2 paragraphs and a list) but doesn't add any statement of his/her own or any new references -. Making it clear that the reasoning behind the split was to avoid the original content dispute. The fact that this new user uses content summaries, splits an article in the user's first 3 edits but contributes no new text to it, removes the same content from talk pages as StuartStewart, and uses the same wording, language and tone as StuartStewart makes it clear that these 2 accounts are being run by the same individual.


 * - User:StuartStewart removes criticism of his unreferenced edits about the Ferrer surname, claiming the criticism is a "personal attack".


 * - User:Jeanarmand's 8th and 9th edits are removals the same criticism of content. Both times User:Jeanarmand claims they are a "personal attack".


 * - User:StuartStewart has edited on only 2 talkpages and the similarity of this user's style and choice of words is exactly the same as User:Jeanarmand has used on my talkpage - . Its the tone more than anything. Everything combined makes me think they are one-in-the-same but the new user account is pretending to be a separate individual on my talkpage which is obviously dishonest.
 * Similar quotes between the different accounts that instantly catch your eye.
 * User:StuartStewart - "Dear Snowolf,"
 * User:Jeanarmand - "Dear Celtus,"
 * User:StuartStewart - "I still believe reinserting the information under "Ferrer" would be beneficial;"
 * User:Jeanarmand - "I think they would be beneficial to the ongoing discussions;"
 * User:StuartStewart - "Kind regards,"
 * User:Jeanarmand - "Kind regards,"

Not having experience from Wiki investigations, I am unsure as to the correct format of reply - but will proceed as best I can. I beg the reader's indulgence for any mistakes in this regard.
 * Comments

User Celtus has charged me with writing under two different identities, namely StuartStewart and Jeanarmand. In order not to test anyone's patience, let me begin this statement by freely admitting that this is so: after having edited since (as far as I can see in my edit history) June, 2007, under the name of StuartStewart, my last edits have borne a different name - Jeanarmand.
 * The Charge

As I understand sockpuppetry (a term - and a crime - of which I had never heard until User Celtus placed the accusation on my talk pages), it consists of assuming a different/false Wiki identity for destructive/negative/evil purposes. As already stated, I admit to having assumed a different/false Wiki identity - but I absolutely deny having done so for destructive/negative/evil purposes.

Naturally, I do not expect any one to take my word for this; therefore, I must try the readers' patience with a somewhat lengthy background explanation.

As stated, I believe I began editing in June, 2007. User Celtus states that I have been editing Ferrer material exclusively, which is almost correct; if anyone cares to check my list of contributions (as User Celtus has done with great interest), there are a few edits concerning Scottish Dress (in July, 2007), the Clan Lindsay (in September, 2007) and the Thematic Apperception Test (in October, 2007).
 * Background

Being a new user in June, 2007, I read a little background material concerning Wiki practice - the Manuals, as it were - but quickly decided on learning by trial and error, trying to read relevant material as I went along.

So I was editing, which actually consisted of adding information as I gathered it, and watching the articles grow with no ill effects or counterediting. I felt no need to consult the discussion page behind the Ferrer project page, wherefore I was - until recently - happily ignorant of User 82.242.236.21's remarks about the Ferrer article being labeled as "profoundly erroneous" and six minutes later as "nonsense". I did, of course, notice the call for references on the project page itself (the only one I was interested in), with which I agreed, deciding on adding them as time permitted, but also proceeding to add new material as it came.

I believe that the time I started checking the Discussion page must be around December, 2007 - because my writings disappeared overnight, as the article was converted to a "Ferrer (surname)" article by Celtus, and the existing material replaced by a (duly referenced) two-line quotation from a home page dealing with surnames.

After reinstating my original text, but in attempted accordance with Celtus' new format, and by expanding (not removing) Celtus' inserts, a series of doings (mainly by me) and undoings (mainly by Celtus) began - leading to tre present state of the article, which I suspect of being the most heavily referenced name article in Wikipedia, with a reference added for every single sentence.

Celtus is quite correct in explaining that I have on two occasions removed the anonymous entry due to my perceiving it as a personal attack, and explaining to me after his last undoing that being told that references are needed does not constitute a personal attack. I fully agree with him on this, and am in no way insulted by the request for references, which I find entirely beneficial (yes, a favourite word of mine); but I take exception to an anonymous person - with no user page where one might politely request a slight reformulation - labelling my writings as "profoundly erroneous" and "nonsense". In preparation for this statement, I have studied the various Wiki forms of uncouth behaviour, and found that this does not constitute a "personal attack" but - in Wiki terminology - "incivility". Furthermore, since I had at this time begun referencing my writings, this case of "incivility" was now obsolete in stating that my writings were unreferenced - and for this reason I believed it appropriate to remove this comment, since it was now both misleading and uncouth - as well as being a bad example to other inexperienced editors of proper dialogue.

When looking at the "Ferrer (surname)" article, it appeared to me to be short enough to belong rightfully on the "Ferrer" main page rather than as a subpage, wherefore I tried to move it back - without, I wish to stress, in any way removing Celtus' additions. This attempt was immediately undone, and I had a brief exchange with User Jonathan and Admin Snowolf, who were concerned that I was involved in vandalism, but quickly accepted my explanation that this was not the case - undoubtedly because they could see that I had not tried to remove any writings nor add graffiti or anything of the sort. Snowolf kindly suggested taking the matter up with Celtus, which seemed like a good idea. Celtus was by now somewhat familiar to me, because of his activities in regard to the article - including a very sharp and intelligent analysis and criticism of some of my references. Again, this analysis is fully agreeable to me - except for a few points. I wondered at his questioning the choice of Spanish-language references per se (strange, given the fact that Celtus prides himself of a certain knowledge of Gaelic, and the the fact that Celtus himself finds it hard to believe that the family might have non-Spanish origins). I also noticed that he was very much opposed to the idea of a single progenitor for the Ferrers in Spain - but that he has not done any editing on the Stewart page, where there is explicit mention of "The progenitor" of this family, although Stewart is also an occupational surname - from Old English sti(g)weard, meaning the person in charge of the household, the team of workers - or the pen! Thus, it is quite likely that there are, in fact, several Stewart progenitors.

These slips in an otherwise very fine analysis made me suspect that without knowing it, I had become involved in a trench war. I decided, then to discuss the situation with Celtus - and after reading his Talk page, came across the fact that apparently, Celtus had been involved in several, not uncodnitionally pleasant, altercations with different editors: with family article versus surname article as the common denominator! This confirmed my suspicion that a trench war was going on, and I must confess that I entertained little hope concerning the possibility of a constructive dialogue with Celtus.

At this point then, I decided to create the Jeanarmand account - and to follow the advice Celtus had given other opponents: to split the article into a surname article and a family article. Anyone reading the present article will notice that it is divided into two paragraphs with (roughly) two subjects: one concerns the surname, the other the family. Thus, as I have tried to explain to Celtus, my purpose was to clarify things for other readers - not to damage anything or to "dodge" an issue, as Celtus believes. In evidence I offer the fact - as Celtus himself has explained above - that while dividing the article, I did not insert a single new sentence, which I might have done, had my purpose been trying to escape from the need to reference my writings.

As Celtus then proceeded to make a creative, de facto undoing of this, I then tried - in my new persona - to engage in a dialogue with him. As this sockpuppetry case itself illustrates, I have failed abysmally in this purpose.

In the cold light of reason, however, I find this understandable. However positive my intentions, I DID, indeed act deceptively towards Celtus by pretending to be someone else. And - although I did not intend to do so - I unwittingly insulted his intelligence by not immediately realizing that he would understand the ploy.

In order to summarize: I did engage in assuming a false identity. As I believe I have explained, however - and as my entire contribution history will serve to corroborate - I have at no point performed any damaging action to the Wikipedia project, nor have I done anything but add information. My lateness in adding references was not due to ill intent, simply to ignorance; and my adding references does, in my belief, attest to my good intentions also in this regard.
 * Exodus

Thus I must now rest my case; whatever the decision upon the consequences, I shall obide by it.

If this means that this will be my last entry in the Wikipedia project so be it; but then I must take this final opportunity to apologize unreservedly to Celtus: for trying to deceive him (no matter the intentions) and for unwittingly insulting him.

I shall be awaiting the ruling.

Jeanarmand/StuartStewart StuartStewart (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi StuartStewart, thanks for the apology. I don't think there is any chance at all of you being banned, especially since you were so forth coming which i believe is sincere. At most the other user account might be blocked. Anyways there are no hard feelings on my part. I don't have a problem with the roots of a particular Spanish family, but your edits assert that the Spanish surname and 'the family' are one in the same - i thought it was misleading mainly because of the weak refs. The main Spanish language ref seems to come from a website that lets users upload their own content and definitions - not a reliable source WP:SOURCES. You made a very good point about the Stewart article. The only reason i noticed the whole Ferrer thing was because you had added Ferrer as being a recognised branch or sept of Clan Stewart in several articles - which i certainly can't find any evidence of. On following to the Ferrer page - i saw that the info was unreferenced, and noticed that the anon user had challenged it all. I figured the surest way of going about things was use info from a certain website which cites a book on the origins of surnames published by Oxford - which i think is the easiest way to quickly find the origin of a name. So i removed all unreferenced material and tried to make it like other surname articles covered by WikiProject Anthroponymy. I don't think any action should be taken against StuartStewart, and i hope he stays with Wikipedia and works on any articles he wishes.--Celtus (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also apologise for not being as easy to work with as i could have been. I do not want to be a reason why someone chooses not to contribute to wikipedia.--Celtus (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Celtus,

after the initial shock of receiving the sockpuppetry charge - and familiarizing myself with the "notes for the suspect" - I had certain dark visions of what might be facing me when I had the opportunity, after having presented my situation, to view this page again: anything from formal excommunication to a torch-and-pitchfork scenario had, actually, entered my mind.

Thus, I must try to communicate my delight at being greeted by your truly friendly, gentlemanly and downright gracious input, ending in an actual vote of confidence! I am very happy that you bear me no grudge, and although your counter-apology was unnecessary, so much greater a gesture it was - and it is deeply appreciated!

Thank you also for sharing more of your considerations, with which, once more, I find myself mainly in agreement; I might add that the reason why I have, after my reference hunt began, refrained from reinstating several of my original inserts is precisely because I consider the few points of reference I find to be inadequate. Still, I would be grateful for your continued analyses of the merits of subsequent references I dig up and insert - two screens see better than one, as it were.

At the moment, I am looking at the Ferrières angles - the French Connection, if you will pardon the pun - which may add another country to the list. Apart from that, I expect to be going back to other areas outside this subject (which has, indeed, taken up more of my time than I originally intended it to do) - so if I appear inactive from time to time (unless, of course, the Admin ruling - which I consider myself hounour bound to abide by - goes against further efforts from me) this will be the reason and no other. Again, your comments above have made me feel most welcome and comfortable once more in the Wiki project, and it is likely that I will seek to draw on your expertise from time to time.

Kind regards,

StuartStewart StuartStewart (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Looks like I've picked an interesting case to review for my first foray into the administration of SSP! Anyway, I've read all of the contributions and looked at the history, and I am struck by the sensible way in which both users have handled this affair.

At the end of the day, however, there has (for whatever reason, and however minor) been a breach of policy. I think that a sensible outcome is that the User:Jeanarmand account be indefinitely blocked, and the talk and userpages be redirected to User:StuartStewart. I was mulling over a token 13 minute block for StuartStewart, but to be honest, given the nature of this incident, I don't really think he merits having even a token block in his block log. GBT/C 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)